By Will Sturgeon, 7 February 2006 15:15
NEWS
A decision by Google to blacklist BMW's German website for allegedly boosting its internet search ranking in breach of Google guidelines has divided experts and web users, as another big name company comes in for the same treatment.
Office equipment giant Ricoh has also now found itself on the end of Google's search sanctions in Germany but some critics of Google's 'death penalty' say companies are being punished unfairly for having the savvy to make Google's system work for them. Others joining the debate however have praised Google for keeping large multinational companies in check.
A spokesman for Ricoh Europe admitted there have been some issues with Ricoh Germany which are currently being dealt with.
The spokesman said: "Other Ricoh websites in the European region comply with the regulations as stipulated by Google. Meanwhile, Ricoh Germany has looked into the Google standard and has every intention of complying shortly."
By Google's own rules that means the sanctions should be lifted. However, not everybody is in favour of such measures being imposed in the first place.
While silicon.com reader Rajeev Dhiman from Toronto, Canada, expressed his support for the search giant's actions, others aren't convinced.
Dhiman wrote: "This is why Google is the best in the market. This act further strengthens peoples' trust in Google."
However, another reader who offers search engine optimisation services, seen by some as a controversial industry, said this problem is largely of Google's own making.
He said: "No matter how smart Google's robotic minions are at scouring the web for new content, they often fail when it comes to accurately indexing those results to best reflect what users really want. Sadly, as a consequence, webmasters nowadays design primarily for Google; actual humans are an afterthought.
"As such, you cannot blame BMW for targeting Google's spiders and humans separately."
Another reader, John Ray, from York in the UK, suggested some double standards might be at play where Google's treatment of the public and private sector are concerned: "According to Google, 'We cannot tolerate websites trying to manipulate search results'.
"Does that apply to China?" he asked, referring to the search giant's recent decision to filter results in the country, in accordance with the wishes of the Chinese government.
It was an issue a number of other readers picked up on.
Comments
There are 25 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Ummmm since when is a nation equal to a web site?
Keeping page rankings clean and complying with the demands of a government are two completely seperate subjects.
2. anonymous
I fully support Google's action. Paid ads are shown separately and allows me to choose.
3. anonymous
The only people complaining that Google did not do the right thing are those who are directly negatively affected by this practice, becuase they also seek to manipulate Google's ranking system.
These people are the equivalent of speical interest groups lobbying the government to make laws so they can continue to profit off of morally questionable behavior. Fortunately for us, they do not have the means to "bribe" Google and continue their efforts.
4. fraser rieche
Could there not be a case made that the owner of the brand BMW should always appear at the top of a search for its own product?
Could it also be that if Google supports others in promoting the BMW brand when it is not their brand, that Google is in effect infringing on copyrite laws?
I think this is a classic failing that Google has to address. I could see Google being hit with a myriad of law suits in time if it does not address this issue world wide.
5. anonymous
BMW didn't "optimize" their site for Google. They made a blatent portal page with extra keywords and content to appear as another site with a lot of good content when all it did was take you to the actual page.
Even though I am a designer/developer, I'll risk saying this anyway. SEO is a scam in a lot of ways if it's about manipulating code for nothing but good rank. I've seen and done plenty of tests and found that most often, the best results are obtained when you just make well formed pages with GOOD content.
Is it fair to be sandboxed for "optimizing" for Google? Yes. Would you feel manipulated if you found out that Coke and Pepsi were owned by the same person. They use tactics that put up false pages to do nothing but unfairly push themselves high on the list than they should be.
6. Warren
I'm 100% behind Google's decision. Fair is fair. Just because it's "Big Business" does not legitmize fabricating their results. It's the same rules for everyone and they knew it before they began. Play with fire... I can't imagine this discussion would even exist if someone wrote an article about "Google sentances 'Death Penalty' to spamhouse... Why would anyone think that any business is entitled to rig the results?
Whether or not Google's criteria for inclusion are "correct" or not is the only thing anyone can question.
The fact that they lay down their rules and enforce them equally is not in question.
7. anonymous
I agree wholeheartedly with what Google is doing. I hope that they soon start with all those other sites which when you click them, redirect you to porn sites.
8. W David
Lucky for BMW are such a big company and found out that Google had taken it upon themselves to censor their site. Many small companies are penalised by Google for often spurious reasons (very often initiated by complaints from a competitor) and never find out why they can't get good search results for legitimate sites. Given Google's almost monopolistic hold over commercial life these days, they should at least be forced to inform companies when and why they are penalising them, and give them the opportunity to correct it.
9. dean knight
I think Googles is right to issue the 'death sentence' to any website that breaks the rules set out to provide those 'objective/relevant' search results.
However that said I beleive that googles search results are bcoming or have become not so relevant. The search results in google rely heavily on relevancy this would be ok but when google puts directories of information above individual sites all of the time their search results are now saturated with free directory after free directory and not useful individual sites. I mean if google really beleives that this is the way forward more and more will turn to yahoo who seems to do things the other way around and gives pure individual companies websites more attention especially when searching locally.
Come on Google put the bite back in your search results!!
Dean
10. Colin MacDonald
Top marks to Google, search engine optimisation should be all about understanding the rules and abiding by them, not abusing them. The responsible webmaster ultimately wants the same as google, i.e. he/she should only want visitors to the site with a genuine interest in the subject in question, any attempt to decieve web users (and google) in order to achieve a higher hit rate or get a higher ranking deserves to be penalised.
11. Colin MacDonald
Top marks to Google, search engine optimisation should be all about understanding the rules and abiding by them, not abusing them. The responsible webmaster ultimately wants the same as google, i.e. he/she should only want visitors to the site with a genuine interest in the subject in question, any attempt to decieve web users (and google) in order to achieve a higher hit rate or get a higher ranking deserves to be penalised.
12. anonymous
Anybody can set up a website that contains a well know brand name like BMW for a couple of quid. But these aren't necessarily the sites the a user wants to see. (Do you really want 15 pages of breakers yards before you can get to see the new M3) It's entirely possible to change your sites position in the search list by setting the meta tags within your page but if Google were seriously worried about this why don't they just change the spider to ignore them and use the only the visible contents instead ?
Is it just possible that they've done this with an eye on BMW's not inconsiderable marketing budget rather than out of a desire to give the user what she/he wants.
13. anonymous
Anybody can set up a website that contains a well know brand name like BMW for a couple of quid. But these aren't necessarily the sites the a user wants to see. (Do you really want 15 pages of breakers yards before you can get to see the new M3) It's entirely possible to change your sites position in the search list by setting the meta tags within your page but if Google were seriously worried about this why don't they just change the spider to ignore them and use the only the visible contents instead ?
Is it just possible that they've done this with an eye on BMW's not inconsiderable marketing budget rather than out of a desire to give the user what she/he wants.
14. anonymous
Those involved in SEO and search engine marketing will know that Google has been doing this to thousands of much smaller companies for the last 2 years. I personally know of at least 7 private individuals that have virtually lost their entire livelihoods overnight because of Googles similar actions over the last 18 - 24 months. Personnally I feel Google has become too carried away with their own power. At least new sites can get listed on MSN and Yahoo within a matter of days, whereas with Google it takes over 4 - 6 weeks. It's the old story ...too much power breeds contempt!
15. anonymous
Anonymous Baltimore seems to forget that Google is a $60bn company, it is not a charity or public interest body and also seeks to make profits.
The rules of any business or game are continually being tested.
16. Peter Vasey
Let's face it, Google is a publisher. As a publisher they have a right to set rules and exclude those who don't play by the rules. People know the rules before they start.
Those wishing to have top listings in Google are welcome to optimise their pages to rank well on Google - the search engine even publishers some hints and tips on its website - but they have only themselves to blame if they 'colour outside the lines'.
17. anonymous
Good on Google - keep it clean keep in mean!
18. Brian Chappell
I've never manipulated the ratings for a web site on any engine, Google or otherwise, yet I have a problem with this approach.
If Google have the ability to detect these 'misuses' of it's service then why can't they just code to ignore those aspects? If they want to remain true to the Internet then they really need to retain the legitimate rating and ignore the manipulations.
Given that this 'death penalty' really could result in the failing of a business is it really appropriate that a commercial organisation should have that power? Just imagine it was your company.
19. Paul
What they need to ban is all the find a cheap price websites. When ever I search for a particular product you never get the manufacturer it page upon page of price search engines.
20. anonymous
Yes, the Chinese issue concerns me greatly. Google's actions here in conjunction with the 'death penalty' make me suspect the someone in Google has the Tony Blair's 'I know best' complex.
Google is a search engine - thats all it really is. It should not try to act as a moderator of ANY description.
21. Lever
Google's webmaster quality guidelines are clear in that attempts to rank using techniques they advise against are a breach of their terms and thus subject to penalties.
As for the hysteria-inducing term "death penalty" it should be noted that both BMW.de and Ricoh.de have removed the offending scripts & techniques and have since been relisted.
So what's all the fuss about? They offended, they got caught, they got delisted for a while. It's nice to see that Google are upholding these values.
22. Mike
Different Search Engines are .... different! If you don't like Google, use a different search engine. When you launch a Google search, Google are working for you not the owners of multinational companies. You want fair results, not skewed results.
I do agree however that when I search for "Audi uk" - I want the official manufacturer's site at the top, not the bunch of dodgy second hand car dealers I get now.
23. P Long
Well let's see... as a webmaster I have never ever "designed for Google first, and humans second" and I haven't even really seen a good example of this either. Most websites I visit are quite user friendly and human-oriented.
The statement about companies having "the savvy to make Google work for them" is also bogus. I mean I know how to make a page full of keywords that'll get picked up by the search engine; but that doesn't mean I'm going to make use of this exploit for my own gain. And that's all it is too, it's not savvy, it's not fairplay, it's just plain exploiting the way the Google system works.
And comparing it to the whole China debate is just irrelevant and a very sad attempt at building a solid case against Google. This is large businesses exploiting the system for profit, not a country blocking content from their citizens. And if these corporate fat cats have problems with it, they should be directing them at the Chinese Government, not Google. But no, if they did that then they'd be the ones in bad standing with China instead of Google had they decided not to censor their results.
This world is so messed up and Google is at least making the effort to play fair and set a good example for others to follow. But really it's not surprising that these capitalists would come in and try to fight the good guy who might contribute to the loss of some of their ill-gotten profits.
24. Arun V
when will the dumb couch analysts understand this........just as it's right to follow American/European laws on pornography and copyrighted material it's right to follow local Chinese laws.
If you have a problem with Chinese laws elect political leaders in your countries who will deal with China. Do not expect Google/MS/Yahoo/Walmart to do this work.
And while you are at this just check the label on the shirt you are wearing, keyboard you type on and just about anything else. Stop using those things and then criticize the Corporations whose only motto is to increase shareholder value and not act like Greenpeace/Human Rights Watch/Amnesty
25. anonymous
The problem with Google is that it is getting TOO powerful. Users seeking information are given information but THEY ONLY GET WHAT GOOGLE GIVES THEM. They don't see the links to genuine web sites which Google's system has blocked FOR NO GOOD REASON.
There are small businesses being severely damaged financially because the people at Google think THEY KNOW BEST.
Most people using Google don't realise it has a "SafeSearch" filter which seems to block many genuine websites for no good reason.
Their motto "Don't do evil" implies that they "don't do evil" but THEY DO... perhaps not intentionally.
Being so arrogant as to think that they always know best is just like being a dictator (or Prime Minister of the UK).
I used to support Google and its proclaimed aims but now I realise it is becoming a monster. Those who support it today will one day regret!