I'm Surprised by the Clickbank and Google Bashing.

13 years ago

You are not wrong, and if you pay close attention, you will notice that the people who trash both companies are those that feel that they are not benefiting from the company in question.

They love Google when Google loves them, but if Google turns off the free traffic tap, they get pissed off at Google.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509309].message }}

kindsvater

13 years ago

It's a forum and this is part of the discussion.

ClickBank is great for selling and using their account, and for the number of affiliates. It has also earned well deserved criticism for its refund policy and failing to reign in some bad practices by merchants and affiliates. Then there are the monthly threads about conversions suddenly stopping.

Google is useful if you are looking for information. But it has also earned well-deserved criticism for a seemingly endless number of reasons: such as terminating Adwords accounts for previously approved campaigns that ran 6 years ago and which haven't run in years. Or perhaps nuking sites from the search rankings because they have affiliate links is OK and not worth discussing. Or letting competitor warfare result in YouTube bans. Or the deletion from the search rankings of private blog networks used by hundreds of Warriors which are sold on the forum. Or when you have different pen names and websites but G+ will only allow one true name to be registered. Or when Blogger blogs suddenly disappear. Or, one of the latest, penalizing webmasters who have "over-optimized" back links even though this has nothing to do with content deserving of a high ranking.

What, are we supposed to limit our bashing to PayPal's random acts of kindness?

It's a forum about making money, and when some anonymous bean head who cannot be reached because there is no online support destroys your ability to put food on the table there's gonna be some bashing.

Google makes me money every day and my net revenue from Big G is in the 7 figures. Still doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

And while we're talking Google bashing, if you haven't been following the worldwide monopoly / anti-trust investigations and what Google is doing to intentionally harm numerous businesses, and the ramifications of this trend 5 years from now on the "sweet free exposure" you refer to, then you haven't been paying attention and are simply a "pre-basher" innocently surfing the web unaware a mugger is about to lay waste to many online businesses.

.

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509404].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

And while we're talking Google bashing, if you haven't been following the worldwide monopoly / anti-trust investigations and what Google is doing to intentionally harm numerous businesses, and the ramifications of this trend 5 years from now on the "sweet free exposure" you refer to, then you haven't been paying attention and are simply a "pre-basher" innocently surfing the web unaware a mugger is about to lay waste to many online businesses.

.

Brian: This seems to be an area where you and I frequently disagree.

But rather than make my argument, I am going to quote someone else in another thread who made my argument better than I could have done myself.... :p

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Google takes it upon themselves to spider the web, and you don't agree to anything at all in that regard. TOS is part of an agreement between parties. Google's choices regarding what is and is not listed are policies. Nothing more. Violate them and get caught and Google will drop you, sure. But that's their decision - unilateral action - and not the result of anyone breaking a contract.

Paul

People who believe they have a "right" to get free or paid traffic from Google are clearly delusional.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509455].message }}

kindsvater

13 years ago

Bill, I don't read Paul's quote as talking about monopoly / anti-trust issues, and those issues do not involve simple algorithm choices about the seeding of search results and penalizing violators.

The fact there are government investigations says something from the fact there are investigations.

Paul can speak for himself on whether he thinks Google has an unfettered right to use searchto leverage into other markets. Such as

- Giving the top position in the 'natural' search results to a Google page promoting a specific airline because that airline pays Google - without disclosing what is happening.

- Copying / scraping / borrowing / showing snippets of user reviews from a site to create a competing review service shown on Google, instead of using the reviews to direct search traffic to the site they were taken from.

- Leveraging a 90+% search market share in some countries into unrelated but cherry-picked profitable industries. This is where Google is no longer providing search results, but Google becomes the end destination and eliminates the competitors who formerly relied on Google being a "search engine." The only reason Google is able to move into additional niches is because it has a massive share of the search market.

I don't think anyone begrudges Google for getting a massive share of searches by providing a useful and fast search engine that directs people to other websites. Problems arise when Google says, hey, I've got all the traffic, so X, you need to start paying me to keep getting that traffic. Or, hey, I've got all the traffic and Y is a profitable niche, so instead of sending search traffic to other websites I'll just put Y on Google and instantly become the #1 site and dominant player in that niche.

.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509553].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Bill, I don't read Paul's quote as talking about monopoly / anti-trust issues, and those issues do not involve simple algorithm choices about the seeding of search results and penalizing violators.

Agree. I don't see Paul addressing monopoly or anti-trust issues either.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

The fact there are government investigations says something from the fact there are investigations.

Paul can speak for himself on whether he thinks Google has an unfettered right to use search to leverage into other markets. Such as

- Giving the top position in the 'natural' search results to a Google page promoting a specific airline because that airline pays Google - without disclosing what is happening.

- Copying / scraping / borrowing / showing snippets of user reviews from a site to create a competing review service shown on Google, instead of using the reviews to direct search traffic to the site they were taken from.

- Leveraging a 90+% search market share in some countries into unrelated but cherry-picked profitable industries. This is where Google is no longer providing search results, but Google becomes the end destination and eliminates the competitors who formerly relied on Google being a "search engine." The only reason Google is able to move into additional niches is because it has a massive share of the search market.

The fact there are government investigations does not say anything at all, other than people are complaining and government agencies are looking into those claims.

Companies and individuals are investigated all the time, who in the end are never charged with a crime.

I am not going to challenge each of your arguments, but the third one does not seem to be a crime to me, but rather smart business.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

I don't think anyone begrudges Google for getting a massive share of searches by providing a useful and fast search engine that directs people to other websites. Problems arise when Google says, hey, I've got all the traffic, so X, you need to start paying me to keep getting that traffic. Or, hey, I've got all the traffic and Y is a profitable niche, so instead of sending search traffic to other websites I'll just put Y on Google and instantly become the #1 site and dominant player in that niche.

.

Again, I believe that this is something that I believe Google should have a right to do. It is their traffic, and they can do whatever they want to do with their traffic, so long as it violates no given laws.

No one has yet proven to me that this activity is a violation of any laws.

Furthermore, governments are looking into the practice, so I have confidence the investigation is in the right hands.

Regardless, "under investigation" does not necessarily equate to "guilty as charged".

And monopoly is hard to prove when they are losing market share every day to their competition.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509654].message }}

kindsvater

13 years ago

Bill, I don't entirely disagree.

On the one hand - dog eat dog let the best one win. Google has a great product and they leverage that to take over the world. Personally, on some level I'm OK with monopolies. Guess I'd better get some stock.

It's their website and if they want it stick it to travel agents and eliminate their business so what. They win with a better product.

On the other hand - it is true power corrupts. There are reasons why our government has checks and balances. Anti-trust laws are really a check and balance on capitalism. They don't prevent Google from dominating search or putting Yahoo and Bing out of business.

But they do prevent Google from leveraging that into new niches that puts previously unrelated companies out of business. Then its not necessarily the better product that wins. Google wins only because it has the search monopoly.

What if, theoretically, Microsoft with its monopoly on computer OS shipped Windows 10 so it blocked any access of TPW websites? Dog eat dog?

Politically - I'm very conservative. So I don't like the govt telling Google what to do. But I also don't like Google telling me what to do when it becomes a powerful competitor.

I suppose that is it for me. I held Google in a lot higher esteem when we were "partners." I feed Google content for its search business and in return Google feeds me visitors.

That dynamic has changed. Google now seems to view many webmasters as competitors. Or perhaps necessary annoyances that provide a modicum of content on which Google layers its own properties with the intent of not sending me visitors. Rather, Google wants to make use of my content and keep the visitors for itself.

This is getting long-winded, but while I'm bashing Google another annoyance is Google's blackballing of sites like ClickBank and the Warrior Forum in Adwords. It doesn't matter how good the product is, but your Adwords account is in serious risk of termination for linking to those sites.

If Google is going to blackball the forum from Adwords why shouldn't we bash Google for it?

.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510206].message }}

videolover7 13 years ago

I'm Surprised with the Google Bashing.

That's because one of Google's algorithm changes hasn't destroyed your business overnight.

If one does, you'll sing a different tune.

VL
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510332].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

But they do prevent Google from leveraging that into new niches that puts previously unrelated companies out of business. Then its not necessarily the better product that wins. Google wins only because it has the search monopoly.

What if, theoretically, Microsoft with its monopoly on computer OS shipped Windows 10 so it blocked any access of TPW websites? Dog eat dog?

See, here is the problem with your argument.

Google doesn't put anyone out of business. The business owners put themselves out of business, because they relied too heavily on Google to push their businesses forward.

If Google blocked my websites from their search engine, then I would seek to advertise in other places. I would put my money on the line to attract new customers from different places. I might turn to Bing and Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook, and a wide assortment of newsletters and websites online, as well as advertising offline.

If my business fails, it fails because I failed, not because Google refused to let me advertise on their website.

If Microsoft blocked me on their OS, that would be a bit different, and the government has already dealt with that appropriately. But even if I was blocked by Windoze, I would find a way to keep my business alive.

I am not going to roll-over and die because Google or Microsoft frowned on my business.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Politically - I'm very conservative. So I don't like the govt telling Google what to do. But I also don't like Google telling me what to do when it becomes a powerful competitor.

Politically, you and I are not much different.

But Google has never told you how to run your business. Instead, they have only told you whether they would allow you to buy advertising on their websites, and they have told you what you must do to receive free advertising from them.

You can choose to honor what Google wants you to do, in order to get paid or free advertising on their platform, or you can shoot them the bird and do things your own way.

I have always leaned towards the second option, and I have not yet been forced to pay a price for doing so.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

I suppose that is it for me. I held Google in a lot higher esteem when we were "partners." I feed Google content for its search business and in return Google feeds me visitors.

The beautiful thing is that when they decide to cut you off from the "free traffic" titty, they also stop using your content to impress their users.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

That dynamic has changed. Google now seems to view many webmasters as competitors.

It has always been that way.

Google has long realized that they could send me a visitor to buy a $47 product from me, or they could sell that same $47 product from their site. Remember the Google Affiliate Network? That was designed to let them get a bigger piece of the affiliate pie.

They have worked hard to get their traffic, and Google seems to believe that they should profit more from their hard work, and us less from their hard work.

That is the very reason I don't do ghost writing anymore.

I could write for others and collect a small fee for creating wealth for my customers, or I could write for myself and create the wealth for me and MY family.

In many cases, Google does send traffic to their competition. It is just that once in a while they say, "Hey wait!" and then they do.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Or perhaps necessary annoyances that provide a modicum of content on which Google layers its own properties with the intent of not sending me visitors. Rather, Google wants to make use of my content and keep the visitors for itself.

Refer to my previous comment:

The beautiful thing is that when they decide to cut you off from the "free traffic" titty, they also stop using your content to impress their users.

The only exception I know to this rule is how they deal with reviews of local businesses. They did scrape reviews from review sites and make the content their own.

In this single issue, I hope the government investigators find in favor of Google's competitors, as that amounts to Copyright and Intellectual Property theft.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

This is getting long-winded, but while I'm bashing Google another annoyance is Google's blackballing of sites like ClickBank and the Warrior Forum in Adwords. It doesn't matter how good the product is, but your Adwords account is in serious risk of termination for linking to those sites.

If Google is going to blackball the forum from Adwords why shouldn't we bash Google for it?

.

LOL

Bash them all you want. But, like you said, this is simply an "annoyance".

I would not be surprised if Allen Says is "annoyed" by his inability to buy Adwords ads, but the last time I checked, Allen Says is not letting that destroy his earnings or his business.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510358].message }}

BackLinkiT

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

You are not wrong, and if you pay close attention, you will notice that the people who trash both companies are those that feel that they are not benefiting from the company in question.

They love Google when Google loves them, but if Google turns off the free traffic tap, they get pissed off at Google.

It's not quite that simple, Bill.

I suspect it has more to do with moving goalposts, changing rules etc etc without letting anyone have any understanding of the why and how. For example, people are told one minute that anchor text links rock and the next they are getting penalized for them...no notice, no explanation, nothing.

Google don't have to give one, of course, but that doesn't help some poor soul who has just been wiped out.

I reckon that is more what is behind the google bashing that goes on.

Can't speak about clickbank. Know nothing about them and ignore the threads.

Peter

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6513676].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by BackLinkiT

It's not quite that simple, Bill.

I suspect it has more to do with moving goalposts, changing rules etc etc without letting anyone have any understanding of the why and how. For example, people are told one minute that anchor text links rock and the next they are getting penalized for them...no notice, no explanation, nothing.

Google don't have to give one, of course, but that doesn't help some poor soul who has just been wiped out.

I reckon that is more what is behind the google bashing that goes on.

Peter

Yes, people get upset because they don't know how to get re-attached to Google's "free traffic" titty, so they bash Google.

But it is not Google's responsibility to give "free traffic" to everyone who wants "free traffic".

It is the business owners' responsibility to make sure that their business profits and survives, no matter the environment that exists currently in the marketplace.

The strong will survive, and the weak will cry to mamma and the Warrior Forum.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6513753].message }}

Patrick Batty

13 years ago

I think the google bashing is out of frustration.

I'm hardly relying on seo anymore other than on youtube, so Google isnt a bother to me.

The Clickbank bashing on the other hand I believe has been because they allowed complete ripoff artists to sell garbage on their platform for years. Not everyone, just a few.. but some of them had a major impact and I think it tarnished the brand.

I believed they've put a real effort in to clean up the brand lately however.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509489].message }}

Matt Morgan 13 years ago

Topics will be debated on this place, it is part of the forum.

Peoples opinions will clash, and some peoples egos will get sky high

But it is part of the discussion board.
- Thanks
Signature
-> [FREE WSO 1] Discover 77 FREE Ways To Generate Traffic!
-> [FREE WSO 2] Discover 67 Killer Traffic Methods Which Will Crush Your Competition!
-> [FREE WSO 3] Discover 77 Amazing Blogging Tips To Explode Your Profits!

...â€¦..Now LISTEN CAREFULLY! ===> [WSO REPORTS 4, 5, 6 are >> Found Here]
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509503].message }}

jakebvs85

13 years ago

You are very correct on that one! Yeah ranking with Google nowadays is not that easy than it was way back from the early days.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509590].message }}

Dan Sherman Marketing

13 years ago

Clickbank is trying to get bad stuff off the site. I just put up a product and the screening was tighter than in recent years. I am happy with cb. I think it is a great service for an info marketer like me.

Thanks

Signature

Make money promoting the best LinkedIn course on Clickbank! With over 6 hours of video showing advanced money-making LinkedIn strategies, this course is a hit with business owners, professionals and career seekers. Get on board with social media. Sign up as an affiliate today! www.linktoaction.com.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509635].message }}

David Keith

13 years ago

lol... an ookie debating a (California... I think) lawyer.

I am surprised so far the ookie has held his own. Normally I would jump into a bit like this, but I am just not feeling it tonight.

Having read both sides, you both make good points.

I guess I would lean towards Bill's side a bit in that Google can compete with whoever they want in any market they want (hopefully none of mine). Its not google's responsibility to send traffic to airlines or other industries to receive services. Why can't they do that stuff if they want to.

But I also agree that the more google does this, the more they have clear conflicts of interests that didn't really exist much when it was as Brian says "I supply the content... googles supplies the traffic"

Those conflicts of interests get pushed down the line and profit for stockholders moves closer to the top. I am ok with that too...I own google stock. But the truth is that the core function of google (search) usually suffers when this stuff occurs.

However, at some point if they try to go too far, my opinion would be that a backlash would occur. Those happen fast these days. The search results at Bing are not much if any worse than google's. So if they push people too hard, they are just a quick "change my homepage" away from loosing a ton of business.

Well crap, I let myself get dragged into it

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Just a Little War Room Gift.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510405].message }}

Jon Patrick

13 years ago

I don't like the idea of Google suddenly making changes that put people out of business who worked hard to get their websites ranking well. But Google is not obligated to do anything for anybody other than their stockholders.

People seem to forget that they are a privately owned company, not a public utility - if they want to change things up to improve their search results, or simply to leverage their traffic better for more profits, then that is their decision. My job is to realize that and not depend on Google too much for the growth of my business.

I do have problems with Google's business philosophy and the way they treat the customers of some of their services, but that's another post for another time.

I also don't like the fact that, as a long-time ClickBank vendor, I am made vulnerable to a certain percentage of people who see ClickBank's refund policy as a way to get stuff for free. But without that policy, ClickBank might very well not even exist as a platform for me to earn money.

They lose money when sales are refunded, too - it's not as if they benefit from it. Their refund policy is necessitated by the fact that they have to keep their own payment processing arrangements in good standing. My job in this case is to minimize refunds by providing a product people like and good customer service.

Complaining about either situation is an utterly fruitless endeavor.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510446].message }}

Mousumi

13 years ago

You are right John!

There are end number of getting motivated traffic. Those who've been affected by their Panda and Penguin updates should better focus on leveraging social channels.

Originally Posted by Jon Patrick

I don't like the idea of Google suddenly making changes that put people out of business who worked hard to get their websites ranking well. But Google is not obligated to do anything for anybody other than their stockholders.

People seem to forget that they are a privately owned company, not a public utility - if they want to change things up to improve their search results, or simply to leverage their traffic better for more profits, then that is their decision. My job is to realize that and not depend on Google too much for the growth of my business.

I do have problems with Google's business philosophy and the way they treat the customers of some of their services, but that's another post for another time.

I also don't like the fact that, as a long-time ClickBank vendor, I am made vulnerable to a certain percentage of people who see ClickBank's refund policy as a way to get stuff for free. But without that policy, ClickBank might very well not even exist as a platform for me to earn money.

They lose money when sales are refunded, too - it's not as if they benefit from it. Their refund policy is necessitated by the fact that they have to keep their own payment processing arrangements in good standing. My job in this case is to minimize refunds by providing a product people like and good customer service.

Complaining about either situation is an utterly fruitless endeavor.

Thanks

Signature

Brainprick: The Blog Read by Achievers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510609].message }}

SandraLarkin

Banned 13 years ago

All of the people bashing are people that have no idea about either, or have been demolished by the new Google updates.

Most of them have never made a penny online.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510512].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by SandraLarkin

All of the people bashing are people that have no idea about either, or have been demolished by the new Google updates.

Most of them have never made a penny online.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510547].message }}

David Keith 13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

good stuff Bill. When I saw the picture, I got all inspired and thought is that really possible? After a little stretching I gave it a go. Holly crap, I never realized how hard it is to actually put your head anywhere near your a$$ much less in it.

I now have a new found respect for those that are able to accomplish this feat on a regular basis.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
Just a Little War Room Gift.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510562].message }}

nasuryono

13 years ago

I don't agree when you say Google gives you free publicity.

You need to build a site, backlink and content according to their rules. All of the activity cost money and therefore the term "Free" is just an illusion.

Thanks

Signature

----------------------------------------

From $532.93 to $1212.35 in 1 Month in Affiliate Commission (10 Simple Steps) <== Click Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510590].message }}

Mousumi

13 years ago

Google bashing is just out of frustration. Who doesn't love free traffic?
People should realize that Google has been consistently evolving and trying to make its algorithm as effective and biased as possible.
I started blogging (I'm not into IM) about a year ago and my blog was just doing fine; while some of my friends (they call themselves webmasters) were doing amazing. Then, all of a sudden, Google introduced Penguin updates and many of them lost almost 90 percent of organic traffic. I'm still doing fine as I did not spend time on "Link Building"

We must respect Google and its algorithm. Those who are frustrated are the people who tried to outsmart Google.....they will still try the same and Google will keep watching their move :-)

Thanks

Signature

Brainprick: The Blog Read by Achievers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510598].message }}

shg

13 years ago

Thats wrong...google dont give free publicity.....

You have to do hard work...comply with many things and build backlinks....after building backlinks you dont know that google will crawl it or not and if they crawl then its not necessary that they will index it.

so its really pain and once you do all that then you will brought on first page which will give you business so thats not a free publicity but the work you did will give you business...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510714].message }}

Jon Patrick

13 years ago

Originally Posted by shg

Thats wrong...google dont give free publicity.....

You have to do hard work...comply with many things and build backlinks....after building backlinks you dont know that google will crawl it or not and if they crawl then its not necessary that they will index it.

so its really pain and once you do all that then you will brought on first page which will give you business so thats not a free publicity but the work you did will give you business...

If they're not charging you money, then it's a free service by definition, although you will certainly have to put in some effort on your end to get that free exposure.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6511068].message }}

paul nicholls

13 years ago

I gave up worrying about google a long time ago and ever since I have been able to sleep waaay better

If you rely on google for a large amount of your traffic or income then your business is very un-stable and can collapse at any time

Theres so many other ways to generate traffic and exposure to your site, brand or business that relying on google to do most of it is an accident waiting to happen, hence why so many people come in here and complain after a new update

paul

Thanks

Signature

FREE REPORT===>> 7 Reasons Why You Will probably Fail Online This year

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6511558].message }}

BenStevens

13 years ago

SEObook put out a great article explaining exactly why Google should be bashed. If you haven't read it I highly recommend it:

seobook (dot) com/paid-inclusion

Here's a great infographic that sums up the despicable business practices of Google if the above article is too long:

vimeo (dot) com/12126041

I completely agree about Clickbank though.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6511646].message }}

JohnMcCabe

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

They love Google when Google loves them, but if Google turns off the free traffic tap, they get pissed off at Google.

And many of them imbue Google with human traits, and make getting caught using loaded dice sound like a personal vendetta against them.

Originally Posted by David Keith

lol... an ookie debating a (California... I think) lawyer.

I am surprised so far the ookie has held his own. Normally I would jump into a bit like this, but I am just not feeling it tonight.

[snip]

Well crap, I let myself get dragged into it

Someone once told me that when the Sooner football team had to go to Texas for their annual game, it raised the average IQ in both states for a week. Maybe it's true... :p

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

This has probably been one of the best threads I've read in weeks, so thanks to Brian and Bill both for your well thought out points and civil discussion.

Ditto that.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6513229].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by BenStevens

SEObook put out a great article explaining exactly why Google should be bashed. If you haven't read it I highly recommend it:

seobook (dot) com/paid-inclusion

Here's a great infographic that sums up the despicable business practices of Google if the above article is too long:

vimeo (dot) com/12126041

I completely agree about Clickbank though.

I can place links in the thread, so here you go:

Paid Inclusion, Incentive Structures, Deep Content & Scraping

Google "Trying not to be evil" on Vimeo

From the article:

As SEOs we focus a lot of energy on "how do I rank 1 spot higher" but when the organic results are displaced and appear below the fold why bother? The issue of the incredibly shrinking organic result set is something that can't be over-emphasized. For many SEOs the trend will absolutely be career ending.

Usually I respect what is said at SEO Book, but this is just more crying over spilled milk.