Now the site got even more knocked down the results list because of all the websites reporting about his site being knocked down the results list
[quote]The site in question, [url]www.briansouter.com[/url], details Sir Brian's life, includes a picture gallery and gives news updates about the Stagecoach founder.[/quote]
So it's basically his twitter account.
Google's search algorithm is continually changing, sites go up and down on it, now on a daily basis.
I hate how the media is trying to portray this as if Google purposefully made his site invisible as if they control where all websites rank, when in reality, it's a fully automated process (except in certain cases when you use naughty techniques to go up rankings quickly, that's moderated by a team of individuals).
It was quite easy to rank highly back in 2008, and it still is in 2011, but the methods you'd employ are different. That's why SEO/SEM is a highly sought after skill in itself.
I don't think Google give a fuck about his shitty website
This isn't anything about website ranking or whether his website is shitty or not. The website doesn't appear on google at all, not even if you search briansouter.com or any of the content on the website. Google may not have purposely made it invisible, but there's certainly an issue with google that needs addressing
It might have been falsely flagged as a spam website, or the algorithm might have detected incoming links from known spam sources. In those cases the site usually goes down in rankings for a period of time (from about a week to 2 months) to give the webmaster time to amend the situation.
[quote]It's not Google's place to decide which sites we can see and those we can't.[/quote]
It's their search engine so they can decide what they want, this just shows how stupid this person is. Never even heard of the guy until today, he's a nobody in my eyes.
Pretty sure there was a board meeting at google where they decided not to show his website in the results. That's what happened.
[QUOTE=garry;32254715]Pretty sure there was a board meeting at google where they decided not to show his website in the results. That's what happened.[/QUOTE]
and so it begins
How many people visit that site everyday, maybe 1 person accidentally?
[QUOTE=Yzooo;32254089]It's their search engine so they can decide what they want, this just shows how stupid this person is. Never even heard of the guy until today, he's a nobody in my eyes.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, it's his business we're talking about.
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=wutanggrenad;32255107]How many people visit that site everyday, maybe 1 person accidentally?[/QUOTE]
So?
The fact of the matter is that google has absolutely no obligation to make any site appear. They're a private business that runs a service which he probably didn't pay for anyways. There's no law that says his site needs to appear in the top results (unless he specifically paid for a sponsored link spot). The whole issue is probably just an automated problem anyways, and will probably be fixed in a few days anyways now that a fuss has been made about it.
His other website still shows up when you search his name.. [url]http://www.souterinvestments.com/[/url]
The California company "mumbled" a response about changes made to its search algorithm, according to Sir Brian.
and that is exactly what happened do you really expect a site with only 48 links from external domains a large number of them non english going to an english site as well as obvious marketing sites to be the top ranking google result [URL]http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=www.briansouter.com%2F&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=s[/URL] also going incredibly heavy on anchor text each link always saying "Brian Souter" is a great pointer to search engines that the link profile is unnatural and therefore penalise it.
If you are really that bothered hire an SEO team before you give uneducated comments about how google works
[QUOTE=Yzooo;32254089]It's their search engine so they can decide what they want, this just shows how stupid this person is. Never even heard of the guy until today, he's a nobody in my eyes.[/QUOTE]
You don't see any reason why it is/should be illegal for Google to omit websites it doesn't like?
They have the power to bring whole companies down through the flick of a (code-) switch. "Oh, Apple's suing us and our partners. *click* Apple doesn't exist anymore on the internet i.e. the Western World! That will show 'em"
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;32253619]It was quite easy to rank highly back in 2008, and it still is in 2011, but the methods you'd employ are different. That's why SEO/SEM is a highly sought after skill in itself.[/QUOTE]
which is why when you search "fucking incredible" on Google facepunch comes up
[QUOTE=Robber;32256274]You don't see any reason why it is/should be illegal for Google to omit websites it doesn't like?
They have the power to bring whole companies down through the flick of a (code-) switch. "Oh, Apple's suing us and our partners. *click* Apple doesn't exist anymore on the internet i.e. the Western World! That will show 'em"[/QUOTE]
They made the engine, they can do whatever they want with it. There are many other search engines out there.
[QUOTE=Robber;32256274]You don't see any reason why it is/should be illegal for Google to omit websites it doesn't like?
They have the power to bring whole companies down through the flick of a (code-) switch. "Oh, Apple's suing us and our partners. *click* Apple doesn't exist anymore on the internet i.e. the Western World! That will show 'em"[/QUOTE]
Though in this instance it's a direct attempt by an individual to make their website appear more popular than it actually is. Stuff like this degrades the quality of google's search results, and thus they have to penalize sites that do this. I do agree with you though, it would be unethical to block links to a competitor's site.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.