How easy is it to trick Google?

[janeth]

How easy is it to trick Google?
A search for "miserable failure" brings up the biography of George W. Bush on the official White House Web site as #1 at this time.

The phrase appears no where on the site.

Some people thought it would be funny to link to the site using those search terms now it is ranked #1.

Who says links do not work?

I found the post on another forum here http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=30592#30592

[minstrel]

How easy is it to trick Google?I believe Google hopes that it will be less easy since "the dance" than before...


A search for "miserable failure" brings up the biography of George W. Bush on the official White House Web site as #1 at this time. The phrase appears no where on the site.
The guys at Google have always had a sense of humor... a couple of years ago, hitting the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button after entering "satan" or some similar term brought up the Microsoft website.. I think this is another example of that, not "Google-tricking"...


Some people thought it would be funny to link to the site using those search terms now it is ranked #1. Who says links do not work?
I'm not sure I understand "link to the site using those search terms now that it is #1" - outbound links don't elevate your site in Google listings...

[janeth]

Hi minstrel,
Some other web sites linked to that site with those search terms that is why it is there.

[minstrel]

Some other web sites linked to that site with those search terms that is why it is there.
Oh, okay - I see what you were saying now. However, I am sceptical that this is actually the case, since Google has done things like this in the past

I haven't read the information on the other forum...

[janeth]

Here you go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

Web users entering the words "miserable failure" into the popular search engine are directed to the biography of the president on the White House website.

The trick is possible because Google searches more than just the contents of web pages - it also counts how often a site is linked to, and with what words.

Thus, members of an online community can affect the results of Google searches - called "Google bombing" - by linking their sites to a chosen one.

Weblogger Adam Mathes is credited with inventing the practice in 2001, when he used it to link the phrase "talentless hack" to a friend's website.

The search engine can be manipulated by a fairly small group of users, one report suggested.

Newsday newspaper says as few as 32 web pages with the words "miserable failure" link to the Bush biography.

[greeneagle]

Bombs and Blogs affect a large part of the Internet. including other search engines.

Guess what, the same #1 link comes up under Yahoo using the same search words.

See BBC article: Miserable failure' links to Bush
subtitled: George W Bush has been Google bombed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

[janeth]

This should show how much weight a link to your web site has.

[minstrel]

The trick is possible because Google searches more than just the contents of web pages - it also counts how often a site is linked to, and with what words.

Thus, members of an online community can affect the results of Google searches - called "Google bombing" - by linking their sites to a chosen one.

I understand - my point was I'm not convinced that this works because Google is "tricked" - I think the Google guys have a evidenced sense of humor and in some cases concoct these gags themselves and in others encourage or facilitate them because they find them amusing and it doesn't affect the integrity of their "real" searches".

[janeth]

Hi minstrel,

Google is controlled by a bot and a bunch of geeks. I do not think they have any type of sense of humor.

[minstrel]

Google is controlled by a bot and a bunch of geeks. I do not think they have any type of sense of humor.
Google utilizes a bot... the "geeks" control it... and those geeks a few short years ago were university students who had a bright idea one day, probably at a kegger... I think they have retained their sense of humor.

[greeneagle]

You might try Go.com too, I am sure there are several after those bombs and blogs!
Ken

[tiger1]

janeth wrote:
...... geeks. I do not think they have any type of sense of humor.

Not true - some of the funniest people I know are self-confessed geeks! Maybe it's the steriods, Janeth!

[janeth]

Hi tiger1,
It may be the steroids

I can not believe that on your very first post you have to agree with minstrel that is a bad sign.

[tiger1]

I can not believe that on your very first post you have to agree with minstrel that is a bad sign.

But you must admit that I'm right though - you have a sense of humour and you are a self-confessed geek!
The defense rest.

[janeth]

Yes I guess your right but it still looks bad you agreeing with minstrel

[minstrel]

Hey! "When you're right, you're right! And I'm always right!" - I forget who said that... maybe it was my son...

[Mac 5]

In "Miracle on 34th Street," the Post Office sending letter to Santa was proof that Macy's Santa was the real Santa. Does Googles result prove George W. Bush is a miserable failure?

[greeneagle]

Thanks Mac 5 - Good Insight!

[rlrouse]

This isn't a trick at all. "Miserable Failure" isn't a very competitive search term. A Google search on it only returns 220,000 odd search results.

A few hundred people who dislike Bush and call him a "miserable failure" in the anchor text of a link to that specific whitehouse.gov page in forums and blogs would easily do the trick.

Do the same search for "lying scumbag" and look at the 5th listing on the page.

Regardless of whoever happens to be President at any given time, a similar search would likely provide simlar results.

[Keimos]

Having been cought by the "Google Dance", second year running, we should all be aware and adjust our sites accordingly????????????????????

The above examples are totally irrelevant as they bear no relation or real information about what Google has done to their Algorithms. Or as I put it they have been down the pub and relevancy may just have gone out the window.

I have been placed top ten since 1996 and have tweaked my site to adjust for the various changes that have taken place.

Myths or not???

Links do not count. False.
I run four sites, one which has over a thousnad links to it, although according to google not any more. Two other sites that have never had any links placed have done less well but have been equally as successful.

Conclusion: Links help but are not the answer.

Having been through scroogle and having a wild stab in the dark, it woulld seem that the search is moving to 3 word phrases as most two word searches can bring up a lot of erroneous results.

i.e. web design brings up 6,.940,000 results
however if you search for web design companies you only get 4,180,000.

Both searches produce different #1.

Why? Because Google treats each word as individual and looks for each word in its search. Guess what thats not new news, but look at the results. The top ten are different for both searches.

whereas before the dance you may have found a mixture. I think what google has done, and I may wevery well be wrong is to discount the 2 word search in favour of the three or more word search.

Yes, we have known that for ages but that is where I think the new algorithm has hit a lot of sites.

And yes, meta tags "Title" especially and "keywords" do play a part. I'm not sure about "description" but it has had an effect in the past.

This has just been a quick ramble and hopefully will bring some constructive thoughts to this thread.

Minstral and Janeth phone each other, let the air fly with your thoughts instead of venting your frustrations out on each other with wasted forum space.

Keimos

just another geek with no humour who lives in front of his computer, likes The Simpsons, Star Trek, Golf and sex drugs and rock n' roll.

:-)

[minstrel]

Minstrel and Janeth phone each other, let the air fly with your thoughts instead of venting your frustrations out on each other with wasted forum space.
If you'll read through a few more of these threads, it will become apparent that we are not "venting our frustrations out on each other" (sic) - it's all in fun, which is part of what these forums are about. I don't think that we are "wasting forum space" any more than you are...

[janeth]

Yes minstrel and I are great friends and I do not feel like us playing around from time to time is hurting anything.

[mikmik]

And I have to add that janeth, yes, you there right above me, I know you see me...
Any ways, janeth, What are you eating lately? You are getting really witty! And funnier! And I won't tell anyone that you made me say this!

(got your e-mail, will reply tonight..s-s-h-h-h-h)

[janeth]

mikmik
Your really great at keeping secrets I'm sure no one will be able to figure it out

[janeth]

Hi Keimos
You said
"The above examples are totally irrelevant as they bear no relation or real information about what Google has done to their Algorithms. Or as I put it they have been down the pub and relevancy may just have gone out the window."

I do not think anyone said anything about it being relevant to any changes Google has made. But since it is ranked number one it does become relevant due to the fact that the key words are not on the site any where which would prove that Google is counting the links over any text

You said
"I have been placed top ten since 1996 and have tweaked my site to adjust for the various changes that have taken place."

This is irrelevant because we have no idea for what key words your talking about.

you said
"Conclusion: Links help but are not the answer."

I would say they do a lot more then just help I can show you key words that the only way they got there was by links. Well just look at the top of the page for a good start.

You said
"Having been through scroogle and having a wild stab in the dark, it woulld seem that the search is moving to 3 word phrases as most two word searches can bring up a lot of erroneous results."

I'm at a lost here you can search for 1, 2 , 3, 4 , , , , word phrases and you should get good results

you said

"Why? Because Google treats each word as individual and looks for each word in its search. Guess what thats not new news, but look at the results. The top ten are different for both searches.

whereas before the dance you may have found a mixture. I think what google has done, and I may wevery well be wrong is to discount the 2 word search in favour of the three or more word search."

If the top ten was different before the dance and now you find a mixture that sounds the same to me.

You said
"Minstral and Janeth phone each other, let the air fly with your thoughts instead of venting your frustrations out on each other with wasted forum space."

There are people on this forum that are here trying to get help and give help after you run into these people over and over you become friends it is this friendship and desire to both learn and help that makes this forum so great. If you feel like a friendly joke or us saying something from time to time is wasted forum space then get a life.

[minstrel]

it would seem that the search is moving to 3 word phrases as most two word searches can bring up a lot of erroneous results, e.g., web design brings up 6,940,000 results. However if you search for web design companies you only get 4,180,000. Both searches produce different #1... The top ten are different for both searches,
whereas before the dance you may have found a mixture. I think what Google has done, and I may wevery well be wrong is to discount the 2 word search in favour of the three or more word search.
You will almost always see slightly different results by adding more words to your search phrase, on any SE. You will also see slightly different results by changing the order of those same words. This is nothing new - nothing has changed in this regard as far as I can see.

By the way, checking the Google Dance Tool (http://googledance.seochat.com/) for a couple of search phrases tonight, I see differences from www.google.com to the www2 and www3 databases, usually an indication that the adjustments are continuing,

[internetbasedmom]

Janeth & Minstrel...I'm a total newbie here and I don't think you'd have to read any other posts to tell you were joking. It was clear. :)

Minstrel - Hello from the other side of Canada. I'm in BC.

Hi Keimos - Google actually does not index your keyword meta tags. And to some extent it does use your description tag. The keyword meta tag has nearly reached its sad death with only Inktomi using it now.

About the incoming links - I have seen splash pages with no text on them other than "enter" here rank very well for reasonably competitive keyword phrases. And it seems to be due to the incoming links....GRRRRR....

Night all,
Alice

[greeneagle]

As I posted in another thread we recently designed a website for a client that had his old website down for more than a year!, yet he maintained a 3 GOOGLE PR for his URL with no website at all.

This amazed us, and on further investigation we found he had several "quality" links from top sources, governmental agencies and so on.

Does that mean that Incoming "quality" links are rated as heavily as 20-30%?

client site: www.tubeltechnologies.com
Ken

[jonathan9926]

google puts me in page 1 then in page 50 in less than a day.