Editor

Chicago, IL, USA
Contact: Editor's E-mail

January 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

READERS

« Would It Matter If a Problogger Left the Blogosphere? | Main | The Santa Barbara News-Press Debacle Still Being Debated »

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Google's Lauren Turner Learns a Valuable Lesson

 Lauren Turner, Account Planner, Health, writing at Google's Google Health Advertising Blog, says she has learned something from her June 29, 2007, post headlined  Does negative press make you Sicko?":
"Well, I've learned a few things since I posted on Friday. For one thing, even though this is a new blog, we have readers! That's a good thing. Not so good is that some readers thought the opinion I expressed about the movie Sicko was actually Google's opinion. It's easy to understand why it might have seemed that way, because after all, this is a corporate blog. So that was my mistake -- I understand why it caused some confusion.
Lauren, your critics didn't get confused. You expressed an opinion about "Sicko" on Google's Health Advertising Blog, which offers "News and Notes from Google's Health Advertising Team."  Therefore, it's Google's opinion. If you didn't want people to view it that way, you shouldn't have criticized the movie on blog that's designed to woo healthcare advertising.  

To read Lauren's entire post, please see "My opinion and Google's. By the way, I hope the folks at Google see this as simply a mistake and leave it at that. It's not a firing offense in my opinion.  

And Lauren, put a date on your posts. It's more valuable to researchers than a time stamp.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d0a1d53ef00e008d057f68834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Google's Lauren Turner Learns a Valuable Lesson:

Comments

A side effect of this is now any time someone in a large company wants to show a little transparency by creating a company blog to communicate with the public as an alternative to the heavily scrubbed and vetted releases from the writers in the Marketing Dept, they only need to point to this example as a reason not to.

There should be a away to create a more casual, honest window into corporations where its understood that these are individual people talking, not the corporate entity itself.

Hey people, please, tell to google guy(s) that PENALTY for EXTERNAL SEO FACTORS is NONSENSE, because it opens the way for de-SEO - techniques to downrank sites of competitors! Hey, everyone can programmatically (in special way) spam guestbooks, blogs, directories, "bad neighborhoods" with links to downrank their competitors! It seems that Google programmers don’t understand simple logical things... shame on google programmers!

Google MUST remove algorithms of PENALTY for external SEO techniques immediately! Or there will be a lot of google de-SEO firms very soon, which will heavily undermine corporative google image in the following way:

"We are offering services for downranking your competitors in google
- Sandboxing $299
- 30 Filtering $99
Any website or separate web pages with PR lower than 6. Guarantee."

Shame on google programmers!

If google do not remove penalties for external factors, then it will have BIG TROUBLES very soon. Many webmasters will say good bye to PARANOID Google, and will say hello to CLEAN Yahoo!

2-3 years ago there was a possibility just to write a good high-quality and relevant articles, create web pages, follow guidelines and that was enough to appear in top google search results. It was a significant advantage of google - to rank sites not only for internal SEO tricks & backlinks, but also for _relevant_ content. 2-3 years ago the factor of relevancy of content was important as well as the factor of amount of relevant back links.
Nowadays, algorithm of google is completely different than 2-3 years ago, and the factor of back links is significantly more important than relevancy of content! A lot of high-quality sites were downranked, undervalued or just partially disappeared from top index for no obvious reason. I read a lot of google patents, and I must admit that there are serious logical mistakes and contradictions in fundamental assumptions of many algorithms. I call them NOISE ALGORITHMS, because while performing "smart" filtering and evaluations of site rankings these algorithms introduce a lot of unnecessary informational noise and disorder, instead of just finding relevant content.

It sad to say, but nowadays google reminds me the old AltaVista.

Yes, I hope she's learned something too. For another view on this controversy, see my blog post linked below.

The comments to this entry are closed.