The Googleshank Redemption
A note to our regular readers – this post does not deal with plumbing or discount offers - it is about online advertising.
One of my favorite movies is the Shawshank Redemption. In this film, a man is falsely convicted of a crime he did not commit and is forced to live in the nightmare of prison until he finally escapes.
The tag line for the film is: “Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.”
Until recently, I too was held prisoner - trapped in a pit of search engine marketing despair. My requests for help ignored by the very company I had spent hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars with. I was bewildered as I watched our rankings drop while sites that obviously violated the Google guidelines rose and remained in place. My faith in the algorithm was broken. I was ankle deep in the Google Goo (so to speak).
Despite all of this, I never gave up hope. All I needed was a push in the right direction - an avenue to express my frustration and finally come to terms with it. Blogger was my way out. With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek and with malice towards none, here is the story of the Googleshank Redemption:
Hello. My name is Allan. I’ve been Googleshanked.
Despite my efforts, despite my feeling of being in the right, despite a sense I've been wronged, I'm powerless to correct what troubles me at Google. There is no appeal. My prison term will not end. I am Googleshanked.
The story begins about 18 months ago when I discovered some pages spamming Google to rank well on our corporate name. It appeared to me that these pages (which we have nothing to do with) violated Google's webmaster guidelines.
So, I reported the sites to Google using their spam reporting tool. I thought that the pages would disappear in a month or so. Nope - the pages remained indexed and ranked well.
I then asked my Google AdWords rep to assist me. My rep informed me that it would be impossible for him to violate the “Church and State” separation of the Google natural results from the paid advertising. I told him that I was not asking for special treatment – just asking that these pages be held to Google’s published standards. Besides, isn’t investigating poor search results in the best interest of the natural results regardless if the reporting entity is a corporation? He politely replied he would look into it. The pages remained indexed
I then turned to the generally useless - but somewhat emotionally satisfying - tactic of explaining the situation to the Google AdWords booth staff at Search Engine Strategies shows. In all fairness I believe the AdWords reps felt my pain but they were powerless to assist me. “Church and State” again. Not surprisingly, the pages remained indexed.
During this time, I happened to get introduced to several Google employees that were higher up in the corporate food chain. At last, I could talk to someone who can make things happen. Again, I got the “Church and State” explanation (is this beginning to sound like an introductory civics class?). Multiple promises to look into the matter later, the pages remained (you guessed it) indexed.
I have heard that insanity is defined as repeating an action but expecting a different result. If that is the case, I had gone mad.
Issue 2: Remember when Google launched the Florida update? Our site, like many others, dropped in the natural rakings – replaced (in general) by sites that seemed to violate their guidelines or had little to do with a given search query. I showed a couple of examples of this to a Google engineer (and no, it wasn't the famed Google engineer Matt Cutts) at the Chicago SES conference.
At that moment I thought that there were three possible responses I could get:
1) I would be given a medal (and perhaps a Google Lava Lamp) for showing how the update was actually harming the quality of their search results. 2) I would get a respectful hearing and he would take down our information so they could analyze the problem and make improvements. 3) I would be ignored.
Response #1 did not seem very likely and I wasn’t holding out hope for the lamp. Response #2 was proper but my past experiences did not really inspire confidence. Response #3 is where I put my money.
There was, however, a fourth possibility that I hadn’t even counted upon. I was told, quite sincerely, that the Google algorithm "was well tested and that they had high confidence in it.” I had expected this under the “I would be ignored” option. The twist here is when he added “that Google was properly removing the spammers” from the results. As I began to wonder how a company that sold clawfoot tubs could be a bad result for the term “clawfoot tub” I noticed that he had an unmistakable smirk on his face. It dawned on me that he had just insulted me to my face.
Now I don’t want to discuss the whole White Hat / Black Hat thing. According to Google maybe I was a spammer – maybe I wasn’t. I am leaning towards the latter because our rankings came back a month later without us changing our pages. One might suspect they reworked their algorithm because of the tidal wave of complaints they received. But one can never be sure. What I am sure of is this: it was not very nice to take delight in insulting a customer to his face. In all fairness, the engineer was getting hit from all sides that day. Still, I don't think it was right.
He then looked at me with a blank “matter-of-fact” stare and asked if he could help me any further. To this day, I still wonder how the term “help” applied in this situation.
I just gave up.
Hello. My name is Allan. I’ve been Googleshanked.
So, where is the redemption? Where did hope triumph over fear? My Googleshank Redemption came in the form of a discussion I had with Danny Sullivan last Wednesday evening (over an excellent carnivorian meal at Fogo De Chao, BTW). He assured me that I was not alone and that it wasn’t my fault. He eased my troubled mind by reminding me of the power of blogging. “Perhaps Google will read your blog and remove the pages. If not, no matter. Life will go on. The sun will rise. Children will play. Clawfoot tubs will be sold. Life is good. Have some more prime rib.”
So here we are. The blog post is written. I used to be bothered that Google seems so unconcerned with the advertisers that financially fuel their company. No longer. They can run their company any way they want. They are successful and they have a great search engine. Maybe they just can not focus on customer relations and build the best search engine in the world at the same time. I just don't know.
All I know is that as long as AdWords functions well, I will continue to advertise on Google. I now figure that in order to have made this omelet we call search marketing perhaps a few of our eggs had to be broken along the way. So be it.
I have spoken my mind and will not bother with this anymore. In so doing I have achieved my very own Googleshank Redemption.
Googleshank Redemption
One of my favorite movies is the Shawshank Redemption. In this film, a man is falsely convicted of a crime he did not commit and is forced to live in the nightmare of prison until he finally escapes.
The tag line for the film is: “Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.”
Until recently, I too was held prisoner - trapped in a pit of search engine marketing despair. My requests for help ignored by the very company I had spent hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars with. I was bewildered as I watched our rankings drop while sites that obviously violated the Google guidelines rose and remained in place. My faith in the algorithm was broken. I was ankle deep in the Google Goo (so to speak).
Despite all of this, I never gave up hope. All I needed was a push in the right direction - an avenue to express my frustration and finally come to terms with it. Blogger was my way out. With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek and with malice towards none, here is the story of the Googleshank Redemption:
Despite my efforts, despite my feeling of being in the right, despite a sense I've been wronged, I'm powerless to correct what troubles me at Google. There is no appeal. My prison term will not end. I am Googleshanked.
The story begins about 18 months ago when I discovered some pages spamming Google to rank well on our corporate name. It appeared to me that these pages (which we have nothing to do with) violated Google's webmaster guidelines.
So, I reported the sites to Google using their spam reporting tool. I thought that the pages would disappear in a month or so. Nope - the pages remained indexed and ranked well.
I then asked my Google AdWords rep to assist me. My rep informed me that it would be impossible for him to violate the “Church and State” separation of the Google natural results from the paid advertising. I told him that I was not asking for special treatment – just asking that these pages be held to Google’s published standards. Besides, isn’t investigating poor search results in the best interest of the natural results regardless if the reporting entity is a corporation? He politely replied he would look into it. The pages remained indexed
I then turned to the generally useless - but somewhat emotionally satisfying - tactic of explaining the situation to the Google AdWords booth staff at Search Engine Strategies shows. In all fairness I believe the AdWords reps felt my pain but they were powerless to assist me. “Church and State” again. Not surprisingly, the pages remained indexed.
During this time, I happened to get introduced to several Google employees that were higher up in the corporate food chain. At last, I could talk to someone who can make things happen. Again, I got the “Church and State” explanation (is this beginning to sound like an introductory civics class?). Multiple promises to look into the matter later, the pages remained (you guessed it) indexed.
I have heard that insanity is defined as repeating an action but expecting a different result. If that is the case, I had gone mad.
Issue 2: Remember when Google launched the Florida update? Our site, like many others, dropped in the natural rakings – replaced (in general) by sites that seemed to violate their guidelines or had little to do with a given search query. I showed a couple of examples of this to a Google engineer (and no, it wasn't the famed Google engineer Matt Cutts) at the Chicago SES conference.
At that moment I thought that there were three possible responses I could get:
1) I would be given a medal (and perhaps a Google Lava Lamp) for showing how the update was actually harming the quality of their search results. 2) I would get a respectful hearing and he would take down our information so they could analyze the problem and make improvements. 3) I would be ignored.
Response #1 did not seem very likely and I wasn’t holding out hope for the lamp. Response #2 was proper but my past experiences did not really inspire confidence. Response #3 is where I put my money.
There was, however, a fourth possibility that I hadn’t even counted upon. I was told, quite sincerely, that the Google algorithm "was well tested and that they had high confidence in it.” I had expected this under the “I would be ignored” option. The twist here is when he added “that Google was properly removing the spammers” from the results. As I began to wonder how a company that sold clawfoot tubs could be a bad result for the term “clawfoot tub” I noticed that he had an unmistakable smirk on his face. It dawned on me that he had just insulted me to my face.
Now I don’t want to discuss the whole White Hat / Black Hat thing. According to Google maybe I was a spammer – maybe I wasn’t. I am leaning towards the latter because our rankings came back a month later without us changing our pages. One might suspect they reworked their algorithm because of the tidal wave of complaints they received. But one can never be sure. What I am sure of is this: it was not very nice to take delight in insulting a customer to his face. In all fairness, the engineer was getting hit from all sides that day. Still, I don't think it was right.
He then looked at me with a blank “matter-of-fact” stare and asked if he could help me any further. To this day, I still wonder how the term “help” applied in this situation.
I just gave up.
So, where is the redemption? Where did hope triumph over fear? My Googleshank Redemption came in the form of a discussion I had with Danny Sullivan last Wednesday evening (over an excellent carnivorian meal at Fogo De Chao, BTW). He assured me that I was not alone and that it wasn’t my fault. He eased my troubled mind by reminding me of the power of blogging. “Perhaps Google will read your blog and remove the pages. If not, no matter. Life will go on. The sun will rise. Children will play. Clawfoot tubs will be sold. Life is good. Have some more prime rib.”
So here we are. The blog post is written. I used to be bothered that Google seems so unconcerned with the advertisers that financially fuel their company. No longer. They can run their company any way they want. They are successful and they have a great search engine. Maybe they just can not focus on customer relations and build the best search engine in the world at the same time. I just don't know.
All I know is that as long as AdWords functions well, I will continue to advertise on Google. I now figure that in order to have made this omelet we call search marketing perhaps a few of our eggs had to be broken along the way. So be it.
I have spoken my mind and will not bother with this anymore. In so doing I have achieved my very own Googleshank Redemption.
Googleshank Redemption
posted by Allan at
3:39 PM
10 Comments:
You write a long description of how spam sites ranked higher than you and of how your relevant site was not ranked, yet at the end you still say "They have a great search engine". Which is it? Is it great or is it full of spam? You're totally brainwashed. Would you let other companies insult you and gladly keep giving them your money? By all means, keep advertising if it's cost effective, but don't actually use them for searching. As you can see, it just goes to their heads. They're arrogant enough as is. Blind tests prove that other search engines are just as good.
Dear Anonymous,
The point of my post was that I thought Google could improve the customer service they provide to the folks helping to pay the bills. Yes, I agree with you that their search results have been disappointing at times. Sometimes the problem gets fixed by tweaking the algorithm (like when they seemingly backed off of the Florida Update). Sometimes it does not (like the spam pages). The vast majority of the time, however, they provide relevant results. What they lack, in my opinion, is consistent, proactive advertiser customer service to help them when they don’t provide relevant results.
The odd part (with the notable exception of the smirking engineer) is that most of the Google employees I have met are really nice folks. I think they genuinely want to help, but just aren’t given the means to do so because the company has placed so much faith in their algorithm to solve all of their search problems.
The fact of the matter is that human beings (and the web-based information they create) will not neatly submit to a one-size-fits-all mathematical equation. I think the search engines need to examine ways to provide relevant search results using an algorithmic system that allows for selective and objective human review when the algorithm fails. A system like this would improve relations between the engines and their financial sponsors as well as provide a constant stream of relevant information to further improve their algorithms. Just a thought.
Hey Allan,
I enjoyed your crapper jokes at SES Chicago very much. I am thus saddened to read of your SEO-related pain.
In particular, it's a little nasty to hear about that snide engineer's remarks. Ever since my first job, I've known to value each of my customers, since they are the ones who allow me to eat. Saying that kind of crap to an upstanding claw foot enthusiast just isn't cool.
I guess it's situations like these that foster Googlephobia. I am enchanted and impressed by the idealism of Larry and Sergey, but I know that their populism and sense of fairness to the little guy can only go so far as their company adds more and more employees. Stuff will fall through the cracks and unpleasant people will end up hired. (Still doesn't excuse treating you like a dirtbag)
I do like your attitude, though. Google is a great product on the whole, and in the end, there's only so much you can do about this. You're getting linkage from SEW and others, I'm sure, so hopefully someone important will notice. And if not, you've still got your tubs, and Google can't ever take those away. ;)
Best of luck.
Danilo,
Thanks for the note. Yes, it was disappointing to get treated that way but I can understand where it may have come from - he really was getting it from all sides that day. It does not excuse the behavior but certainly explains it.
We will see how this plays out. If it goes poorly, well at least I still have my tubs.
;-)
Hello, Allan...
Excellent story. I just wanted to chime in and lend some perspective to your woes.
I think Web marketers tend to forget that Google and all search engines were created to filter thought, rank, sort, index "information." Suddenly commercial use of the Web became front and center.
Let's stop right there. This is a big problem for search engines that were not built to sell advertising. Heck, they didn't even have a revenue model - clicks, impressions... what's an "impression?" they (no doubt) wondered.
So... suddenly "optimization" was needed. Think about that... one now needs, they were told, to be "optimized." By definition this translates loosely to "stacking the deck" in your favor eh?
Sooner than later, search engines carved out paid placement space. Anyone interested? Nope... only affiliates were at the time (that's another story). Free sounded a lot better ("natural search" listings). The concept of buying clicks was laughed at by nearly all Web marketers.
My point is that the Web suddenly was thrust into the retail scene and had no idea what to do with itself... how to monetize the user base.
Today the Web still struggles. Google has spun out Froogle. They've turned AdWords into a syndicated contextual placement network called AdSense. They're moving into CPM/impression based services for advertisers... and Web marketers are coming around (especially to Froogle which remains free... for now!)... they're warming up to paying for Web ads.
Google, IMO, doesn't want marketers in its "natural" search return pages. It's counter-productive to its core objective - help people find information (non-commercial). I've written about this viewpoint over the years at Revenews.com and documented all kinds of evidence. Linkshare's CEO came right out and attacked Google at the Affiliate Summit earlier this year.
Wait a minute? Is helping people fine non-commercial information GOOG's prime objective considering its financials? That's, also, another story.
Hopefully my perspective might prove interesting to someone :)
Dear Jeffmol,
You state: “Google, IMO, doesn't want marketers in its "natural" search return pages. It's counter-productive to its core objective - help people find information.” I completely agree - it is in everyone’s best interest to provide relevant search results that are free from commercial influence. Search users trust unbiased information. Any attempt to commercially influence the organic listings will only hurt all of us in the long run.
That said; the search engines are making an enormous amount of money with revenue generated from advertisements. These ads pay for those “free” organic listings. My point is that the engines should pay more attention to the advertisers in those areas where our input could actually improve the results.
Example: What if an engine allowed each advertiser 2 organic listing “challenges” per year. An advertiser could call attention to a site that it believes violates the Webmaster Guidelines of a given search engine. The engine would review the site in question within a given time frame (say two weeks) and issue a ruling. If the engine determined that the site in question was in fact in “violation”, it would be manually removed. The advertiser is happy because their concerns are being taken care of. The search user is happy because they are getting more relevant results. The engine is happy because they are getting valuable input to make their algorithm better.
What if, on the other hand, the search engine determined that the listing in question was valid? The search engine would penalize the reporting agent by removing a future challenge. This would help ensure that advertisers did not just report anybody for review. Again, the integrity of the organic listings is protected. A possible objection I see to this is that it opens the organic listings to human influence. I would reply that the search algorithms don’t write themselves - human beings do. Thus, the human influence is already in the mix.
Is this a perfect idea? Certainly not. Is it worth further discussion? Perhaps. All I know is that we (the engines and advertisers) should be listening to and working with each other a lot more. I am all for any ideas that promote better search results and improve relations between all the parties involved.
Allan, I really liked the Googleshank redemption post. I think we have all been Googleshanked at one time or another. What will we all do when Google starts personalizing search results so we have no idea how we rank? That will be the next challenge ahead. Then, you won't even know if you have been Googleshanked! I guess we have to take the good with the bad. Keep on blugging tubber. Yours truly, Dave Williams, Chief Strategist, 360i
I agree that human language is probably too subtle and too complex to be really well organized by a pure algorithmic approach. It's just unfortunate that none of the directories ever figured out how to make the efforts of editors scalable. It could be done, MSN Search of 5 years ago was sooo close...until Microsoft chickened out. (But that's another rant, for another time).
I think your situation highlights Google's main ongoing problem; "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Because Google has a great algorithm, they can't see that some problems might be better solved with the application of (gasp!) human intelligence.
I don't know how much of their vast resources Google has applied to responding to the spam reports people have submitted, but it clearly isn't enough. I'm sure that , to them, it just doesn't *feel right* to simply have a human being look at them.
I suspect that rather than assigning a team of people to go through the requests one by one and manually delete offenders from the database, they have a few propellerheads busily analyzing the requests, trying to find commonalities that could be built back into their algorithm. So if you're really lucky, maybe your spammy competitors will get dropped in the next major update...in a year or so.
Wow, what a chronicle. Can't believe I read all of that.
Now, without knowing the supposed black hat SEO tricks you may have used, I guess I'll reserve judgement. However, I do understand your frustration with the lack of communication that sometimes comes from Google. They seem to have built a huge wall around their company and all their information stays under heavy guard and lock and key. I know that's my experience with AdSense, version control of their applications, etc.
That being said - Google is still the best out there and my minor complaints do not outweigh their overall benefit to the Internet.
Well, good luck with your quest!
Hagrin,
You said: "Now, without knowing the supposed black hat SEO tricks you may have used, I guess I'll reserve judgment."
We avoid the whole black hat SEO thing. I don't want to be found for terms that don't relate to us. I just think it hurts us all when folks use search engines to find information and get irrelevant search results back.
You said: "Google is still the best out there and my minor complaints do not outweigh their overall benefit to the Internet."
I agree completely.
You said: "Well, good luck with your quest!".
The quest has gone well - see my update I posted on the 26th of December.
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home