Is google trying to kill artificial backlinks?

Hi Sparhawke,

I disagree with CDarklock and believe that when it comes to SEO, it's important to cover your tracks and think about how you operate, in terms of making your artifical promotion efforts appear to be as organic as possible.

This is the difference between playing at it, or taking it seriously, in my opinion. And I don't believe that the analogy fits.

To answer your question, I think it's important not to look at it in your own terms, but to try and understand the scale of Google's data gathering and analysis.

It's not about tracking YOUR actions and trying to catch YOU out.

But it's more about aggregating an absolute ton of data and then spending their time and ample resources on using this data as effectively as possible.

Therefore - this login situation you refer to is not JUST about backlinking. That is part of it, but with the quantity of data that they have it's about much more than that.

For example, what percentage of users that they track do you think are involved in creating their own backlinks for their own websites?

Think about it in those terms and make a reasonably accurate guess at the percentage and you will then realise that their priorities do not revolve around site builders, but the average consumer who is using their search engine to find what they want. All of their power derives (originally) from that search engine. If that part of the system fails the user, everything else collapses as they won't be able to continue to mine the data that powers all of their business.

If they didn't hold the badge of 'most popular search engine', then their email would be just another free email - likewise for all of their services. And the ones that produce the most revenue for them would also fail.

They make their money from data - not just by having it, but what they do with it.

Of course they would like to 'kill artificial backlinks.' But the reasons for the scenario you mention (the shared logins) goes way deeper than that.

That's a rather naive statement. Every company's business depends on hiding things, even Google's. Just because you don't have a plush Silicon Valley office paid for with millions of venture capital funding doesn't mean that you give up your privacy.

Hi CDarklock,

It's entirely dependent on who, or what, you are getting caught by. The laws of the land? Or caught out by the propaganda of a competitive entity which would like you to run your business in the way that they want?

If it's a hypocritical company who build a business out of illegally scraping other peoples' copyrighted content, then suggesting via their 'rules' that others can't do this, that or the other, then it requires much less 'ethical' consideration.

If they go around spouting 'do no evil' as their motto and then do precisely that, it helps me to decide how much weight I give to their 'rules' and it gives me a buzz to get the better of them in those circumstances - it makes the tedious process of SEO much more fun - especially when half of your competitors seem to think that Google own the internet.

I think about ethical matters deeply, and am guided by my own principles. Your implication that I do not, is ridiculous and demonstrative of your misunderstanding of the situation.

I pity anyone in this business who falls for their propaganda to the extent that they start confusing Google's webmaster guidelines with the laws of the land, or the expected ethical behaviour of the majority. Making such a fundamental and sheepish error will not bode well for their survival in business.