Google's Big Pap Attack, Part 2

Ken's Blog

This was not supposed to be Part 2. It was not supposed to exist at all, actually. But adding this is the only way I can help things make sense to those impacted by the other half of what Google is attempting to do... at the same time, it released its algorithm to fight content farms (except ehow.com -- it seems ehow.com is not a pap-churner, after all, despite the clear impression to the opposite of thousands of knowledge surfers and Blekko's inclusion of it on their blacklist -- but I digress).

Google launched Google Recipes at the same time as they launched their "content farm" algorithm to root out pap. If you have not followed the content farm story, start here...

http://blog.sitesell.com/sitesell/2011/02/googles-big-pap-attack-part-1.html

(Read the background posts that I link to in that post.)

If you have not followed the Google Recipes story, start here...

http://blog.sitesell.com/sitesell/2011/03/want-a-no-paying-data-entry-job-at-google-recipes.html

It's a fascinating story of exclusion of the "individual" followed by the coercion of same. Well worth the read.

Now, for those with recipe sites, put that fact aside for a moment...

Let's suppose any site (recipe or not) has dropped in traffic, as of Feb 24, by 10%, or 30%, or 50%. How does that site know whether it was a mathematically random event and that it will pop back up shortly?

-----SIDEBAR-----
On any given day, every site's traffic bumps up or down,
most by only a few percent -- some by much greater
amounts. The larger the amounts and the longer it lasts,
the less likely it is to be a purely mathematical random
event. Random events ultimately right themselves, but they
can, due to the nature of randomness, last only a day or
they can last 2 weeks or more.
-----SIDEBAR-----

Statistical analysis can tell you when you've crossed out of the land of randomness and into "something is wrong."

Let's suppose it was not "random." Suppose instead that it was a glitch in Google's new trap-pap algorithm (in other words you are not "guilty" of creating pappy content or link "pap"/spam).

If you are not guilty, you are what is called a "false-positive." "False" means Google has falsely identified you as being a "papper" (or a "content farmer," if you prefer that term). The fact that you may lose your home (as Adam is in danger of as seen in the SBI! Forums) is irrelevant.

How high do you think Adam is on Google's priority list?

"Not very" would be the right answer!

But the criteria for prioritization vary according to who you are and how much noise you can make publicly.

It seems that Leander Kahney, another "false-positive," was put back into the index shortly after tweeting Matt Cutts directly....

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/03/02/google-algorithm-update-to-get-new-layer-to-help-falsely-caught-sites

It helps, of course, that Leander Kahney was former Executive Editor of WIRED Magazine. He also wrote to WIRED. (Google abhors negative publicity.) Read his desperate pleas over there...

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/google-spam-side-effects/

Kahney was clearly just as upset as Adam, although he didn't mention if he was about to lose his home.

Amazingly, this multi-billion dollar company, Google, upon hearing the Kahney story (that he was no longer on the "pap list"), was quick to use Danny Sullivan as the outlet to release a ridiculous denial/non-denial about one single individual human being...

http://searchengineland.com/google-weve-made-no-significant-changes-to-the-farmer-update-66591

Why "ridiculous?" Google's story was specifically to deny that Kahney was NOT back in the index due to any manual or other change. Yet they would "NOT discuss the details" of how Kahney got back into the index?

Well, that really clarified matters...

No manual change. No algorithm change. But...

1) Kahney was a false-positive.

2) Kahney tweets Matt Cutts and contacts WIRED.

3) Kahney is not a false-positive. Kahney is happy (i.e., quiet).

Google denies making it happen.

So... it's... an... act... of... God? Because I understand that computers don't make decisions that have not been programmed.

After Sullivan reports they have made no changes (manual or algo), he reports Google saying that "there have been the usual smaller tweaks that are constantly being made to its search algorithms."

Uh-huh. Are we supposed to believe that one of those tweaks reverses a 50% drop in traffic, a complicated algorithm that identified Kahney as a dangerous papper? I don't think so.

And what happened to those statements that there had been no changes? What are "tweaks"? Changes? In any event...

We'd like Google to take a look into the desperate life of another individual human being. His name is Adam.

Adam is still not going to make the mortgage.

I'd like to believe that someone took an interest in Kahney and reversed his false-positive status out of the goodness of their hearts.

The alternative explanation is that Google hates negative publicity. It shakes public confidence in them, rightly so. If that is the case, then the scenario reads more like this...

"Put Kahney back in, whichever way is possible. Make this story go away. Then deny it."

Whether Google wants to call that a tweak is up to them.

But on the off-chance that Kahney was put in on a humanitarian basis and not as a cynical move to stop negative publicity...

Google, could you put Adam back in, too, please?

We'll give you full contact info for Adam when you reach us. Just ask for Ken. :-)

Thanks very much.

All the best,

P.S. LATE UPDATE! If you feel that you're a false-positive, Google has provided a way for you to report this. Just click here.

Ignore their baloney about how much better things have gotten already...

NO WONDER they need this form! Sheesh, just apologize and get on with it.

If you do read the second half of that baloney, though, don't hold your breath...

"Note that as this is an algorithmic change we are unable to make manual exceptions, but in cases of high quality content we can pass the examples along to the engineers who will look at them as they work on future iterations and improvements to the algorithm. So even if you don't see us responding, know that we're doing a lot of listening."

Right. That's the standard line. I'll bet Kahney did not get that line. I bet Adam will.

The more I read, the more it seems they are losing control of the process.

One thing, just in case someone actually looks at your site -- do be as sure as you can that your site is clean before you submit. If you've been pumping pap on your site, there's not much point to submitting before you clean up.