Tag Archives: Google corruption

Google Organic search rank is rigged

Google rigs question about whether being an Adwords customer helps your organic search rank

Google vehemently denies that organic search rank is rigged to favor the big players…as in the companies who are either paying Google via Adwords or can do favors for Google, but the evidence is pretty clear that the search game is in fact rigged to shut out the little guy.

And as such is oppressing any real competition by keeping the same monied interests at the top of organic search rank —- which is exactly why anti-trust laws were created. But Google knows anti-trust laws will not be enforced against them since Google runs the FTC.

Personally I am sick of Google lying about “organic” rank not being manipulated because it is so obvious. Not to mention Google has patents allowing advertiser info to connect to search rank! Why does Google encourage people to link their Google Analytics to their Google Adwords?

In classic Google fashion when “asked” the question about whether or not paying Adwords helps your organic rank Google rigged the question using Google employees posing as Adwords publishers.

This is amazing. The “Important Adwords customer” claims,

“I have seen a drop in ranking for my site. Why can’t I get advice on optimizing my site for Googles search result through my Adwords point of contact”.

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 11.04.42 PM

Here is the screenshot from their video in case they try and edit it in the future which I think they have done with some of these incriminating videos.

Problem is the person asking the question is Christoffel Hiltermann who works for Google in Webmaster Support and Education. The commentors are furious and call out Matt Cutts on lying about the fact that the “questions” are coming from random people when they are actually Google employees.

“Hey Barry how about asking Matt why he is answering questions from his employees masquerading as adwords publishers? Read the first comment and then do a search on ”
“Christoffel Hiltermann””

“Pretty lame if you ask me. So does he answer any questions from real people? What a waste of time it must be submitting questions! There is a bigger story in this but I doubt anyone will bother.

Had another look at Matts Videos first one I looked at was this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… and guess what There is an Ihar in prague who works for google! https://plus.google.com/+mahan… Does this guy actually take questions from real webmasters?”

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.21.54 PM

Why would Google do this? Because they want it to look like “Important Adwords customers” have actually seen a “drop” in their organic rank (aka no favoritism) AND that Google will provide no advice on organic search rank to even the biggest Adwords customers because they are dripping with integrity. Nothing to see here. Move along.

And yes there sure is in “Ihar in Prague who works for Google”, not only for Google but he works for Google ranking! Check out Ihar’s resume from Linkedin.Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.40.25 PM

Here are some more comments from publishers,

“Google favors brands by an extremely wide margin, brands just happened to almost certainly advertise on Adwords. Panda also can be averted by buying adwords to improve user stats, those that buy top keywords get better Time on Site, lower bounce rate etc. So Mr Google shill, what say you? Adwords help you gain ranking on Google because that’s what Google wants. Separate Google Search from Adwords and see the SERPs.”

“I have every reason not to trust Matt.

Regardless of what Matt Cutts says, our independent tests have shown a direct correlation between AdWords expenditure and Google organic search results positioning.

We’re going to be publishing a whitepaper on this shortly.”

Exactly, anyone with half a brain can see the biased-ness in Google’s search results. It’s amazing how fast these Venture companies skyrocket in page rank like going from 0 to 6 in a matter of months while the rest of us have been working our tails off for YEARS and our still below a PR of 4.

Remember Google claims:

“We believe it is very important that the results users get from Google are produced with only their interests in mind. We do not accept money for search result ranking or inclusion. We do accept fees for advertising, but it does not influence how we generate our search results. The advertising is clearly marked and separated.”

This is key because you will often see the Google defenders claiming Google is a private business and can do whatever it wants. That is not true. Google’s actions are unarguably illegal because it is not clearly marking these results as “paid”.

There are multiple lawsuits against Google accusing the company of not “acting in good faith”.

I’d say that having Google employees pose as “Important Adwords customers” is the very definition of “bad faith”.

Here are a few more comments from that video of Cutts denying Google is doing this and about Cutts lying about the Publisher asking it.

Christoffel Hiltermann work at “webmaster outreach” or Google’s Propaganda Ministry. So he asked Minister Cutts a setup question, where’s the harm?

Barry is a shill and didn’t want to point that out, in fact he editorialized, agreeing with Cutts & Co.”

Notice the commenters figured out that Barry Schwartz is a shill for Google as a ton of these websites are which all claim this notion of Adwords being connected to organic rank is a crazy conspiracy theory.

If you have a 66 billion dollar business model built on doing something very illegal how much of that money would you be willing to spend to have “bloggers” write articles about how Google is acting within the law? Millions and you would hire 1000s of “SEO experts” or at least what would appear to be 1000s of SEO experts to defend Google.

Incidentally looks like Matt learned his lesson from this because he started only using first names shortly after the first incriminating video. But not before another question came from Webmaster “Warren Redlich” criminal defense attorney/Web developer (interesting combo) from Boca Raton.

According to Wikipedia,

“Redlich has been accused of cybersquatting. He purchases domain names related to his political opponents and others and posts websites about them such as http://www.christineodonnell08.com/, primarily as a means of revenue (the O’Donnell site nets him approximately US$85 per day in advertising revenue from Google AdSense). He has heavily advertised on the Internet during his gubernatorial campaign.”Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 8.49.06 PM

Interesting considering advertisers sued Google for putting their ads on shady parked domains JUST like this and $85 a day is a hell of a lot of revenue from Adsense for a site that only has one page and no content. Why was Redlich compensated so generously by Adsense?

Thankfully a court recently ruled that the lawsuit can go through. So perhaps the plaintiffs should do a bit of research on the relationship between Redlich and Google.

I found this great article in Seobook titled “the Rigged Search Game”.

“The names may have changed, but traditional power structures were soon reasserted. The old gatekeepers were replaced with the new gatekeepers. The new gatekeepers, like Google, grew fat, rich and powerful. They controlled the game and the game was, once again, rigged in favor of those with the most power.”

Yep, and Google plays the long game. They start out appearing legit for years to gain your trust and to accrue power and most importantly accrue a monopoly. Google insists there is plenty of competition, but it’s puzzling that no one can come up with an algorithm than can compete with Google.

In the beginning I know that Bing was buying their search results from Google because I knew an insider (I don’t know if they still do, but they did a few years ago). So if Bing is buying their search results from Google how is that competition?

Then you have the strange case of Yahoo. Yahoo’s CEO is Marissa Mayer a former executive from wait for it…..Google.

Mayer was the Vice President of Google Product Search until the end of 2010. In 2012 she became CEO of Yahoo. How does that make sense considering the very elaborate NDA’s these Google execs sign?

So is the rivalry between Yahoo and Google really just theater to convince us that Yahoo and Google are not the same?

The SeoBook article goes on to claim,

“My point is that if you’re not getting the same business benefits from search as you used to, and the game seems that much harder, then it’s not because you’re not clever. It’s because the game is rigged.”

Exactly, the game is rigged to shut out the little guy. I have witnessed this first hand having a website that I have worked extremely hard on for years naively believing the meme that “content is king”. Yet every time we seemed to be doing really well and establishing credibility a new website would emerge and outrank us with our own content. Most recently Bustle and their demon child Romper.

Incidentally Bustle was a wait for it…..Google Venture company. So this GV company which relies exclusively on how well it ranks with the search engines monopolized the top results for all things reality Television when they were very very late to join the game and had zero original content.

Eventually the company was owned exclusively by Time Warner venture money but is it so crazy to suggest that the search engines have made agreements about how they will treat one anothers venture companies especially considering the millions that Time Warner gives Google for Adwords?

And if you start looking at the Linkedin profiles of Google employees an interesting pattern emerges. The software engineers that control the algorithms flow back and forth from one giant like Google to another like Facebook to Yahoo etc, seamlessly. In fact Ihar from Prague now works for Facebook.

So isn’t logical that these companies agree that if you are in this internet mafia you will ALWAYS get precedence over a small publisher, especially a small publisher that does not pay Google to advertise. See whenever a company is big enough to potentially pose a threat to Google, Google lets them in on the game and shares the profits. This ensures no one with any power will ever expose the game.

Here is a funny article on SEO where the author Shaun Anderson is stating that if you want to be #1 for high traffic terms you will have to pay Google. And no one knows better than the SEO experts!!

“In competitive niches, you will need to pay Google to be number 1 using Google Adwords, and this will continue to be the case as Google becomes more an more, a local search engine (IMO). Google Adwords is typically the fast way to get to number one for valuable and competitive keywords and key phrases.”

By the way Google recommends that you use their recommended “partners” to manage your Adwords accounts. (Again notice how Google outsources the gray area to their “partners” separate companies).

Here it is in case Shaun changes it. Before you say he must have meant your ad would place at the top, Nope. Read this. He clearly means you will have to pay VIA Adwords to place #1 in organic rank which goes along perfectly with Google’s patent connecting advertiser “data” aka amount bid on search terms to organic rank.

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.28.16 PM

And the SEO experts know an organic rank is way more powerful than an ad because it appears authentic because Shaun also says,

“Organic listings as a whole get more (perhaps double) the clicks a sponsored ad listing attracts according to musings in the SEO industry at the moment but it suits Google to balance that out in the future (because Google makes more money from advertising).”

Hmmmmm, so if only Google could combine the two allowing people to place bids on terms and getting a bump in rank.

I guess Shaun did not get the memo. You are not supposed to say that out loud. I’m sure all professional SEO folks know that you have to “pay” Google for top search rank, but you don’t blast that on your website. You tell your customer over the phone, not in writing. But it’s interesting that he is so nonchalant like this is just a fact that every SEO professional knows.

The problem is things are only getting worse as Google “tweaks” their algorithm more and more to favor sites that are paying them. In fact I would even argue that sites paying Adwords millions of dollars are not really paying for ads, they are paying for organic search rank. And how would anyone be the wiser?

This is how Google works their “magic” by obfuscating their criminal actions and creating layers of plausible deniability. Thus there is a glass ceiling of sorts ensuring that real small publishers will NEVER get to the top. They can at best be bought out by one of the oligarchs, but they will NEVER rise to the top no matter how hard they work and how quality their content is because this game is RIGGED!

Additionally smaller Adwords customers will continue to get ripped off as Google will overcharge them to advertise on low quality sites owned by large Adwords customers or insiders. The big guys paying Google get overpaid, the little guys not paying Google get way under-compensated for their work and the power paradigm continues to shift in favor of the insiders.

By the way if you look you will find countless claims by confused publishers who see their traffic and other stats fall off of a cliff the minute they either suspend an Adwords campaign or the minute they are overdue paying for an Adwords campaign. So how is that acting in “good faith”?

More on that to come.



Is Google showing favortism to their Venture companies in organic search results?

I just discussed Bustle.com starting a NEW news aggregating website called Romper.com with millions in Venture Capital from some major search engines/internet service providers and the very impressive profits they have already posted after 2 years online.

I have also talked extensively about The Inquisitr and how the site was started by someone from a TechCrunch which is owned by AOL. These big search engines like AOL and Google are pumping billions in to companies many of which rely exclusively on how well they rank in organic search results.

A site like Bustle which was originally a Google Venture and now a Venture of Time Warner and Facebook is a site that relies exclusively on how well it ranks period. It makes all its money on advertising. So is it really so absurd to suggest that Google is using their power to help these Venture companies rank at the top to ensure they are profitable?

I should clarify when I say “Google” I am actually referring to the oligarch cabal running Silicon Valley…Google, Facebook, Time Warner, Yahoo, Microsoft, Amazon, etc since they are notorious for making agreements with one another that will benefit each other’s companies and prevent any real competition from emerging, and since the employees, especially executives and software engineers seem to flow in and out seamlessly from giant to giant and Venture capital overlaps.

They have all entered the Venture Capital biz and are funneling huge amounts of capital into companies which rely on how well they rank. So with millions of websites out there all competing for the same eyeballs do you think these executives may have struck some deals to protect one another at the expense of the rest? Of course.

I found this really great article on Google Venture companies and the apparent special treatment they are receiving from Google.

This quote is key:

“……money is actually the second most valuable thing that Google brings to the company. Websites owned by Google Ventures have direct access to Google. Quoting from an archived version of their own site “We provide unparalleled (and real) access to Google’s massive network of employees and alumni.” If that includes access to people that know how the algorithm works and how to optimize for it, that knowledge is virtually priceless.”

Right? And why in the world would we assume that Google is not using this massive power of the almighty algorithm to help the sites they are pouring millions in to?

In fact we just discussed that Google has a patent that would allow them to connect data from advertisers to their organic rank…data like how much they are spending on ads and what search terms they are trying to rank for. In other words the algorithm sets up a system that allows Google to favor the sites that will profit them the most leaving the best results at the bottom.

Check out this guy’s profileIhar Mahaniok used to work at Google doing among other things “Data analysis, ranking”. You think this guy knows something about Google’s “secret sauce” and getting a site to rank? Well now Ihar is working for a Venture capital firm Empire Angels. He also works as a Software Engineer at Facebook which is pretty interesting considering all of the NDA’s these guys sign especially a guy who would have the inside scoop on Google’s ranking algorithm.

Do you think he may be able to help the Venture capital sites owned by Facebook like Bustle and Romper rank well with Google? And don’t you think Google knows this?

These Silicon Valley Giants are all using their monopolistic power to extort money from people. After all Amazon was just found allegedly extorting money from people to increase their IMDB rankings.

People wonder why Google search results are declining in quality and why people can’t rely on any information they find online even from ‘reputable’ places like IMDB. This is why. Google is constantly “tweaking” their algorithm, tweaking it in a way that ensures they make more money with out any regard for the quality of the information they are delivering and the rest of the Silicon Valley Oligarchs are following their example and figuring out ways that they can use their credibility and power to extort money from the public.

What scares me most is the sheer volume of content being produced by content sweatshops on a daily basis. Bustle.com claims to have over 100 full-time staff on salary and over 27 million dollars to “aggregate” aka copy and paste content for years to come –content that will continue to clog the search engines at an exponential rate and prevent us from finding the meaningful information we are searching for.

Time to demand the Google monopoly and the Silicon Valley oligarchy that controls the gateway to all information be broken up so that internet search results can truly be “organic”.

‘Bustle.com’ spawns a new demon child ‘Romper.com’

The only reason I started noticing Bustle.com is because they kept showing up at the top of the organic search results out of nowhere a few years ago when they first started.

I looked them up and saw that they were brand new. I was perplexed at why Google was giving this site with no track record whatsoever so much precedence over better more relevant search results.

Then I saw that they were funded with a combination of Google Venture capital and Time Warner capital…so two search engines funding a D list celebrity tabloid site in the name of empowering women.

Here is a quote on the funding from Forbes,

“To fund its expansion, he’s raised $5 million more in venture funding from Social+Capital and Time Warner, existing investors, along with R&R Ventures, a fund run by Dick Parsons and Ron Lauder.”

Eventually Google dropped out, but only because they were angry that Goldberg got Time Warner involved behind their back. So now the primary money is from Time Warner and Facebook. Social Capital is a venture capital company owned by Chamath Palihapitiya from Facebook.

Do you think this tiny women’s website may have some pull in terms of their search rank? After all the behemoths of Silicon Valley have been caught making agreements with one another on multiple occasions.

In other words if you or I had the brilliant idea to start a website targeted at women’s issues do you think people would be throwing millions of dollars at us?

Why would these companies invest in an idea that is far from original and actually completely saturated since theoretically if you start a website you have to prove yourself to Google and other search engines and work your way up which takes years—unless you have a way to control your search rank.

If you have ever started a website you know no matter how great your content is you will be lucky to make $3 a day your first year and by year 4 or 5 you will be very lucky to make 5 figures a year.

But hey in July of 2014 this brand new site crossed 11 million monthly unique visitors after hitting 10 million in June and as of October 2015 was on target to bring in over $10 million in revenue after their 2nd full year in operation. Bustle is now pulling in 31.6 million unique views a month. Again if you have ever started a website you know how absurd and impossible these figures are, particularly in light of the very low quality of their content.

In fact in this BusinessInsider article in the comments section someone calls them out on lying about these statistics pointing readers to this site where you can see Bustle only has 10-15 million visitors a month with a 73% Bounce rate and only 1.05 seconds on the site and a very Slow load time: (2.478 Seconds), 73% of sites are faster.

“Looks like they are buying shady traffic according to Similiar Web. 45mm uniques is great, but not if it’s all paid for…” the reader claims.

I’m guessing this is why Bustle decided to disable any comments. They can’t have anyone calling them out on their lies publicly.

And have you noticed the obscene political bias of the site? Their love for Hillary Clinton is cringeworthy. Im no fan of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, but the Hillary love from Bustle coupled with their pervasiveness atop any Google search result is disconcerting for sure.

So Bustle is so amped up over their explosive growth they are now launching a demon spawn child called Romper.com (God help us!!)

Margaret Wheeler Johnson, Bustle’s managing editor claims, “We were reaching a huge number of millennial women at Bustle, and we realized that although the average age of first birth is twenty-six years old, there is no millennial-focussed parenting site.”

And yet strangely Romper appears to primarily cover D list tabloid reality show gossip just like its mom Bustle. Just what the world desperately needed–ANOTHER site to aggregate tabloid celebrity news. And the fact that the New Yorker has written an article gushing about this brilliant idea to start a website to aggregate news is also indicative of the inside connections the owners possess.

Check out some of the reviews from Bustle employees on Glassdoor.com,

“Low pay (started at $10/hr), emphasis on quantity over quality (article quota becomes overwhelming), no benefits, creatively draining

Advice to Management

Pay your writers better and allow your writers more time to produce quality articles rather than just pushing them to write clickbait.”

And another…

“Pay could be much better. Also article quotas could be a bit much; I would have appreciated more time to really perfect my articles instead of just churning out content as fast as possible.”

Both reviews from writers complain that Bustle is obsessed with quotas and pumping out content with little regard to quality.

My issue with these websites is not that they are horrible. Horrible websites will come and go constantly. My issue is how they are being subsidized and helped by serious inside connections.

How did Bustle go from a PageRank of 0 to 6 in 2 years? — especially since Google claims they no longer change PageRank. (No they no longer change PageRank for sites without inside connections. That way the riff raf aka public can never really compete).

Why are the content curators and internet providers allowed to also be content creators since they determine who lives and who dies in the website biz.

And when will we hear more of an outcry from the public about these so-called “venture” companies rising to the top of the organic search results with such low quality content while the small publishers busting their tails to bring the public the valuable content they are actually searching for are pushed farther and farther down in the ranks? We already know from the leaked FTC documents that Google created a special algorithm to promote it’s own interests. These interests must include Venture Companies.

The pattern I continue to notice again and again with sites like Bustle and The Inquisitr is that they were started by Venture Capital money by big very connected owners and investors, usually the search engines themselves all under the guise of some big social justice meme. Yet ALL end up just being tabloid content farms copying and pasting their content from other places.

There are a lot of issues here and laws that are being broken with regard to disclosures and I hope the public will start raising some hell and demanding this VC insider shell game stop.

If you still think Google is not using their God-like powers to help companies they invest in check out this story on Thumbtack–the site was caught buying spammy backlinks and penalized but the penalty was removed by their biggest investor, Google a mere 3 days later and yet spammy back links still pervade the site.


Is Google showing favoritism to their top advertisers?

Google makes 96% of their profits from Adwords and Adsense — selling advertising to publishers. Yes despite all of the fanfare around Google shopping, Google Play and Google travel, etc, their billions don’t come from those ventures.

Their revenue comes from selling advertising period.

Remember that in 2014 Google’s full year revenue was an astounding $66 billion, up 19% year to year….so Google made over 60 BILLION dollars from selling ads. (As a side note, interesting considering pay outs to publishers as in CPCs and CTRs have been crashing while Googles profits explode year after year–that’s what happens when you allow monopolies to emerge).

So is it really so far fetched to suggest that Google is abusing their enormous power and showing favoritism to the publishers paying them the most money?

As a small publisher that pays Google zero dollars to advertise I can tell you first hand that I have witnessed the big publishers out rank us again and again with our own content–both when they scrape their content directly from us and publish it weeks later and give us no credit and when they scrape the info from us and source us.

In fact I am writing this because yet AGAIN Wetpaint has outranked us with an article that we were ranked #1 with for some time (during which it received little search volume). Yes this certain term received enormous volume last night when “The Bachelor” premiered and suddenly despite being the primary source of the info Wetpaint was pushed to the #1 spot with an article that did a poor job of scraping all of the info we previously reported.

I have witnessed this phenomena again and again and again over the last 2 years. It’s like neither Wetpaint nor Google cares so long as the search term is not receiving that much volume, but as soon as the volume blows up Wetpaint or another top Google advertiser mysteriously becomes #1.

It’s almost as if it’s written in to the Google algorithm.

If a search term is getting low volume then Google allows the best source to be at the top (makes Google look legit, right?), but if a search term suddenly receives a surge in volume Google shuffles organic search results around to allow their top advertisers to enjoy that surge. After the surge ends everything shifts back to normal.

Well it might sound crazy if Google did not have a patent to facilitate such action.

Google denies that they base organic search results on who is paying them, but as usual their patents tell a different story.

I found this telling article.

“A patent was granted at the USPTO today that points to a different story.

As Matt Cutts noted in the not too distant past, just because Google has a patent on something doesn’t mean that they are currently using it. A patent was granted to Google today that seems to contradict that statement about site rankings and Google ads.

What if Google used information about the terms that a site was advertising on in search results to learn more about the site and what terms were important for it?

What if Google looked at the ads displayed on a site to better determine what it was about for purposes of search rankings?”

Yes what if Google looked at the advertising dollars plus the search terms a site wanted to rank for?

Intuitively this is what I have felt for some time because the quality of the content from sites like Wetpaint has been so poor—they get their facts wrong constantly and spend no time verifying anything. NTM they are not the first to publish stuff yet they outrank the sites who are.

From the Abstract of the patent:

“Systems and methods for improving search rankings using advertising data are disclosed.

In one embodiment, a search engine implements a method comprising receiving a search query, identifying a plurality of articles relevant the search query, determining advertising data associated with the search query, and ranking the articles based at least in part on the advertising data.”

“Advertising data” like advertising dollars and search terms.

The comments are great. Here is one..

“As I noted on G+, um, whoa. If Google is using (has used) paid search data to influence organic rankings, they may have finally opened search up to anti-trust claims. Not speaking as a lawyer, just someone who recognizes some major problems with this.

And of course, they’d also probably be violating all sorts of FTC disclosure regulations.

I simply can’t bring myself to believing that this is the case…”

And this one,

“Just having the patent registered, to my mind, is possible intent to use in future. Playing the constantly fluxing search engine guideline game is bad enough, without having cash influence a competitors result. I can’t say I blame a friend for leaving the SEO game – too many variables and it makes my head hurt.”

It sure is! Google would not spend time and money getting this patent unless they intended to use it.

Remember Google claims:

“Objectivity. We believe it is very important that the results users get from Google are produced with only their interests in mind. We do not accept money for search result ranking or inclusion. We do accept fees for advertising, but it does not influence how we generate our search results. The advertising is clearly marked and separated. This is similar to a newspaper, where the articles are independent of the advertising. Some of our competitors charge web sites for inclusion in their indices or for more frequent updating of pages. Inclusion and frequent updating in our index are open to all sites free of charge. We apply these principles to each of our products and services. We believe it is important for users to have access to the best available information and research, not just the information that someone pays for them to see.”

I can’t help but hear the phrase…”thou doth protest too much”.

What this statement means is ‘just because we can show favoritism to big advertisers don’t worry we won’t’. The question is why does Google get to hide behind this veil of secrecy in the first place?

Then there are countless claims like this from Adwords customers who claim Google reps hassle them to constantly to raise their bids, promising “more exposure”. (keep in mind the article is from Google shill Barry Schwartz, but the comments are telling.Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 12.59.56 AM

There are plenty of blogs out there that insist the Google pay to play theory is totally bogus, but you may want to take a closer look at who is writing those blog like this one by attorney Lee Rosen.

Rosen says,

“Cutting to the chase: buying ads from Google doesn’t improve organic ranking. It has no impact.”

Interestingly Lee’s son runs a “Google advertising business”.Screen Shot 2016-03-27 at 12.05.43 AM

From his website,

“Since becoming a PPC manager and focusing on online advertising, I’ve not only gained professional ad certifications from Bing and become a Google Ads Certified Partner, but I’ve worked on developing a personalized PPC marketing system that we can quickly and easily implement to help quick start your business.”

So the son is even “certified” by Google!!! That appears to be how Google deals with the grey area of linking PPC to organic rank via “certified partners”…wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You need to hire a “certified partner” because they know the tricks.

You will find tons of blogs just like this by folks insisting Google is way above board–nothing to see here, move along, but again take a closer look at the writers and their vested interest in big G.

Google has crossed the line, but the FTC has shown their alliance with Google again and again. And before anyone can call for more regulation as the answer, I would point to how the FTC buried extensive evidence that Google was in fact a monopoly–discovered in Spring of 2015.

In fact regulation IS the problem. I would say this is an example of why we need to get rid of the FTC and other regulation agencies because they ALWAYS protect the monopolies and ignore the law.

Instead Google needs to be broken up in accordance with the law that already prohibits this behavior. I can only hope that some big guns out there with some big attorneys will find a creative way to force Google to stop this illegal and unethical behavior.

PS, don’t forget the Google whistleblower from 2014 and his/her claims about how Google was grossly abusing their monopoly power and was playing favorites with publishers even creating a “VIP list”. Google does not exactly have a rep for not being “evil”.

BTW: Here is a good article on the BIG problem with Google being the arbiter and disseminator of ALL the worlds information.

UPDATE 4/19/2016

Check out this guy selling do follow links on some of Googles biggest advertisers. He is doing it to this very day. This is allegedly highly unethical in Google’s eyes yet these big sites do it blatantly out in the open with no consequences.

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 11.07.17 PM

See the rules only apply if you are not paying Google big bucks via Adwords.


Is Google charging for links in Google Answer Box, Direct Answers or Knowledge Graph?

I only really started paying attention to Google’s Answer Box, Knowledge Graph and Direct Answers over the last year because I started noticing information that we had acquired exclusively from insider sources on people was showing up in their “answers” with out a source credit, as if it has always been part of the public domain.

But it got worse. Suddenly this same info had source links, but they were not to our site. The source links went to big sites like Wetpaint even when Wetpaint was sourcing US. I found countless examples where Google “Answers” had swiped info from our site and given credit to their big advertisers instead.

Needless-to-say I was livid and I realized this was only going to get worse.

I offered “feedback” on said “answers” to tell them they were giving source credit to the wrong sites. Interestingly in a few cases where they “did” something, because it was so damn obvious that their source was not the source, rather than replacing the answer box with the proper link to our site, they merely removed the answer box all together.

In my opinion this is proof the answer box is paid. Why was the question worthy of an answer box before, but now that they had the correct source, it no longer warranted an answer box. Why? Because we don’t pay Google to advertise. That’s why.

This problem seems to be particularly bad with biographical information especially on lesser known celebrities. Google has decided that any information you acquire on public figures is theirs. This is especially bad with C and D list celebs since bio info on them is not in the public domain. We often go to great lengths to get this info from exclusive sources only to have it stolen without any credit. I wish Google would stop assuming bio info is all public domain and would stop stealing.

Google has always been looking for ways to sell the top spots to sites with out having to disclose that it’s a “sponsored” result, and this is it.

Google pretends that they are offering an “answer” to a question—steals the info from the small publishers who don’t pay them to advertise, then sells the link credit to a big site who does.

So how do they get away with it? Easy. As with all things Google does, they use plausible deniability to commit their crimes. These are big advertisers. They know if they bid enough on certain search terms they will suddenly “magically” find that they are the source link in Google’s answer box.

This is why Google wants you to use their “preferred partners” to “manage” your Adwords campaign. It’s why they call you constantly and ask you to raise your bid a little bid for “better exposure” (nice and vague). This is why Google wants you to link your Google Analytics account to your Google Adwords account. That way they can see the terms you are bidding on and if you are bidding more than the competition you get the #1 spot or you get the giant answer link.

This is nothing short of fraud on the part of Google as well as theft. When Google presents something as an “answer” they are implying that they have done their due diligence to ensure that one, the answer is correct, and two that they are giving proper source credit. They are doing neither.

In the forums you will find a lot of angry webmasters replying to articles written by the Google Ministry of Propaganda which insists that webmasters should be celebrating the fact that Google is going to steal your content for their “knowledge graph”. Actually they go even farther…adding insult to injury they are telling us how we should write our content to make it even easier for Google to steal.Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 11.56.25 PM

I like this guy’s answer. He’s right. Since Google started stealing from my biographical pages I have had to completely change how I present my information to make it a little harder for Google’s robots to steal. It’s unfortunate because the viewers suffer. I can no longer present the information in a clean and simple way because it was far too easy for Google to take.

And check out this great response to the Google troll….Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 12.26.52 AM

“Just because Google is a search engine they are not entitled to steal. And that’s precisely what Google is doing with the KG.”

EXACTLY! Why does Google think it does not have to follow the same rules of attribution that everyone else does?

Google’s power is growing exponentially. The fact that the FTC buried extensive evidence showing criminal wrongdoing reveals exactly how much trouble we are in…

“Earlier this year every other page of a staff memo written by the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition was mistakenly included in the response to a Freedom of Information request made by the Wall Street Journal. The 169-page FTC document quotes liberally from internal e-mails and memos, during the time when Google’s partners were noticing many of these changes to the search engine—and what they contained seemed incriminating…..

Rivals point to dark conspiracies behind the FTC’s decision. Google was spending tens of millions lobbying the U.S. government; it was unusually cozy with the Obama administration; ex-Googlers worked in the White House.”

In fact I found this funny glowing review on working for Google (as a contractor before she got an FTE job with Google) and how she got to meet Obama. Hmmmm…..Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 12.08.42 AM

Seriously, when will this stop? Publishers need to raise some hell and demand that Google offer full disclosure with their “answer” box, knowledge graph and direct answers. I hope some of the big guns like Yelp and Expedia will demand this end and Google either offer full disclosure that their “answers” are “ads” or that they stop the answer box immediately.

If you have been robbed by Google too please share your stories. Start a blog and make it public. Report it to your state Attorney General. File a civil suit. It seems like if enough people got together this case would be easy to prove.

I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that PPC in Adwords is linked to knowledge graph links. That would prove the knowledge graphs are a fraud.

Let Google know that we will not sit back quietly while they rob us blind. Enough exposure may make them back off. And please demand that Congress break up this monopoly!!!

Content theft rampant in Google News sites

In an earlier post I showed content theft by highly ranked Google News sites like the Inquisitr and now there are more. BTW, I am certainly not the only person who has noticed the abysmally low quality of Google News sites exploding on the internet. But Google shrugs off all of the complaints contending that the bad seeds that ‘slipped through the cracks’ and were approved as ‘News’ sites are few and far between.

Well, not so. I have about 50 terms on Google News alerts that I have been receiving for a year now and I would say 99 out of every 100 News stories Google gives me from the Google approved News sites are PURE gibberish with absolutely zero value.

Anyhow in addition to other sleazy tactics these highly ranked sites are guilty of like link schemes, changing story dates to keep current, not sourcing, passing off advertisements as news, they are guilty of the sleaziest tactic of all…content theft.

I just found a new story about Google News sites and content theft from Adweek.

“The first sign of trouble at the Kentucky Post Pioneer (postpioneer.com), a recent addition to Google News, is the notation found at the bottom of each article. It reads:

Our editors found this article on the site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.

What they really mean – using just one Easter weekend example – is: Our algorithm copied the entire contents of a 2014 Telluride Film Festival review of the documentary Seymour: An Introduction by Variety chief film critic Justin Chang, changed barely a word, and re-posted it as our own.”

When the author went on a mission to find the actual perpetrators they were sent to a completely impossible address.

“The physical contact address listed – 251 Broadway, New York – is basically the entrance to City Hall Park. Strange HQ for a “breaking daily Kentucky news” site. The main menu navigation tab Writers brings up the header Our Journalists and lots of blank white space, while About Us briefly displayed just two words: sayfasi bulunamadi. A clue that this Keyser Söze of Web journalism may have come to pollute Google News by way of the Balkans.”


So the question is how in the world did this shady site get approved for Google News? As someone astutely pointed out in a Google forum it takes a lot more work for Google to approve a site than disapprove one thus sites jump through enough hoops and scrutiny that they should not be approved if they are not reputable. The mounting evidence suggests that Google is in on this.

Why would Google do that? After all bad news affects their reputation. Well maybe because these turn-key news sites sell for $5-15,000 on sites like Flippa. Google knows this. Therefore this stamp of approval by big G is worth about 10k. So Google is likely partnering with the creators of these turn key sites and raking in the profits. Sure 10k is nothing to a multi-billion dollar company like Google but just imagine how many of these sites are approved every minute and multiply that by 10k.

But in addition to just being able to create and sell “Google approved News sites”, they also use these low quality sites to pimp out Google products especially the Android. This way your Google News feed is saturated with propaganda about how amazing the Android is. See below the sheer number of articles on the Android pumped out by IBT in ONE DAY!

Oh and BTW Google doesn’t care one bit about their rep. Thats what happens when you are a monopoly…you don’t have to care.

BTW I just received this info from an insider at The Inquisitr, speaking of Google News sites and content theft.

‘Hello…i recently quit the Inquisitr and during my time there I saw repeated acts of plagiarism and repeated fake stories posted. They asked that you pull your info from other sites and rewrite the information. Even if they did speak with a writer about an article being or bordering plagiarism thy did not pull the article. The owner is based in Iran and it makes no sense how they could pay the rates they do if you compare U.S. currency to Iran’s.If you had a $600 week that translates to nearly $17,000 rial.i’ve also seen Inquisitr stories get google ratings over leading news outlets even if the story came out days later when the subject was old news. I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, but I think there may be truth to the rumor that the Inquisitr is how Treisman gets money into the United States.’

Boom, there it is. An insider contending content theft was rampant and encouraged by the company.

Its time for publishers to demand an end to this Google monopoly and their complete lack of transparency in everything they do including choosing what sites get to be called ‘news’..

Thank you Adweek for pointing this out! Keep bringing this to the attention of the public.

UPDATE: 1/16/2016: Google has a patent that connects advertiser data to organic rank. WHOAH!!!