What If Google Penguin accidentally killed Updates Web As We Know It?

Note: This article title may be a bit sensational, but do not ignore the “what if” part. I’m not suggesting I have some plot to kill the web. However, many companies rely on Google and people are panicking about backlinks. Some going so far to threaten legal action if the links are not removed. Links. If any legal action as it has resulted in the restriction of a link in any capacity, the web as we know can be put at risk. People are afraid to link. I do not think Google wants for such things to happen, but people do not always respond to things in the most rational way. I do not believe we’ll see a link banned or the update will kill the Penguin website. However, a reaction to Google’s penalty led to some pretty strong actions of some.

Google has said many times that he thought Penguin has become a successfully updated. Do you agree? Let us know in the comments.

PageRank and Web

WWW, as you know, stands for World Wide Web. Because they are associated with the link. Entire web sites link to each other, creating a way for users to click from page to page. Often the page on another site. This is the method that worked for years. Just think what would happen if the site is not free to link to each other. Web is broken, and users will suffer.

When Google launched its PageRank algorithm, it is a revolution in search. It seems to be a better way to search. Provides rhyme and reason for ranking search results. Now, Google uses over 200 signals to rank search results, which become more personal than ever before. PageRank is still important, but it is far from the only thing that matters.

However, the PageRank of a web link so much power to affect the visibility of web content. Now almost everyone on the web, everyone is struggling with their content viewed. Sometimes, you think: the more links either. More links can only lead to more of a chance people will see your content. Now, rather ironic, people are discovering that they have a link out there will lower their content. In some cases, they make it almost does not exist in Google, or at least to be buried, will also be gone.

Ordinary Time Out?

Google updates Penguin is a major wake up call to the webmaster about some sort of linking practices. These updates are designed to target violates Google’s quality guidelines that site. Along with these rules: “Do not participate in link schemes” and “Avoid hidden text or hidden links.”

Some guidelines Google is clear – obviously avoiding unethical practices. But in the scheme of relations department, things can get a little fuzzy. Just ask WPMU.org, who was hit by a penguin for some questionable link (pretty interesting, as it seems the benefits of the Google Panda update, which is designed to reward high quality sites).

Many webmasters taken in the forum and blogs to complain about Penguin updates, but Google has, more than on occasion, considered a successfully updated. We also see that come back around every so often, like its predecessor Panda.

Even before the Penguins, I sent a message to the webmaster ton remind them of questionable link. All of this is captured webmaster frenzy to clean up their profile link, and reduce the number of links Google considers poor quality, which may be expected to find their way back to contents visibility of Google search.

During Legal Action Link?

Some webmasters will even go so far threatened legal action against websites that link to them. Reference this, we have another article after Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable mention that it happened. Now, Greg Finn Search Engine Land pointed to specific examples where PSKL received a DMCA notice from LifeShield down, then writing a positive review.

Now, to be clear, this does not refer to the departure of DMCA notices on any content or use of content theft. It’s about the link. It threatened legal action. He said:

I ask you to remove them from the following site (pskl.us)

www.lifeshield.com all links on the website soon.

To find a link, please do the following:

If it is an online directory of the website, use the search system directory to find the “LifeShield” link.
If there is a hidden link on the main page of the website source code, open the site and view the source code. Search for “lifeshield.com” in the source code and find the hidden link.

He also said:

LifeShield, Inc.. Check legal action if the webmaster does not remove the reference links within 48 hours.

Jeremy on PSKL actually share the entire conversation in the issue, which does not include an apology, suggesting that PSKL not be on the list of sites that receive notifications. Jeremy, however, may issue a list of sites to receive notifications. Throughout the conversation, he announced LifeShield is a site that “lifeshield robe and generate additional links back to 700K” LifeShield unnoticed, and the “Google stepped in and slapped” them with punishment, which causes of layoffs in the company.

Jeremy responded, “So you’re saying that there went out and bought a 700K link back to you, knowing that your penalized by Google? So does that mean you have to (name of company) sent a DMCA notice 700K? Talk about throwing good money after bad. Linkspam to report spam team at Google, then spend the money on an SEO expert rather than trying to scare people with the threat. ‘

The response is actually longer than that, and includes metaphors extinguish a fire in the house with fertilizer, but it’s main core.

I recommend reading the whole post Jeremy. Quite interesting.

Is it a Go Where You?

He did make an important point in this: A party created a large number of backlinks to your site to generate the SEO (or, in this case, destroying SEO) is unethical. It is not illegal.

While many may not have a problem with being illegal practices, the idea that the law can intervene to connect in any way that could cause bigger problems. Just consider all of the f the gray area of ​​the law no fair use. Always have different interpretations, and may be dangerous.

For the record (granted, I’m a lawyer), I would not expect any legal action, as threatening the DMCA notice LifeShield to hold a lot of water in a court of law. Finn also shows two cases (Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises) and (Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc..), Where the legality linking to win.

But even things like this should go to court, it is a huge inconvenience and legal fees paid. If the site is legitimate practice, the habit linking ethics stayed in, where does that leave the web?

Is this what connects to the World Wide Web will be? You need to worry about starting sued because you connect to a site, and the site may or may not find your site on a site enough to want a strong link from? You can get sued because your page is not a high PageRank and link juice is not enough to help you connect to a site in search engine visibility?

LifeShield webspam apparently targeting some very specific, but sending notices the full list of sites. The possibility that the LifeShield is not just panicing company and move on to action. It is a pity, for if some negative SEO company (not clear if it is from a competitor) has an effect on the business, such as Jeremy suggests, this is probably not the best way to try to resolve the issue.

Let’s Give Credit Multiple Google.

You can display the Google guidelines and update algorithms, which clearly caused some to think this way, but just the same, we can not be held entirely to blame for this kind of mentality is good. The company has said in the past that people should not be obsessed with PageRank, and it uses more than 200 signals to rank content. PageRank is not the only thing that matters. In fact, the company puts a list every month of the signal changes.

This shows the power of the people I hold very least. It shows how many businesses rely on Google as they go so far as to threaten a site just connected them with legal action.

Should legal action that will lead to success in the courts, which could mean bad news for the Web as we know it, and people will be afraid to link. I would think that spawn more problems on sites that do not get the credit (and possibly referral traffic) they deserve.

Do you think the Google rules and penalties may have an influence on legislation? Now that would be strength, and made more ironic, the fact that Google is constantly under surveillance themselves.