Comment by bushido | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bushido | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> How do you know this is the case?

I don't. I also don't know if this is not the case. Do you? This uncertainty IS the reason for the current loss of faith.

> Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash?

I never said cash exchanged hands. I doubt it did. Can you with a 100% surety say that a special favor of any kind did not occur?

> Maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly

What clean up policy. If there is such a policy why isn't it public, why doesn't anyone know of it? [0]

> (RapGenius was) relisted naturally

A manual modification of the algorithm is not what has been established as natural over the last decade+.

> Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares)

Ah, but know tens of these sites that were penalized, as in know 'em in and out, know the whole team, know of every SEO practice they implemented, these only include those that were penalized for having site structures similar to content farms (themes, permalinks and similar post type cross linking between posts) that were not even replied too let alone getting a chance. I also know a lot of SEO professionals who don't know any site that was afforded this (I emailed 'em, if I hear of one I'll update the post).

These sites were all with 300K+ uniques a month && 1MM+ pageviews/month.

HN is not my only source of information and news.

> are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius

Yes.

edit: [0] the only tool that I know Google allows webmasters to use to reduce potential penalty is the disavow links tool[1]. In the past I have seen this only useful for people who were targeted by link bombing etc. at times it was because a SEO practioner did in fact use some shady link sources.

Kudos to RapGenius for talking about it in their blog post, nonetheless, the results were still too quick (not judging rapgenius or their connections... only targeting Google).

[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en

At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed [or accepted a favor], you know you've left the land of rationality and entered into wholesale speculation. Your argument is on the face ridiculous, but just to be clear: 1) Matt Cutts is very wealthy and doesn't need any favors. 2) Matt Cutts once penalized Google's own Chome site for improper links. If there were ever any conflict of interest that ever existed, that would be it, yet Matt went ahead with the penalty.

EDIT: added []

> At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed

When did I do that?

I have not and am not suggesting that Matt Cutts or anyone at Google took a bribe of any kind whatsoever.

I have on the other hand said that there is some uncertainty if favors may have been given/used to expedite the process of re-listing.

Which if true, in itself looks really bad, simply because of the position of authority Google sits at.

Pray tell, when did a favor for a friend, acquaintance or anyone for that matter, regardless of their alleged wealth or social standing come to be defined as bribery/monetary value exchanging hands?

You haven't addressed my argument at all. Replace bribery with favors, and my argument stands.

I used both interchangeably (see point #2), and I've edited for clarification.

If you want to keep going on the overly semantic line of argument, bribery = gifts, not just money.

Favor[0] == Help

Or quite literally if I go by a dictionary: an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual. Example: "I've come to ask you a favor". Synonyms: service, good turn, good deed, kindness, act of kindness, courtesy.

To further elaborate to address your failure to understand a semantic line of argument:

1) The terms Favor and Bribery are not interchangeable.

2) I have only used the word favor.

3) I have insinuated[1] that there is possibility[2] of an alleged[3] favor having occurred in expediting[4] the re-listing of RapGenius, and that this may have happened due to good connections from the VCs.

4) If true, this is not in any way illegal, by the law of the land (as opposed to bribery[6], which is illegal). And this would simply be a moral wrong doing to others who cannot use this speedy service based. This is due to the position of power Google has on web start-ups, websites and businesses.

5) In addressing your previous comment I stated that none of my statements can or should be construed[5] as referring to bribes or any thing of monetary value, this includes gifts.

Meanings and Definitions:

[0] Favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

[1] Insinuate - suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way

[2] Possibility - a thing that may happen or be the case

[3] Allege - claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case

[4] Expedite - make (an action or process) happen sooner or be accomplished more quickly

[5] Construe - interpret (a word or action) in a particular way

[6] Bribe - a sum of money or other inducement offered or given in this way

You missed my point again. The semantic line of argument is pointless. Favor and bribery are interchangeable because my argument holds for either case.

Your insinuation is still baseless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com