The Bad Publicity SEO - Threats for Links, ya dig?

The guy was a bit of a dick and deserved to have his site removed from the search engines.

Wonder how they implemented this. Basically the filter they are using is very powerful it can demote site rankings almost overriding all the other factors that they use in rankings.
Can you spam blogs about a competitor and get their rank lowered? Google would probably have taken this into account already, I would have thought.
 


This story is undoubtedly fake, and its sad that you can't even trust the larger newspapers anymore. Threatening to rape someone, identity theft and harassment are crimes - they're not just bullying. If any of that was real, he would be arrested.
 
This story is undoubtedly fake, and its sad that you can't even trust the larger newspapers anymore. Threatening to rape someone, identity theft and harassment are crimes - they're not just bullying. If any of that was real, he would be arrested.

I don't recall threats of rape in the NY Times article. I don't doubt the authenticity of the story, the NY Times wouldn't get suckered over something so petty as a douchebag merchant. Paranoid much? It really just highlights the apathy of the police to vague threats.

On another note, the story of goog's response is now on the front page of MSN. I'm sure the guy behind decormyeyes is definitely regretting talking to the reporter, without his bragging the story would have been a cautionary footnote in the paper's business section to research who you buy from.
 
This story is undoubtedly fake, and its sad that you can't even trust the larger newspapers anymore. Threatening to rape someone, identity theft and harassment are crimes - they're not just bullying. If any of that was real, he would be arrested.

he is currently in litigation and has been arrested on a separate issue

lschmidt said:
I also wouldn't be surprised if SE's will eventually be able to interpret data such as complaints from legitimate complain websites (or data from say the BBB), and use that data in their ranking algorithm.

the problem is how would google discriminate "negative reviews" for some political figure or someone who has a lot of shit talked against them but still should have the most relevant result?
 
the problem is how would google discriminate "negative reviews" for some political figure or someone who has a lot of shit talked against them but still should have the most relevant result?

They just wouldn't count links from negative sites like complaintsboard.com as backlinks or "votes". They don't have to make the links a negative value, just drop them from consideration altogether.
 
he is currently in litigation and has been arrested on a separate issue



the problem is how would google discriminate "negative reviews" for some political figure or someone who has a lot of shit talked against them but still should have the most relevant result?

I'm guessing they would take a look at the business complaint sites like rip off reports and then count how many negative comments there are and then rank them lower because of it. Then again that can be abused.
 
I did a search when I first read the article to confirm the ranking, the site was there just like the article said, searched again just now and, poof, it's gone.


me too, that guy's site is gone for good but that's not what i was talking about.

Official Google Blog: Being bad to your customers is bad for business :
Instead, in the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience.


i just don't see how their algo can tell the difference between a competitor flooding a bunch of review sites with bad reviews about your business and a psycho like this guy.
the only solution would be to just ignore links from those type of sites.