This is the worst Christmas present possible. Well, Google had no choice and the apology was not a stellar one (not that it could have mattered).
If I recall correctly, Google once penalized Google Chrome for doing shady SEO [1]. Although it was not as brutal as this which sends them to the equivalent of Siberia.
My Questions.
1. I normally search "<song name> rapgenius". Now, it is no longer on the first few pages. Is that not against Google's goal of giving the searcher what (s)he wants?
2. Probably the only way for RapGenius to counter this would be to go heavy on AdWords. Is that not a bit conflicted on Google's side?
Hopefully this punishment will not be permanent. I would hope they have learned to tone things down sometimes.
This may be a lesson in disguise as they would be forced to think of how to survive without SEO. If they can survive now, they will be doubly badass when this penalty is lifted.
> I normally search "<song name> rapgenius". Now, it is no longer on the first few pages.
It's not an answer to whether Google is giving users what they want, but you can just create search engines in Chrome[0] for the sites you search frequently. Make sure you set a custom shortcut for it that's only one or two letters. When I want to search Rap Genius, I type 'rg ' (note the space) and I get this: http://i.imgur.com/At9KxBr.png
I have this for at least 20 different sites, so I almost never use Google if I know what site I want to search, a prominent exception being if the site's search really sucks, like reddit. In those cases, I have custom search engines set up that will search Google without whatever I searched, plus "site:example.com" appended to it.
You can also hack this functionality to set up shortcuts for frequently visited sites ('hn' for Hacker News, 'gm' for Gmail, etc.) by creating a search engine without a '%s' (which is where whatever you search is substituted in). So I type 'hn', hit Enter, and it takes me to http://news.ycombinator.com
As well as in firefox and opera (at least The Opera, not that crap they ship nowadays). And perhaps others.
Edit: That being said, searches on various sites often suck. My default search engine is Google's Feeling Lucky, so if I want to search and IMDb entry for example, I just type in `imdb <name of the movie>`. If I'd had imdb as a keyword for IMDb search, I'd go to the IMDb's search results and would have to click on the result. With feeling lucky search I end up on the entry directly. Same goes for Wikipedia and a few others. If I want to see Google results, I have a keyword for that - g.
> If I'd had imdb as a keyword for IMDb search, I'd go to the IMDb's search results and would have to click on the result. With feeling lucky search I end up on the entry directly.
Right, that's why I, if I were a frequent IMDb user, would have 'imdb' set up to do an I'm Feeling Lucky search with "site:imdb.com" suffixed to whatever I'd entered. Pretty much the same as suffixing 'imdb', but the "site:" syntax ensures that only IMDb results actually show up.
> Same goes for Wikipedia and a few others.
I actually find Wikipedia to be very good about sending me directly to the page of interest, without having to click through from a search results page. I use Wikipedia for movie info (rather than IMDb), and it works very well.
I use a "search shortcut" as well with the "Alfred App" for Mac. It's easy to bind a shortcut to either search directly at the intended site, or perform a google search with the appropriate prefix (i.e. "site:rapgenius.com).
If you're finding that you continuously make such searches, it might be worth taking the time to set up your shortcuts. I have them set for Amazon, YouTube, Wikipedia, EtymOnline, etc.
>Is that not against Google's goal of giving the searcher what (s)he wants?
definitely. That should tell you just how pissed off Google is - they are willing to go so far as to give their users an inferior search experience just to punish RapGenius. This isn't about being fair or getting even, this is about setting an example. If they have to give a few people inferior searches for a while, i guess they feel that's a worthy compromise in order to discourage this kind of SEO tactics in the future.
I think it just shows how this works; when a site gets penalized, it's across the board, regardless of search terms. And personally, I think lyrics sites without every single line being annotated by mostly lame jokes and pictures are actually better quality.
> they are willing to go so far as to give their users an inferior search experience just to punish RapGenius
Another way to look at it is that RapGenius was willing to go so far in their mindless quest for bling and Bieber fans that they overstretched the rubber band. Google basically gave them what they begged for, and now all that is left is HN to get over it.
I agree that this sends a strong message that google is willing to sacrifice user experience on it's own search engine to punish link schemes. RapGenius is by far the best lyric site from a user perspective. When I search for lyrics I look for a rap genius link.
But, google do have a choice? This is human stuff here, not an algorithm. I'm not going to argue about whether Google should have or not, but saying they "had no choice" isn't correct IMO.
I think the lack of choice he is referring to is trying to remain impartial. Sure, they could pick specific companies and give them better rankings or look the other way but that sets a really dangerous precedent for filtering information. In this case, it's just lyrics and Rap Genius appears to have better content than some of the other high ranking sites but you can't make an exception and start allowing some sites to break set rules.
1. I normally search "<song name> rapgenius". Now, it is no longer on the first few pages. Is that not against Google's goal of giving the searcher what (s)he wants?
One tip if you want to search in a site you can always use the "site:" trigger.
Example :
we will rock you site:rapgenius.com
------
Even if the site is penalised it isn't de indexed ( I guess ) so you still can do a site search.
Thats how I search every website. I never/hardly use any website's search, most times its awful.
This is the worst Christmas present possible. Well, Google had no choice and the apology was not a stellar one (not that it could have mattered).
If I recall correctly, Google once penalized Google Chrome for doing shady SEO [1]. Although it was not as brutal as this which sends them to the equivalent of Siberia.
My Questions.
1. I normally search "<song name> rapgenius". Now, it is no longer on the first few pages. Is that not against Google's goal of giving the searcher what (s)he wants?
2. Probably the only way for RapGenius to counter this would be to go heavy on AdWords. Is that not a bit conflicted on Google's side?
Hopefully this punishment will not be permanent. I would hope they have learned to tone things down sometimes.
This may be a lesson in disguise as they would be forced to think of how to survive without SEO. If they can survive now, they will be doubly badass when this penalty is lifted.
--
Edited to include source
[1] http://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pag...