[grimlck]

Because it is a double standard. There are thousands of sites which get blacklisted by Google. I'm sure all of them fix their errors really quickly once they realize they are on the black list. And none of them get back on Google nearly as quickly as rap genius did.

If Google applied these rules consistently with all websites, I would have no problem with it, but they don't. This breaks the myth that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy - as it shows that the connections you have are as important as raw merit, if not more

[adidash]

You will be surprised by the amount of time people take to work seriously on fixing their penalty.

I have helped over 40 websites recover from Google penalty in the last 7-8 months. 80% of the websites seek help only after they have screwed up atleast one reconsideration request without taking the necessary steps.

Google typically responds to penalty reconsideration requests within a week, often less than a week. So if you have taken the right action and have submitted a really solid reconsideration request, its totally possible to get out of a penalty in under 2 weeks. Also, the backlink count was under 200K which is a reasonably manageable.

Rap Genius could have saved some time using tools like scrapebox to perform some of the scraping activities. But thats another story.

[nemesisj]

Exactly. Everything about how Google handled this is wrong, in my opinion. I couldn't care less about RapGenius - they're just a symptom of the underlying problem which is we don't have any real competition in the search engine market, and we're paying for it with unfair antics like this. Longer thoughts here: http://peebs.org/2014/01/04/we-need-viable-search-engine-com...

[mtrimpe]

Very much so. Google's decisions are starting to have impacts on other companies' bottom lines which easily run into the millions of dollars.

Just as a thought experiment ... how tempting do you think it would be for Google to do the following:

1) Run a query to identify all companies that cut their AdWords spending over 50% over the last year.

2) Look at which of these companies are now getting significant numbers of click from organic results.

3) Find out what is causing them to rank high organically.

4) Penalize them using a generic message and refuse on principle to answer any inquiries as to why.

Apart from (anec-)data that seems to be pointing towards this already happening; should we be OK as a market with this approach? Especially when considering that the rules are so vague that almost every site is guaranteed to break some of Google's guidelines?

[blauwbilgorgel]

>Apart from evidence that seems to be pointing towards this already happening;

Please provide this evidence. I am getting a bit tired of this misinformation. Organic search and paid search are silo'd. To say that Google favors advertisers in the organic results or the other way round, is simply not true. It would destroy Google's credibility.

>how tempting do you think it would be for Google

It approaches conspiracy thinking. I love that, but I think HN is not the place. You are basically accusing a company of a very evil act, without proper evidence. Do you realize that many Googlers frequent this site? It would be a shame if all they get to read are conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.

>Especially when considering that the rules are so vague that almost every site is guaranteed to break some

Hogwash. Their rules are very clear and succinct.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en

Maybe if you want to spam or manipulate, then these rules are vague. Maybe when you don't read the guidelines then they are vague. I bet that if you can point to a rule that almost every site breaks, without them knowing, then Google will adjust that rule to be more clear.

You can not please them all.

>Penalize them using a generic message and refuse on principle to answer any inquiries as to why.

You can certainly not please the spammers that were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and then take to the internet to say that Google is unfair, and that the big brands get away with anything.

[mtrimpe]

> Their rules are very clear and succinct.

If I think of a lot of things my users would search for and try to create valuable information for them concerning those queries... is that valuable content or are those doorway pages?

If I give when someone few months of my service for free when they write a nice article with a link to my site... is that good customer service or a link scheme?

If I create a press release on PR Web and link to my service with an appropriate keyword ... is that participating in a link scheme?

None of these cases are all that clear cut and I for one am not comfortable with Google being the judge, jury and executioner.

> It approaches conspiracy thinking.

That's not the point. The point is that Google is a massive company wielding massive power.

When it comes to fighting a penalization their position is that they don't need to defend their decisions, implying that they can be trusted not to abuse their position and hence deserve to have the final say, legally, over these decisions.

I don't buy that and think it's about time that contesting Google penalties in court becomes a regular thing.

[blauwbilgorgel]

> If I think of a a lot of things my users would search for and try to create valuable information for them concerning those queries... is that great content or are those doorway pages?

  Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages 
  that clearly and accurately describe your content.
  
  Think about the words users would type to find your pages,
  and make sure that your site actually includes those words
  within it.

  Doorway pages are typically large sets of poor-quality 
  pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword
  or phrase.

  Some examples of doorways include:

  Having multiple domain names targeted at specific regions
  or cities that funnel users to one page
 
  Templated pages made solely for affiliate linking
  
  Multiple pages on your site with similar content designed
  to rank for specific queries like city or state names

>If when someone writes a nice article with a link to my site I give them a a few months of my service for free... is that good customer service or a link scheme?

  Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. 
  A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable
  explaining what you've done to a website that competes
  with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is
  to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if
  search engines didn't exist?"

  Any links intended to manipulate PageRank or a site's 
  ranking in Google search results may be considered part of
  a link scheme and a violation of Google’s Webmaster
  Guidelines. This includes any behavior that manipulates
  links to your site or outgoing links from your site.

  Large-scale article marketing or guest posting campaigns 
  with keyword-rich anchor text links can negatively impact 
  a site's ranking in search results.

  The best way to get other sites to create high-quality, 
  relevant links to yours is to create unique, relevant
  content that can naturally gain popularity in the Internet
  community. 

  Effectively promoting your new content will lead to 
  faster discovery by those who are interested in the same 
  subject. Avoid: attempting to promote each new, small 
  piece of content you create; go for big, interesting 
  items. Avoid: involving your site in schemes where your 
  content is artificially promoted to the top of these 
  services. Avoid: spamming link requests out to all sites
  related to your topic area. Avoid: purchasing links from 
  another site with the aim of getting PageRank instead of
  traffic.

> If I create a press release on PR Web and link to my service with an appropriate keyword ... is that participating in a link scheme?

  Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press 
  releases distributed on other sites can negatively impact
  a site's ranking in search results.

  Note: I wouldn't expect links from press release web 
  sites to benefit your rankings, however.

[mtrimpe]

What's your point here? That you find these guidelines so specific that they don't leave any room for interpretation?

[woah]

In other words- "They just wouldn't!"

[ForHackernews]

> Organic search and paid search are silo'd.

According to who? Google? Is there any transparency or any way for an outsider to verify that?

[blauwbilgorgel]

Yes. According to Google. It is a myth that is years old.

Matt Cutts answers: Do AdWords customers get special treatment in organic search results?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aV5DmL_eog

If there is evidence that Google gives special treatment to Adwords customers in organic search then this could be verified as a lie. As long as this evidence remains nothing more than accusations and suspicions, then I choose to believe Google that there is no teacup orbiting Venus. It seems unlikely, but not impossible. I am willing to sway my view when I get evidence. Till then, I will treat it as a common newbie myth.

[ryguytilidie]

Every single startup I've worked for, one of the objectives was to befriend Matt Cutts so you would have a quick line to getting stuff like this fixed. Seems like a reasonable amount of power to give one person/company...

[blauwbilgorgel]

I want to give both Rap Genius and Google the benefit of the doubt.

I like to believe that Google checked the link profile again and found a large amount of low-quality links removed. Google would not remove a penalty if the spammy links were still abundant. So that they are out of a manual penalty is justified.

Rap Genius showed good intentions to comply with the guidelines. They went out of their way to clean up their act. These were no doorway pages or elaborate linking schemes with their own servers. It was a Linking Bieber Scheme that is considered greyhat in the industry, and after this, will probably be less popular.

This was a large and visible PR drama. Of course both Rap Genius and Google were on top of things. Google never stated that this was to be a month-long ban. We don´t know how those thousands of other sites were penalized. Maybe the large majority is so spammy/crappy that they simply won´t rank near the top with their spammy links removed, on the merits of their content and audience alone. For sites that are entirely build on manipulating SERPs, then yeah, a Google penalty can seem permanent. To me, that is an ok thing.

About the connections. Sure they help. I don´t see what is wrong though with leveraging your connections when there are millions on the line. Maybe a connection humbly asked: Hey, we effed up, how can we restore trust? This thread makes it sound like the connections pressured Google into removing the penalty. That seems unlikely if we all give the benefit of the doubt.

[JohnTHaller]

This was not greyhat. This was blackhat. Paying money for inbound links on keywords that trasnfer page rank (don't include NOFOLLOW) has been blackhat for a LONG time.

[blauwbilgorgel]

It was Panama hat. Rap Genius did not pay money, they offered a tweet. In a crude and obvious enough way to be a little scheme-y. Which unfortunately for RG was picked up in the media.

"even I was scratching my head to figure out if this was actually a Google violation or not. Rap Genius’s apology post had the company deciding itself that maybe it violated guidelines that links should be “editorially placed." - Danny Sullivan.

At least now we know. This is blackhat.

[JohnTHaller]

Paying with a Tweet from an account with a large number of followers (which definitely has value) instead of money is still paying. At best, it's basically a link exchange, which is also not allowed.

[OoTheNigerian]

In life there is always a bias. When that bias is against you, you should learn how to fight back.

This is the PERFECT time for anyone who has done penance and is still being blacklisted by Google to document it all and go to the press.

There are A LOT of people/journalists waiting to jump on a story that shows Google has double standards.

But first they must be willing to do their part by documenting these facts and reaching out the journos. It will not come to them.

Like I quoted "to save a drowning man.....

[joelrunyon]

The only problem with this is that there's no real course of communication with google. They make it a matter of policy to not provide customer service.

[aaronwall]

"in 2003 when Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google’s small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable task of answering users one by one, Page said, Google should enable users to answer one another’s questions." http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/

[robryan]

What about the other thousands of people that are likely waiting on their request?

[blumkvist]

Have a like, sir!

Fairness does not exist in real life. Screaming "unfair" will not help you achieve anything. It's such a ridiculous situation for me. All these guys are sitting on the line, raging at real life because popular culture brain washed them.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but

What a bunch of stupid nerds!

[DanBC]

And many of those little sites have the excuse of ignorance - they read a dodgy SEO page or hired bad SEO people.

RapGenious had no excuse.

Still, I'm glad they're out of penalty now.

[auganov]

Is it so inherently wrong to prioritize a high-profile case of a popular site? Merit is not a synonym for equality. From a user perspective that decision might surely have a lot of merit.