×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Is Google Breaking Their Own Rules?

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the more-than-a-little-fishy dept.

Google 552

flood6 writes "Threadwatch is carrying a story about Google getting caught doing things they ban other websites for. Here is a page as viewed by the public and the same page as viewed by a search engine (their cache)." Note that the titles in the cache are employing classic keyword stuffing, presumably to improve rankings.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So what? (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878678)

For now, the implications are simple - If Google can do this on it's own pages, why can ordinary webmasters not? Google's keyword stuffed, cloaked title would be hard to describe as anything other than an SEO tactic not so much frowned upon, but full on hated by the Search giant itself.

Why? Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules. They aren't going to ban themselves but they will ban you. If you want to be listed on *the* search engine then follow their rules. If you don't care if anyone finds you then you can modify your page during crawler indexing and other sites can pick you up.

No, wait (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878712)

Congress is the only one around here who gets to pass laws in the hypocritical fashion, e.g. labor laws.
You're not trying to imply Google is leveraging itself into the government, are you? That's ++L++R territory!

Re:No, wait (5, Insightful)

poptix_work (79063) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878956)

They're stuffing results for the internal search here: https://adwords.google.com/support/?hl=en_US

All I see is people talking about how "dumb" they were to use such "obvious" cloaking techniques. Hello people, they were teaching their own search that is to be used on the adwords site. You don't tune your own internal search pages to help people find what they're looking for?

Sounds like a lot of people upset over nothing.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878725)

Remember the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

AndyMan1 (769797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878876)

I prefer the other golden rule: He who smelt it, dealt it.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878726)

Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine. Their goal in life is to keep you looking at their pages and using their> search engine so that they can show you more ads! Its all about money. Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878835)

Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine...Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.

Right. Other people tend to forget that Google is not immune from oversight and criticism because they are a private corporation, and it is fully justified to call them on their activities if and when they pursue questionable avenues. No one, at least to my knowledge, is calling for government intervention, but are merely spreading the word of potentially hypocritical activities. As a user of search engines I want to hear this public criticism as it may eventually make me switch to whatever the new search engine is.

As a sidenote, I find it remarkable how defensive the general Slashdot community is about Google. Let's try your post in a slightly different light and see what you think about it.

Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.

Re:So what? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878861)

Bah. Insert a </I> in there in your brain parse. That's what I get for unitalicizing the continuance periods.

Re:So what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878900)

In response to your sidenote:

Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.

I would argue that Google is less of a threat to a person's personal data and PC health than Microsoft is. So, perhaps Microsoft should be held to a higher standard? Yes, they can do what they want, but what's the worst THEY could do compared to the worst Google could do?

Re:So what? JEWS must DIE tsarkon reports SPIZER! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878734)

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Six years ago, scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, predicted that there was a gene somewhere on the tip of the X chromosome of a sperm fossil ,whose traces were found on the holy stone at Mecca, that influences a male's chances of becoming homosexual. But in tomorrow's issue of Science, a team of Canadian researchers found evidence for such a genetic link. The possible "gay gene" was located in 1993 by a team led by Dean Hamer of the NCI. They noticed a preponderance of gay relatives on the maternal side of the families of the gay men they studied. 620 A.Ds saw the opening of worlds[islam's] first gay-owned cabaret, the Garden of Allah, in seedy downtown Mecca. Patrons filed down a white marble staircase to the basement of the a once grand Islamic Harem, which during present day is called the Great Shrine of Mecca, passing 1 Gold coin through a peehole to enter an exotic, bacchanalian world of variety, vaudeville, and burlesque, presented by a cast of beautiful female impersonators. In the repressive, often violently anti-gay environment which prevailed in almost rest of the world, the Garden of Allah was a haven for spontaneity, outrageosness, and affirmation for its gay and lesbian clientelle, as well as a place where heterosexuals were encouraged to join in and have some fun!An Evening at the Garden of Allah takes readers back in time with its vivid, exciting oral history of this shining moment in Arabia's gay and lesbian past. According to the Holy Quran: "Muhammad is said to have loved three things: "Men, Perfumes, and Caberet's" Though Mohammed had been exposed to Judaism and Christianity, and showed familiarity with their scriptures, he ultimately called down a curse upon a group of 60 Christians from the Najran Valley in North Yemen that refused to accept his homosexual preachings. He tried to convert them, but they would not agree with him about homosexuality. So he said to them as follows: Sura al-e-Imran 3:33-64 "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our men and your men, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us explore, and invoke the sensation of Allah on those who believe" Sura al-e-Imran 3:61 Khadija, the Financier [a Quote extracted from the Holy Quran] I said to him: 'Muhammad, is there any reason why you should not marry?' He told me: 'I possess nothing to marry on.I am not attracted to women' I answered him: ' And suppose there was someone who had enough for the both of us ? And suppose you were bestowed with wealth, health , prospeirity and men and to a position of honour and ease, would you not accept ?' 'Who is the man?' 'Ahmed' 'What must I do?' 'I will attend to all the men.' 'And I too will do my part and serve my God.' This research has led many scientists to believe the inner motives and mental behavior of Mohammad. This theory helps in being an Eye-Opener for all those innocent millions of followers of Islam, who have been blindly believing in this preaching.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878744)

If Google can do this on it's own pages, why can ordinary webmasters not?
Quite. In fact, other webmasters can do it, as much as they like. Google aren't the web police... you won't be arrested or have your DNS removed. You won't rank highly on Google, but that reward is in Google's gift... and you have no right to dictate what they do.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878749)

You are correct: it is within their legal right to do so. It might even make business sense to do this.

However, Google has a corporate motto that goes something like "don't be evil"...

It certainly seems sneaky and even rude to use a tactic that you condemn others for using. Thus, from a moral standpoint (or a PR-standpoint if you prefer), I don't think Google should give preference to their own pages in their search engine. They should let their search algorithm treat their own pages normally.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878923)

That doesn't even make any sense. Does it make sense for google not to find google pages first? That makes google a pretty crappy interface to itself. If you don't want google hits, you can always add -site:google.com and avoid them entirely.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878925)

The reason this doesn't work is because Google can't "pay themselves" to use AdWords to pimp...AdWords. Besides, they own the company and make the rules. And maybe they should follow their own rules, but they most certainly don't have to. Besides, they don't block out competitor's results, they simply bring theirs to the top (Think: on-site searching, THEN offsite).

I don't see Google in the wrong here.

Re:So what? (1)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878751)

I think the point is it goes against the publicly stated mission of not being 'evil.'

But whoever really believed Google was going to become a publicly held company and not do questionable things like this is an idiot.

Re:So what? (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878755)

because they pretend like they're a NICE corporation that wouldn't do that sort of thing?

that being said, there's a lot more fishier things google does without giving any explanation at all(with googleads etc..).

basically they got the same stance as everyone else who's big enough: "we can do whatever we fucking want including not giving you your money and you can't do shit about it, read the fine print that says 'all your base are belong to us'."

Re:So what? (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878917)

Oh knoes, my base!

Re:So what? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878840)

Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules.

Where does an 800lb gorilla sit?

a) Anywhere he damn well wants.
b) Somewhere clear of other smaller animals

You appear to subscribe to the first train of thought.

Reading Gulliver's Travels might give you some pause.
In short, Gulliver arrived in the land of Lilliputia to find that all the inhabitants were mere inches tall. He was the 800lb gorilla.

Until one day he lay down to sleep and woke to find himself tied to the ground and immbolized by hundreds of threads with hundreds of angry Lilliputians standing on him. Gulliver was lucky to make it out alive.

"mountain mountain mountain mountain" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878845)


I see folk getting their panties in a twist shouting "mountain!" while pointing at a mole hill.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Dashing Leech (688077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878909)

"Why? Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules."

No, because of the public relations and potential litigation. The public relations are bad because the public has a low tolerance for hypocricy. Google's main asset is the user-base. If they public turns against them it could do major damage.

IANAL, but just because it is their site doesn't give them free reign to do anything they want. Since they have such a large market share of the search services there may, perhaps, be anti-competitive laws that come into play for taking advantage of their market share to artificially promote their own services above those of competition, as was the case with Microsoft and a few other similar cases we've seen lately (e.g., VoIP blocking). These might not be the case exactly here, but it is inching closer.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878948)

I just love all you corporate suckups defending the beloved Google's double standard.

If "Don't be evil" means anything, it also means "Don't be a fucking hypocrite"!

Either everyone, or no one, should be able to pollute their title tag with crap like:

<?php
if (eregi($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'], "GoogleBot"))
$titleprefix = "foo, widgets, foobar, fubar, competitor - ";
?>

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878683)

FP!

Could be keyword stuffing... (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878692)

Or it could just be lousy technical writing and lousy editing. Sure, the word is repetitive, but never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (5, Informative)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878765)

It's the fact that the title is different when a search engine views it versus when a person views it. Feeding different information to a search engine (with more keywords) is currently frowned upon, as people have abused it.

Check the *title* of the two links. One has a comma separated list of keywords.

--
Evan

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (1)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878796)

Oh, I see. This was not at all clear from the writeup, but now that I see that, I guess I withdraw my previous comment.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878874)

Feeding different information to a search engine (with more keywords) is currently frowned upon, as people have abused it.

The differences between a cached page and a current page is interesting but insufficient evidence that they tweak their pages for search engines. I can create the same kind of differences in any of my 10,000 pages cached on Google by simply editing my own content.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (1)

agurkan (523320) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878922)

or, they might have updated their webpage after realizing someone was using senseless titles for higher ranks.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (3, Informative)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878792)

RTA (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1774) - the same pages used to be normal, now they're stuffed with keywords.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (0, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878860)

Story is a troll... did anyone think to do search google for traffic+estimate to see where in the ranking the page comes? It's not even in the top five. [google.com]

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878926)

Just because it's not in the top five doesn't mean they didn't cheat. They tried to cheat, but it wasn't very successful. In fact, top ten in pretty succesful in my terms.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (4, Informative)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878872)

Did you even READ TFA? Google gives different pages for users and its own search engine. The user's pages are NOT stuffed with keywords, while the ones for its search engine are. This is OBVIOUSLY keyword stuffing and cloaking.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (0, Troll)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878921)

As I noted in a reply to a previous post, it didn't seem at all clear to me from the article that the problem was in the title bar. Since I hardly ever look at the title bar anyway, I missed what they were referring to. In the third link, it looked like what they were trying to draw attention to was the number of times the word "traffic" appeared in the actual page body.

Anyway, after being informed by the first reply to my comment, I saw the issue, and I withdraw my original comment, as it was obviously incorrect.

So in summation, yes I did read the article, and the article did not adequately explain the issue, especially given that the third link in the summary led me to believe the problem was something other than what it obviously was. I know it's sacreligious for a Slashdot denizen to admit they were wrong, but in this case, I was apparently wrong.

Re:Could be keyword stuffing... (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878958)

Nice try. TFA displays the titles in bold italic text. And it completely explains the issue.

almost definitely *IS* keyword stuffing. (2, Informative)

SirSnapperHead (854099) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878875)

The title of the page is "traffic, estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic Google Adwords Support:..."

You can't seriously attribute that to lousy technical writing or editing?

It's Google's site so I don't see why they can't up their pages in rankings. They should have just used a transparent mechanism for doing it instead of using the techniques they ban others from using. That's where they haven't been smart - just be honest and treat certain Google pages like advertised links.

Probably, yes. (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878693)

But, you, they're allowed to. They're their own rules. They can make rules, and change rules, and ignore rules as they see fit.

Don't like it? Find another search engine (no longer as hard or as painful as it used to be).

Re:Probably, yes. (1)

curtwaugh (829224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878881)

I am amazed at how easily some of you folks have taken on this "it's their web site, they can do what they want; it's capitalism -- tough crap" attitude. (Whether Google is actually doing that here or not.) First of all, it's just not good business practice to have an air of superiority that might, even innocently, turn off potential customers. If Google actually wants to take over the world -- even benevolently -- they shouldn't get into the practice of making enemies. Second, Google is somewhat different in that they have always touted their philosophy of "Don't be evil." Even if you can shrug off this practice, they should not. Is their motto pure BS? Maybe. Folks didn't used to think so, but now they might. Another MicroSquish in the making? Who knows?

Re:Probably, yes. (1)

gmerideth (107286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878927)


But, you, they're allowed to. They're their own rules. They can make rules, and change rules, and ignore rules as they see fit.


Following that thought, I don't see how anyone could complain about Microsoft ever again.

This of course coming from the company who decided to put "do not be an evil company" in their SEC filing. It's good to see hypocrisy in action, even in a so called "nice company" like google.

It gives hope to us all.

Great Negros Honored... GNAA EARLY POST! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878694)

The GNAA (Great Negro Association of America) would like to commemorate Black History Month by honoring great Negros in history. We would like to commemorate Malcolm X [wikipedia.org] , an excellent example of the great negro. Malcolm X stood up for what he believed, and so does the ECFA.

About GNAA: The GNAA is slashdot's oldest and most famous mass-troll group. The current ECFA/GNAA combined organization (called "ECFA") is the result of the 2004 merger of the ECFA and the GNAA. The ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) serves as sole holder of the GNAA trademark, copyrights, and all other legal ownership. In Q1 2005, ECFA announced that the acronym GNAA now stands for Great Negro Association of America. Note that the ECFA is based solely in the United States. The future of the international GNAA is uncertain, and it will likely cease operations altogether. Please note that the United States ECFA takes memberships from all over the world. The combined organization is committed both to celebrating black history and to the improvement of our society through eliminating overpopulation of animals to improve their lives and the lives of humans.

About ECFA: The ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is an organization committed to improving our society, leaving it better than we found it. We use the Slashdot trolling capabilities of the GNAA to spread our message of improvement.

Do you want to Commemorate great negros [wikipedia.org] ?
Are you sick of overpopulation of household pets [wikipedia.org] ?
Are you willing to take radical measures [aapn.org] to keep these pests at bay?

If you answered YES to any of the above questions, the ECFA(Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association)/GNAA is for you!

You can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY BENEFIT!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees!

This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

We hunt deer when they become overpopulated. Why should dogs be any different? We don't have deer pounds to send 'homeless' deer to. Yet for most people, dogs are personified to the extreme. We advocate treating dogs like the animals they are.

We are also temporarily supporting Great Negros to please our former GNAA members and to keep our distribution channels open. We have been and always will be committed to the eradication of dogs. The takeover was all for the trolling channels, never for the content.

WANT TO SUPPORT ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association)? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

Important Note: The ECFA has recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

==Brought to you by the GNAA Trolling Group, now a division of ECFA.

OMG G00GLE IS TEH EV1L (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878701)

They are teh break OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

FP ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878704)

FP ?

first cache? (5, Funny)

farquharsoncraig (711336) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878710)

insightful interesting insightful interesting insightful interesting.

Have I missed something? (0, Offtopic)

noelmarkham (714160) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878711)

They look the same to me

Re:Have I missed something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878732)

Read the title bar.

Re:Have I missed something? (1, Informative)

njcoder (657816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878750)

Look in the title bar of your browser. There is key word spamming in it.

Re:Have I missed something? (1)

Beolach (518512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878764)

Look at the page title. One is:
Google AdWords Support: Why do traffic estimates for my Ad Group differ from those given by the standalone tool?
The other is:
traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic
Google AdWords Support: Why do traffic estimates for my Ad Group differ from those given by the standalone tool?

yes, you missed... (-1)

SalsaDoom (14830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878771)

reading the title, you bloated sack of protoplasm =)

From the google page: "Google AdWords Support: Why do traffic estimates for my Ad Group differ from those given by the standalone tool?"

From the cache: "traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic
Google AdWords Support: Why do traffic estimates for my Ad Group differ from those given by the standalone tool?"

See?

--SD

Re:Have I missed something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878810)

The difference is in the page title. The non-cached version is just a normal title, while the cached version has "traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic" before the actual page title.

Re:Have I missed something? (1)

willmeister (709686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878830)

Look at the title bar: Before "Google AdWords Support..." which is in both titles, "traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic" appears in the title bar of the search engine page.

for fun... (4, Insightful)

zxnos (813588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878718)

just for fun, insert 'Microsoft' in this discussion everytime someone writes 'Google' and see if you feel the same way.

Re:for fun... (0, Redundant)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878756)

*silence*
good point...

Guess all I can say is that Google has earned a little bit of breathing room.

Re:for fun... (-1)

SalsaDoom (14830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878808)

Exactly.

While I think that this behavior isn't exactly stand up, its pretty lame really...

But its not like we are all suddenly going to shout "Ha! Google broke one of their own rules, now they SUCK! Long live MS Search!"

Basically, its lame behavior, I don't think anyone is really going to argue that, but its not like they changed the Firefox page to require MSIE to view or something.

--SD

Re:for fun... (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878777)

Why yes, Yes I do.

Probably because I'm not a drooling, slavishly anti-Microsoft cretin, and I analyse behaviour on its own merits, rather than with a knee jerk reaction based on warmth/antipathy to the actor.

Re:for fun... (1)

SuperGillies (762897) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878802)

Ok - Google dont charge you to use their software.

Micorsoft Don't charge you to use their software.

Doesn't quite sound the same does it?

Re:for fun... (2, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878898)

Google charges people to use its software. Google's customers are its advertisers, not the users of its services. Google sure as hell charges advertisers for the right to use its services, and it makes about $1 billion a year from them.

So in conclusion, it does sound the same.

Re:for fun... (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878864)

[sound of crickets]

This is Slashdot.

Microsoft: EVIL
Apple: GOOD
Google: "We are not worthy! We are not worthy!"

Re:for fun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878873)

Are you high? Does MS produce what may be the most useful internet-related product today? No? That's right.

Re:for fun... (1)

Corporal Dan (103359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878957)

Does MS produce what may be the most useful internet-related product today?

Windows XP :-P

There IS a difference. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878882)

Google's business model DOES NOT rely on trapping users and forcing - practically blackmailing - it's victims to make exorbant payments for upgrades, Google DOES NOT have a death grip monopoly on the consumer Search Engine market, and the page in question does not further any political, social, business, economic, or other goals.

Is it shifty and underhanded? Indeed, but Google has had a history of being a benign company, and as such do not deserve the same treatment as an actively malicious company.

By the same logic which you have applied here, what would you be feeling if the names "Mother Teresa" and "Osama Bin Laden" were transposed?

Oh yea!?!? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878719)

And just what do you think you are going to do about it? Huh? Huh?

Loser!

They can... (2, Insightful)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878722)

Using their own site to promote themselves. Pretty sure that's ok. They ARE offering this service to the entire world for free. What would the internet be without Google?

Re:They can... (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878757)

pretty much the same thing, we'd have another company as the fanboy's favorite and that would be it (remember when altavista was the favorite?)

maybe we'd have better search results too, and not just a bunch of links to SEO and spyware sites (but then again, maybe it would be worse, who knows)

Re:They can... (1)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878818)

I tend to think worse. Very few other companies can revolutionize something as vast and as powerful as the internet while continuing to offer innovative new services. Not to mention it's all free if you're not a business, and even then much of it is still free. Google has staved-off the draw of becoming evil. That's why they're so successful...

Why would they have to do this? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878723)

If they write the software, they can automatically rank their own pages however they wish. It's not hard to check what site the page came from.

Re:Why would they have to do this? (2, Interesting)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878889)

Perhaps for the benefit of other search engines.

Intrusion of the obvious? (0, Redundant)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878727)

Uh, Google can do whatever they want to manipulate their own search engine. It's, like, one of the perks of private ownership. Y'know, this capitalism thing and all that. Doh!

Like Microsoft? (0, Redundant)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878862)

Kind of like how Microsoft should be able to package it's own internet browser along with it's own OS? capitalism...

Re:Like Microsoft? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878955)

Personally I think that Microsoft should be able to package it's [sic] own internet browser along with it's [sic again] own OS. Apple does it. Hell, Sun probably even does it, although their browser is lame. (That Java thingy.) That wasn't really the complaint against them, if you recall; the primary complaint was that they were prohibiting vendors from bundling other browsers with machines which had windows installed on them.

Only one long term solution: (5, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878728)

WikiSearch (or something like it). Long term we need an open peer-reviewed crawling and serving mechanism as bad as we need free OSs and browsers. How this is developed or funded I am not sure, maybe it will be the next breakthrough in P2P that obviates the need for the massive datacenter.

Until there is a free and open search engine, you are beholden to whatever these firms wish to do.

Re:Only one long term solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878793)

You find a hosting solution that can compete with google and I will work on the search algorithm.

This should only take a few decades and a few million dollars in donations.

Re:Only one long term solution: (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878888)

Well.... if someone can make a distributed hosting system similar to Seti @home, you can bet a bazillion opensource nerds would sign on to run it. Of course, the kind of latency inherent in @home systems (besides the fact that space and bandwidth consumption would be higher for the user) makes it inappropriate for this work.

Re:Only one long term solution: (3, Informative)

theGreater (596196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878839)

You mean dmoz? Or deli.cio.us? Or any other distributed referral system?

-theGreater.

Already exists: Nutch (2, Informative)

stripmarkup (629598) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878941)

An open-source web search engine [apache.org] . The project has been around for a couple of years and it's backed by Apache.

Where is my spam? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878743)

I want to get spam. As a citizen of the united states it is my right to receive spam. Who are you to deny this right of me? I hope George Washignton Bush will protect my right and fight the terrorists who want to stop spam getting to me.

Telemarketers too.

Evilness Score (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878754)

Google's: 0
People who post insignificant stories about google's evilness: +1

don't be evel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878759)

google -don't be evel, wait till you go public!

One thing I'd point out (5, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878763)

The keywords Google added to their title are limited in number and relevant to the actual page. This is rather different from the practice of a lot of SEOs of stuffing with several dozens of keywords and stuffing keywords that have nothing to do with the content of the page itself. And I notice that a lot of the SEOs squawking about this issue are among the worst offenders for high-volume irrelevant-keyword stuffing. Something to think about.

Re:One thing I'd point out (1)

swg101 (571879) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878928)

That is what I was thinking. The extra terms are common permutations of the topic of the page that could be searched for. Trying to make sure that a relavent return makes it into the search results is different than putting many unrelated words in an attempt to garner page hits.

Re:One thing I'd point out (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878945)

The keywords Google added to their title are limited in number and relevant to the actual page.

Isn't that the purpose of keywords? I've only looked at the pages casually, and I can't quite figure out what the complaint is, but if they've added some relevant keywords, what's the scandal?

Stop the presses (5, Funny)

klubkid79 (792253) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878773)

News at 11 ! Google is promoting themselves on their own website!

Hrmmm (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878776)

Tools -> Chrange browser Identification -> Other -> Googlebot.

Nope... no change here.

Isn't it possible that the TITLE entry in the google cache database got corrupted for this page?

so.... (5, Funny)

jotux (660112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878778)

...this means when I search google.....for things related to google, google pages will make it higher in the search results?!?!

I feel so betrayed!

Google gets a lot of praise (0, Flamebait)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878790)

A lot of it undeserved. While they have a perfectly adequate prosduct (in the form of a search engine) and some pretty lousy products (GMail and Google groups) the fact remains that their only purpose is to make money.

And do that they will. By hook or by crook. Only when they get found out will they change their policy and backtrack. If they can get away withtheir shady tactics they will. They were hoping to add adds to peoples email with GMail, of all things. Did they think we wouldn't care about our privacy? And what about the cookies? Why do they need a cookie that doesn't expire for several decades? Do they think we might never use google, and then in 2018 we suddenly want to find a sitre about marsupials using exactly the same machine, and get upset that links are not opened in a new window?

Irony? (2, Interesting)

oliana (181649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878797)

Is it just irony that the example is on a "Adwords" page.

Are there other examples out there?

Note that they've done this (3, Interesting)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878801)

just in order to have high rankings on the other search engines...

Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878814)

nuff said.

What? (4, Insightful)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878816)

Are they suggesting that google has to resort to keyword stuffing on cached pages to get a higher ranking on their own search engine? Is it me or is this unbelievably stupid? Surely, if they wanted too, they could just have their own pages rank top of whatever searchs they wanted- keywords or no keywords? Just some find of google flag in the ranking algorithm and they'd be done.

It's global (3, Insightful)

mikkom (714956) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878823)

It's also done globally [google.com] as the article pointed out. Sneaky sneaky google.

(This still isn't evil by googles definition because "Evil is what Sergey says is evil." [style.com] and this tactic propably adds some additional millions of dollars to Sergeys pocket)

Big Fat Deal. Live with it. (4, Insightful)

TheGuano (851573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878824)

Google doesn't need to stuff keywords for their own site - they could make their own Adwords page the only thing you ever see if you search for "traffic estimator." And why should Google care about stuffing keywords for Yahoo or Microsoft's earch engines? They don't control what you do for other search engines, either (if Google knew that your site only keyword-stuffed for MSN and Yahoo crawlers, would they care? No, they'd probably high-five you for screwing with their competitors' relevancy). There's no hypocrtical behavior here.

Brittant Spears (5, Funny)

Juiblex (561985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878866)

Their next step is to put on bottom of google.com front page, in font size 1, white foreground on white background:

"britney spears
brittany spears
brittney spears
britany spears
britny spears
briteny spears
britteny spears
briney spears
brittny spears
brintey spears
britanny spears
britiny spears
britnet spears
britiney spears
britaney spears
britnay spears
brithney spears
brtiney spears
birtney spears
brintney spears
briteney spears
bitney spears
brinty spears
brittaney spears
brittnay spears
britey spears
brittiny spears
brtney spears
bretney spears
britneys spears
britne spears
brytney spears
breatney spears
britiany spears
britnney spears
britnry spears
breatny spears
brittiney spears
britty spears
brotney spears
brutney spears
britteney spears
briyney spears
bittany spears
bridney spears
britainy spears
britmey spears
brietney spears
brithny spears
britni spears
brittant spears
bittney spears
brithey spears
brittiany spears
btitney spears
brietny spears
brinety spears
brintny spears
britnie spears"

Ehh, wtf? (1, Redundant)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878885)

Is this some kind of witchhunt to try to paint google as evil? Much of this trashtalk started with MSN search relaunch wich makes me suspicious,

Wake me up when there is something worth looking at, this is just silly.

Why use keywords? (-1, Redundant)

Paul McMahon (854063) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878894)

Why would they use keywords too increase their page rank when they could simply modify their algorithm to automatically give google pages high page ranks?

Google hasn't done a very good job... (5, Funny)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878896)

Searching for "search engine" only brings up google in 5th place. They're certainly doing a shoddy job of being unfair.

Re:Google hasn't done a very good job... (1)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878953)

i know you were just joking, but...

i'm guessing that not too many people use google to search for a search engine...that's kind of circular logic there...

I find it funny how everyone is so pro-Google (4, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878903)

If it was MS (if you use msn search or whatever their search engine is) made their products come out on top using such tactics then everyone would be trying to join the lynch mob. However if google does it its fine.

What I do find interesting is that they needed the keywords, and didn't just raise their rank artificially. Does the google algorithm not have such a feature in it (or not have it easily accessible)? Potentially it does but google chose to not use it. In either case this is nicer than what I'd see other companies doing in such a case, since I doubt they'd bother with keywords on their own search engine.

It will be alright (1)

00RUSS (549125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878907)

Hey, they may tell your not to, but how many of us listen? As long as there are search engines, there will be people stuffing it.

huh? (2, Insightful)

Shooter6947 (148693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878908)

I don't get it. The two pages look the same to me.

Is it the highlighting? They always do that for pages that you find in the cache.

This is just Google playing with their own site (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878924)

Check out Yahoo's search results [yahoo.com] compared to Google's search results [google.com] .
It's only their own results that they're messing with, which although sneaky is within their rights (though I thought they promised to index pages without bias, after all they don't filter out fascist or illegal pages).

You'd think they had better ways to fiddle their own results than spoofing pages when they see their own bot.
And since when do they keep caches of their own pages?

Are you joking? (3, Insightful)

TorrentNinja (846388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878934)

I think this is actually handy. Google is simply altering the title "with the keywords you searched for". So that you can see the Google cache page in your title bar without seeing "Google cache", blah.

I don't see this as anything sneaky just something to help people. Why would Google want to alter the page rank of a cached page anyways?

Seems like a post to grab some hits on http://www.threadwatch.org/

Lame

Does it work for them? (2, Informative)

BlackSoul (750412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878962)

Has anyone actually checked to see if they actually have lifted the rules for their own pages? I mean really, just because they did this on their own pages, does it mean they aren't getting the same mark down as everyone else? Does google really need to worry about any of their pages loosing a foothold in their own searches, they are LISTED ON THE FRONT PAGE! If I were google, I'm not sure I would worry about search position for a page I have linked on the front page of the search engine. :o)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?