Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web.
Feeds
5540 items (5015 unread) in 3 feeds
Google
(325 unread)
-
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog (325 unread)
SEO
(4690 unread)
-
Emily Chang (347 unread)
-
Search Engine Roundtable
(4343 unread)
Search Engine Roundtable (7 unread)
-
Daily Search Forum Recap: November 19, 2009
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 10:00pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Search Forum Recap
-
Google Disabling AdSense Accounts For Using Tamper Data Firefox Plugin
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 3:10pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Google AdSense
I have been seeing reports of Google banning and disabling AdSense accounts due to using a Firefox plugin named Tamper Data. Tamper Data allows people to view and modify HTTP/HTTPS headers and post parameters, which can be helpful, but also used for evil.
The emails being sent to these publishers read:
During a recent review of your account, our specialists found that tamper data was used to modify the country listed in your account. Changing your address in this manner is a violation of our policy guidelines.
What appears is happening is that publishers are signing up using Tamper Data to fake their location. You can read why and how this is done at this blog and this one.
In summary, certain countries are not allowed to sign up for AdSense so people fake where they are from. I am not sure why people would use this technique when they are in an approved location, unless I am missing something?
You can read the dozens of threads about this at Google AdSense Help or a thread at WebmasterWorld.
-
Google Maps Satellite Images Being Posterized?
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 3:02pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Other Google Topics
A Google Maps Help thread reports that at least one satellite image in South Africa has a weird posterization effect to it.
You can see it yourself at 33°55'7.79"S, 25°35'2.40"E, or Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Here is a picture:
This looks like a heavily posterized image to me, but I doubt that was the case. There must have been some type of interference when the image was captured?
Forum discussion at Google Maps Help.
-
Bing UK Out of Beta, But Too Soon?
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 2:49pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Microsoft MSN Search
About a week ago, Bing announced they have taken Bing UK (www.bing.co.uk) out of beta. They basically said, you can now get more relevant UK results when in the UK and searching in the UK. Here is a snippet from the blog post:
When you search for Football, what kind of answers do you expect to find. Well, I guess it depends on where you are doing the asking, if you are in the UK you probably don’t want to see NFL schedules. You probably mean what we in the US call soccer. Well today, millions of searchers in the UK can rest assured that Bing knows what they are talking about. We are excited to announce today that Bing in the UK is shedding its beta tag. We want to congratulate our pals over in the UK on a huge milestone.
A HighRankings Forum thread is taking issue with this. Two searchers from the UK were not satisfied with the localized version of Bing. They said:
I did a study yesterday and the example they provided (Football) still returns the NFL - something they said that the UK 'wouldn't be interested in'. The universal search results are even worse with US today results of 'American Football' being returned (and two images of an American Football).
You are certainly right, doesn't look like Bing UK has any UK inteligence, I just did a simple search for the word 'analyse' , and the no.1 result returned was spelt with a 'z' , looks like Bing has a long, long way to go yet eh Andy!
I personally tried a search for football in Bing.com and Bing.co.uk and I am seeing tailored results for each region. Yes, NFL.com comes up in the UK, but not in the top result. Since I am not from the UK, it is hard for me to judge.
Forum discussion at HighRankings Forum.
-
Google Reader URLs a Target for Email Spammers
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 2:41pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Other Google Topics
For years, email spammers have been looking for ways to encourage people to click on their links. And for years, Google has been a target. Why? Well, when someone sees a link that has google.com in it, people trust it. So over the years, Google URLs that redirect to other sites have been a target by spammers.
The most recent Google property targeted by such attacks is Google Reader.
A Google Reader Help thread has reports of such cases, with a Googler confirming it is an issue. Several people are reporting receiving email spam with URLs that look some thing like:
http://www.google.com/reader/item/tag:google.com,2005:reader/item/3c49b76cf8cb8ba0
Clicking on that URL would have redirected you to a non-Google site.
Googler, Roger said:
It looks like some spammers have taken a liking to Google Reader - we're currently trying to find the best way to limit this kind of automated abuse without impacting the experience of real users such as yourselves. Hopefully we'll have a solution that works for everyone soon. Thanks for your patience and understanding in the meantime-
So be on the look out.
Forum discussion at Google Reader Help.
-
Danny Sullivan Looks Back at Starting Search Marketing Conferences
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 2:34pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Search Engine Industry News
Yesterday, Danny Sullivan wrote an article named 10 Years Ago: The First Search Marketing Conference, A Retrospective. The article is a must read for everyone who is a daily reader of this site.
In short, Danny talks about how the first search marketing conference came about. He also talks about the various sessions they hosted then. Including many of the panelists who still talk today at his conferences. Yes, the first conference in search marketing was in 1999 and Google's founders were on a panel as the "small search engine."
While the agenda listed Larry Page as speaking, Sergey was also there. He either joined Larry or replaced him at the last minute. Some conference veterans remember how Sergey rollerskated on stage. Actually, he did that a year later, joking about new Google technologies and demoing his shoes with pop-out wheels.
We didn't start covering search conferences until 2003, four years after the first search conference. Wow, has the time flown by and has this industry changed or has it?
Forum discussion at Sphinn.
-
Google Removed Negative Search Result Michelle Obama, Should They Have?
Posted: November 19th, 2009, 2:22pm CET by rustybrick
Tags: Google Search Engine
A week or so ago, we reported that a search in Google images for Michelle Obama returned a racist image. The image was offensive, racist and has been removed from the search results - which is what I was hoping for. But Google responded to the thread and explained that they normally do not change the search results unless:
(1) It violates our Webmaster Guidelines
(2) If Google believes they are required to do so by law
(3) Or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the imageI am not sure if this image fell under any of those three conditions. Google was not clear if it did, nor did they specifically say which this case fell under. I don't think it violated the Webmaster Guidelines, I don't think the image was "illegal," and I doubt the webmaster asked to have the image taken down. I can be wrong on all of these points, but I am not sure.
Here is Google's full response:
If you recently used Google Images to search for the term [ Michelle Obama ], you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the image in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.
As with Google Web Search, ranking in Google Images results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google Images and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. We will continue to improve the product based on your feedback to make sure that users find the most useful, relevant images through Google Images.
-Jem
Am I missing something? Why did Google take it down? Did the White House force them to by making it a legal matter? Maybe the site was indeed in violation of the webmaster guidelines? The site itself is still live, so I am not sure.
Google is clear that they do not remove offensive, racist or anti-semitic from the search results. I am just confused in this case. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy the result was removed - but was this only done because she is the First Lady?
Forum discussion continued at Google Web Search Help.