I had just started coming to WPW when the November Google Dance when down. I'd never evem heard of the term, but the sheer angst of it was very real. It was a fascinating read, and I starting reading several threads on
SEO -- grappling with new terminology and trying to make sense of a whole area of website development/maintenance that previously had been a total unknown to me. I had no point of comparison; so, I accepted all postings at face value and clicked on this link, ran this search and then that search. I even tried Scroogle.
As a long term Google searcher, I'd always revised my keywords to pull what was most relevant to me. If one set was too broad, I'd narrow it or define it more carefully. I didn't know that some of those ridiculous hits that I'd gotten on broad searches were "spammer" sites, as I'd only known the term spam as being used in terms of email. I just knew that I wasn't getting the results that I wanted and would revise my search accordingly.
I tracked down many a link or website from a poster and tried to determine "would I have searched on their choice of keywords?" No, I wouldn't have as they were either misspelled, irrelevant to "my" search, too broad (i.e., too many sites use exactly the same keywords,) or terminology that I don't use.
I observed the paranoia over "the Dance" vs the suspected upcoming IPO. It didn't have extraordinary impact on my thinking, but I tucked it away as a "possibility." I could tell that the timing of it, right before the Christmas season WAS affecting a lot of people.
Today's discussion sent me off to click on more links, do new searches, and do some additional thinking. How many Google Dances have there been? Afterall, there had to have been "some," or it wouldn't have it's own special term. And, voila` -- there it was -- a site that had a complete history of Google dances:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/2657.htm. The only thing that really was apparent was that Google had updated nearly monthly in some previous years, but had been relatively quiescent during 2003. Perhaps, the most recent dance was long overdue.
As for government regulation? I've not changed my initial opinion on that. It's a ridiculous idea. I don't want the government in my personal life, which includes both the bedroom and my internet searching. I don't want ANY government in my searching -- whether it's in China, the UK, the US, or my state.
A primary reason that I switched to Google several years ago was: a) I got the most relevant hits with the least amount of "spam," sites; b) I loathe portals; c) I could use terminology that was applicable and appropriate rather than hierarchical-based, such as Yahoo at the time; d) it's a simple interface that brings back VERY rapid answers, even on dialup.
I'd noticed and clicked on what I learned to be "AdWords," and found most to be useless for the search that I was conducting. I tend to be content-driven, and most are businesses wanting to sell me something that I don't need or want; ergo, I click away quickly. So, by trial and error, I'd figured out "what" they were. Although, when I was searching to buy my new computer, or was searching for web templates, they were useful -- I knew that I was going to buy something, and businesses were what I wanted.
And, I think that namebase.com breaks most of the rules that I've seen posted with regards to
SEO. But, since I'm still not an
SEO expert, it's up to others to examine that element. I've never had any reason to suspect Google of nefarious conduct until I came to WPW, and when all is said and done, I've not been convinced that a genuine case has been made.