[HN Gopher] Escaping Google's Manual Reputation Penalty and Resu...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Escaping Google's Manual Reputation Penalty and Resuming Business
       as Usual
        
       Author : fueloil
       Score  : 70 points
       Date   : 2024-12-21 14:24 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (recleudo.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (recleudo.com)
        
       | fueloil wrote:
       | Finixio/Clickout Media's websites, including Techopedia,
       | ReadWrite, and Business2Community, suffered significant traffic
       | and ranking losses following Google's December 2, 2024, algorithm
       | update, likely due to manual penalties for site reputation abuse.
       | In response, Finixio employed redirects and cloaking techniques
       | to swiftly restore operations, demonstrating the resilience and
       | adaptability of sophisticated parasite SEO strategies in evading
       | even severe penalties.
        
       | jaronilan wrote:
       | OT: earlier this year I wrote a short fictional story about
       | SEO....
       | 
       | https://github.com/jaronilan/stories/blob/main/Duplicitous.p...
        
         | arjvik wrote:
         | Wow, love the story, still processing it
        
       | nothercastle wrote:
       | Just goes to show you how far behind the SEO scammers Google is.
       | Despite being bigger and wealthier Google simply can't catch the
       | more nimble SEO scammers
        
         | wkat4242 wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure Google is milking them now by just selling ad
         | words, they no longer care about the search results, just how
         | much money they make
        
           | bn-l wrote:
           | Also SEO provides at least something for the long tail. My
           | belief is that the algorithm is able to predict what looks
           | like "content" to a broad consumer base. Then the fatter the
           | tail gets the more they manually tweak the results (like
           | editors doing publishing).
        
           | Drakim wrote:
           | What you are saying sounds like hyperbole, but all it takes
           | is for the management within google to blindly chase metrics
           | and they end up doing exactly that.
        
             | Nextgrid wrote:
             | That's the point - willingly saying that they promote spam
             | sites to milk ad revenue could land them in antitrust
             | trouble. But all they have to so is merely _not_ do
             | anything that would downrank said spam sites, and the
             | outcome is exactly the same yet they are now legally in the
             | clear and can just blame incompetence for the (totally
             | predictable) outcome.
        
             | bootloop wrote:
             | I mean that is exactly what each and every Google team
             | does. There is no decision being made without having the
             | data "supporting" it.
             | 
             | But every graph can be shown nicely and things which are
             | common sense don't need a metric to proof it.
        
       | greenchair wrote:
       | geo location trick is absolutely fascinating!
        
         | Nextgrid wrote:
         | And also absolutely trivial to detect automatically. The fact
         | that Google doesn't do it proves they don't give a shit about
         | improving search quality beyond superficial efforts whose main
         | objective is just to make it look like they do. Maybe the fact
         | that most spam sites have Google Analytics & Ads has something
         | to do with it?
        
       | throwaway743 wrote:
       | So sick of dealing with Google, between this, the play store,
       | admob, etc. They'll punish you for the slightest things, have
       | zero meaningful customer service/means of recourse, and in many
       | cases don't have a way to even reach out to customer service
       | (admob's email option is visible but throws an error every time
       | you click it). Not to mention, they try to steer you towards
       | their useless "community forums" that sre filled with "diamond
       | users" who just spam copy/paste responses.
       | 
       | If your business depends on their services, you're fucked if you
       | slip up in the smallest way. Have fun trying to get ahold of
       | anyone who can help, unless you're lucky and have a friend who
       | works there.
       | 
       | Side note, they're going to further penalize apps based on
       | performance/ANRs, yet they haven't fixed the issue of admob's
       | banner ads causing performance issues.
       | 
       | It just feels awful. We need more options that can actually help
       | small businesses, not hurt or threaten them.
        
         | mavamaarten wrote:
         | Yup. Dealing with Google often gives me strong "I'm being held
         | hostage" vibes.
         | 
         | Our apps have been rejected from the Play Store for bogus
         | reasons multiple times. Sometimes it's an easy fix (aka just
         | release the same update but with higher version number - to get
         | another bot or human to take a look), sometimes it takes a
         | week, sometimes we've had to pull strings and had to escalate
         | our issue through a contact at Google. But if you're a small
         | fish, they will absolutely let you rot.
        
         | pyr0hu wrote:
         | Can agree. We are awaiting for a response on our DUNs number.
         | They said we have to provide a DUNS number, which we have, and
         | it has to be exactly 9 characters long. Ours is 10. Apple
         | accepts it, Google does not. Even the DUNS lookup site only
         | finds our company using the 10 characters number.
         | 
         | Google gives no response just extended the deadline until they
         | remove our account for not providing the DUNs number.
         | 
         | Funny thing is that our number starts with a zero so
         | theoretically it could be 9 characters long but the official
         | lookup requires the 0 prefix
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-21 18:00 UTC)