Aug 28 2012

Matt Cutts Has To Explain Paid Links To Newspaper

Google’s Matt Cutts has a new blog post up about paid links. He says he was contacted by an unnamed newspaper who saw its Pagerank drop from a 7 to a 3, and wanted to know why. The reason, as Cutts explains, was because the site was selling links that passed PageRank, which is, of course, a violation of Google’s quality guidelines. Cutts shares an email he sent to the newspaper (leaving out the identifying info). Here’s a chunk of what he had to tell them: In particular, earlier this year on [website] we saw links labeled as sponsored that passed PageRank, such as a link like [example link]. That’s a clear violation of Google’s quality guidelines, and it’s the reason that [website]‘s PageRank as well as our trust in the website has declined. In fact, we received a outside spam report about your site. The spam report passed on an email from a link seller offering to sell links on multiple pages on [website] based on their PageRank. Some pages mentioned in that email continue to have unusual links to this day. For example [example url] has a section labeled “PARTNER LINKS” which links to [linkbuyer]. So my advice would be to investigate how paid links that pass PageRank ended up on [website]: who put them there, are any still up, and to investigate whether someone at the [newspaper] received money to post paid links that pass PageRank without disclosing that payment, e.g. using ambiguous labeling such as “Partner links.” That’s definitely where I would dig. Cutts goes on to suggest that after the site completes an investigation, and gets rid of any paid links that pass PageRank, it submit a reconsideration request. In the comments section of the post, Cutts notes that a drop in PageRank toolbar is an indication of Google’s decreased trust in a site. In this case, because of link selling. Of course since the Penguin update (and even before it), people have been getting messages from Google about bad links, and it’s caused a lot of panic . This panic seems to be reflect in the comments of Cutts’ post, with some webmasters wondering if they should simply place nofollow on all of their links to avoid Google penalties. Well, if everyone put nofollow on all of their links, it would pretty much render PageRank meaningless, wouldn’t it? One reader suggests that PageRank shouldn’t even be made visible to the public, as high PageRank blogs draw more spam. The subject of paid links also came up in this Webmaster Hangout Google hosted yesterday.

Aug 17 2012

Matt Cutts Clarifies What He Said About Twitter (On Twitter)

Matt Cutts appeared at Search Engine Strategies this week. In addition to talking up the Knowledge Graph and scaring people about the Penguin update, he talked briefly about Google’s relationship with Twitter. First, we linked to a liveblogged account of Cutts’ session from State Of Search, which paraphrased him as saying: Danny [Sullivan] asks ‘Can’t you see how many times a page is tweeted? I can see it, I could call you’. Cutts: we can do it relatively well, but if we could crawl Twitter in the full way we can, their infastructure wouldn’t be able to handle it. In a later article on what SEOmoz CEO Rand Fishkin had to say about Twitter’s impact on SEO , we also referenced Brafton’s version , which paraphrased Cutts as saying: People were upset when Realtime results went away! But that platform is a private service. If Twitter wants to suspend someone’s service they can. Google was able to crawl Twitter until its deal ended, and Google was no longer able to crawl those pages. As such, Google is cautious about using that as a signal – Twitter can shut it off at any time. We’re always going to be looking for ways to identify who is valuable in the real world. We want to return quality results that have real world reputability and quality factors are key – Google indexes 20 billion pages per day. The Brafton piece also indicated that Cutts said that Google can’t crawl Facebook pages or Twitter accounts. It was later updated, but this led to Fishkin asking Cutts about that on Twitter, which led to some more from Cutts on the matter. Follow @randfish Rand Fishkin @randfish “(Google) can’t crawl Facebook pages or Twitter accounts” – @mattcutts via http://t.co/WZOhINjA Really? What’s http://t.co/pDL1RXdQ then?   Follow @mattcutts Matt Cutts @mattcutts @randfish what I actually said was: when Twitter cut off our firehose, they also blocked Googlebot from crawling. For 1.5 months, in fact.   Follow @randfish Rand Fishkin @randfish @mattcutts Ah. Gotcha. So it was misquoted then. Thank you for the clarification!   Follow @mattcutts Matt Cutts @mattcutts @randfish also: post-firehose cutoff & post-crawl cutoff, there are >400M tweets/day. Unclear Twitter could/would stand us webcrawling that.   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 14 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Aug 16 2012

Rand Fishkin Talks Twitter’s Impact On SEO

As previously reported SEOmoz has acquired Twitter analytics company Followerwonk . CEO Rand Fishkin said in a blog post announcing the deal that the companies have actually been working together since June. Followerwonk is a tool designed to help users find, analyze and optimize for “social growth,” and that means digging into Twitter analytics (who your followers are, where they’re located, when they tweet, etc.), and finding and connecting with influencers. Fishkin sees an opportunity to bring his SEO-savvy customers this kind of data, which can help them in their SEO endeavors, which are obviously not getting any easier these days. “I see Twitter impacting a lot of relationship building, which often leads to partnerships, links, referrals, and business development of all kinds,” Fishkin tells WebProNews. “We’re also seeing a very observable correlation directly between URLs/sites that are heavily mentioned on Twitter and enhanced performance in the search results.” “Whether that’s a direct or indirect results is harder to know, but plenty of examples and evidence certainly exist,” he adds. Google’s Matt Cutts actually talked a bit about social signals at the Search Engine Strategies conference in San Francsico this week. He briefly touched on Google’s relationship with Twitter data, since the deal the two companies once had fell apart last year. According to a paraphrased account of the conversation from Brafton , Cutts noted that Google can’t crawl Facebook pages or Twitter accounts to see who is reputable or has real world impact as a brand. Brafton’s account of Cutts’ words continues: People were upset when Realtime results went away! But that platform is a private service. If Twitter wants to suspend someone’s service they can. Google was able to crawl Twitter until its deal ended, and Google was no longer able to crawl those pages. As such, Google is cautious about using that as a signal – Twitter can shut it off at any time. We’re always going to be looking for ways to identify who is valuable in the real world. We want to return quality results that have real world reputability and quality factors are key – Google indexes 20 billion pages per day. SEOmoz may just be able to help users identify who is valuable in the real world, using Twitter data, thanks to its new acquisition. Fishkin noted in his announcement, by the way, that they may add Google+ and/or Pinterest data into the mix at some point.

Aug 15 2012

Matt Cutts: Google Updates Will Be Jarring For A While

Google Distinguished Engineer Matt Cutts made a surprise appearance at the Search Engine Strategies conference in San Francisco this morning, dropping a fair amount of knowledge on the SEO community. Bas van den Beld at State Of Search has a liveblogged recap of the session. He paraphrases Cutts: When people asked Cutts about the next Penguin Update he thought: You don’t want the next Penguin update, the engineers have been working hard…We are constantly improving. The updates are going the be jarring and julting for a while. Emphasis added. Cutts also talked briefly about Google’s relationship with Twitter data. More paraphrasing from the liveblog: Danny [Sullivan] asks ‘Can’t you see how many times a page is tweeted? I can see it, I could call you’. Cutts: we can do it relatively well, but if we could crawl Twitter in the full way we can, their infastructure wouldn’t be able to handle it. Cutts talked about a variety of search-related topics, including Knowledge Graph, SEO, the Penguin update, Webmaster Tools, etc. He also noted that the Google Search Quality team is now the Knowledge team. Here’s some paraphrasing from attendees on Twitter: Follow @glemarchand Guillaume Lemarchand @glemarchand RT @sewatch : Twitter blocked @google from crawling the site at all after the firehose deal ended. – @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 5 minutes ago via Echofon  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jwfell Jason Fell @jwfell “It was my mistake when I said too much #SEO is a bad thing.” Panda and Penguin are about getting rid of spam. ~ @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 4 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @nickroshon Nick Roshon @nickroshon Penguin – not bad to do “too much SEO” – just too much “bad SEO” – good SEO is still good #SESSF @mattcutts   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 7 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad  · powered by @socialditto Follow @LucidAgency Lucid Agency @LucidAgency @mattcutts “its cheaper to do SEO Legit than it is Blackhat” #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 1 minute ago via Twitter for Android  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jenstar Jennifer Slegg @jenstar Google Search Quality is now called Google Knowledge #sessf @mattcutts   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 2 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @chrisguitarguy Christopher Davis @chrisguitarguy Wikipedia doesn’t care about traffic: they don’t sell ads, their revenue is not dependent on traffic. They like the knowledge graph. #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 4 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @sewatch Search Engine Watch @sewatch Social signals – are followers signals? @mattcutts says its a “potential” signal but @google can’t access a lot of FB, for example #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 16 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®  · powered by @socialditto Follow @Brafton Brafton @Brafton @mattcutts : Search quality/ knowledge team doesn’t care about how much money @Google makes – they focus on what’s good for user #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 58 seconds ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @schachin Kristine Schachinger @schachin @MattCutts “We don’t care whether we make money or lose money. … The question is.. Is this good for the user?” #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 1 minute ago via Janetter for Mac  · powered by @socialditto Follow @scottpete Scott Pete @scottpete Google’s @mattcutts emphasizes creation of original content, and viewpoints to deliver unique value #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 5 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jenstar Jennifer Slegg @jenstar Google keeps old versions of the algo so they can compare old results versus new. How fun it would be to play with that! #sessf @mattcutts   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 6 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @sewatch Search Engine Watch @sewatch If your only value as a publisher are quick facts, yes, you should be worried @Google will answer that – @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 7 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jwfell Jason Fell @jwfell “Webmasters who want to get as much visibility as possible should look at the spectrum of value you’re adding.” ~ @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 8 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @sewatch Search Engine Watch @sewatch @mattcutts – If we sit still, some other company will launch this awesome voice search, I dunno, call it Siri… LOL #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 3 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®  · powered by @socialditto Follow @nickroshon Nick Roshon @nickroshon “Google is more of an information company, not just search” #SESSF @mattcutts   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 2 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad  · powered by @socialditto Follow @Brafton Brafton @Brafton Users HAVE to come first or searchers will ditch Google, but web IS websites, & it needs to be good for webmasters too. @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 3 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @mwilton13 Mike Wilton @mwilton13 Google’s aware that knowledge graph, etc. can impact webmasters, but users have to come first or they’ll go somewhere else @mattcutts #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 4 minutes ago via TweetDeck  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jenstar Jennifer Slegg @jenstar Google has seen over 30 trillion urls & has 100 million searches a month. #sessf @mattcutts   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 54 seconds ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @matt_mcgowan Matt McGowan @matt_mcgowan don’t put much credibility in the +1 button when it comes to SEO at this point via @mattcutts @SESConf SF #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 2 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone  · powered by @socialditto Follow @McCormickDavid David McCormick @McCormickDavid Google+ influence on SERPs has been lessened in recent months – @mattcutts #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 3 minutes ago via HootSuite  · powered by @socialditto Follow @jenstar Jennifer Slegg @jenstar No boost for google properties just like there is no boost for payment. We want people to trust google. @mattcutts #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 3 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto Follow @mwilton13 Mike Wilton @mwilton13 Google’s goal is to move in the direction to give you actionable advice for improving your website via webmaster tools @mattcutts #sessf   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 59 seconds ago via TweetDeck  · powered by @socialditto Follow @sewatch Search Engine Watch @sewatch If you have products, get user reviews or write your own descriptions, be original instead of duplicating content – @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 1 minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®  · powered by @socialditto Follow @schachin Kristine Schachinger @schachin “Duplicate content has been handled consitently for a long time” (If the only text that everyone else has on theirs that is an issue #SESSF )   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 3 minutes ago via Janetter for Mac  · powered by @socialditto Follow @sewatch Search Engine Watch @sewatch If you build the kind of site that will stand the test of time, you’re not going to be that affected by Penguin – @mattcutts #SESSF   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 4 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®  · powered by @socialditto Follow @SEOChester SEO Chester @SEOChester I like this quote… “ @sewatch : Anyone can compete with Google if they can crawl better, index better, rank better – @mattcutts #SESSF ” #SEO   Reply  ·   Retweet  ·   Favorite 54 seconds ago via Twitter for iPhone  · powered by @socialditto

Aug 1 2012

Links Are The Web’s Building Blocks, And Fear Of Google Has Them Crumbling

This year, as you may know, Google has been sending out a whole lot of messages to webmasters about problematic links. People are in a frenzy trying to get rid of links that may or may not be hurting their search engine rankings, and this is a frenzy created by Google. It may not be exactly what Google intended, but it’s happening. Sure, there are plenty of cases where webmasters have engaged in some suspect linking practices, but there are other cases where links appearing around the web are out of webmasters’ control. The fact is that the web is about links. Links are what make it a web. It was that way before Google existed, and it still is that way. However, Google has become such a dominant force on the Internet, that webmasters who rely on Google traffic must bend over backwards to appease the search giant, or risk losing visibility in the search results. Competition is just a click away, as Google likes to say, and that’s very true. It is easy for users to simply go to Bing.com or Yahoo.com or any other search engine. But for the most part, people aren’t clicking away. They’re still going to Google. Clearly, Google is doing something right, but it also means webmasters must abide by Google’s rules if they want any significant amount of search traffic. Google, of course, launched its Penguin update earlier this year, an update that will continue to be refreshed over time. It targets sites that are violating Google’s quality guidelines. But beyond the update, Google is taking the time to send out thousands of emails warning webmasters about links, and in the process is spreading a great deal of confusion. Google recently began sending out a new batch of the link warnings with a somewhat different twist than the ones people were getting pre-Penguin. Whereas the company’s advice in the past was to pay attention to these warnings, Google was (at first) saying that with these, they were not necessarily something webmasters need to worry about it. But of course webmasters would worry about them. Google’s Matt Cutts aimed to clear up some of the confusion in a blog post over the weekend. “When we see unnatural links pointing to a site, there are different ways we can respond,” Cutts said, explaining the original messages. “In many severe cases, we reduce our trust in the entire site. For example, that can happen when we believe a site has been engaging in a pretty widespread pattern of link spam over a long period of time. If your site is notified for these unnatural links, we recommend removing as many of the spammy or low-quality links as you possibly can and then submitting a reconsideration request for your site.” “In a few situations, we have heard about directories or blog networks that won’t take links down,” he added. “ If a website tries to charge you to put links up and to take links down, feel free to let us know about that, either in your reconsideration request or by mentioning it on our webmaster forum or in a separate spam report . We have taken action on several such sites, because they often turn out to be doing link spamming themselves.” Regarding the newer messages, Cutts said, “In less severe cases, we sometimes target specific spammy or artificial links created as part of a link scheme and distrust only those links, rather than taking action on a site’s overall ranking. The new messages make it clear that we are taking ‘targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole.’ The new messages also lack the yellow exclamation mark that other messages have, which tries to convey that we’re addressing a situation that is not as severe as the previous “we are losing trust in your entire site” messages.” “These new messages are worth your attention,” he said. “Fundamentally, it means we’re distrusting some links to your site. We often take this action when we see a site that is mostly good but might have some spammy or artificial links pointing to it (widgetbait, paid links, blog spam, guestbook spam, excessive article directory submissions, excessive link exchanges, other types of linkspam, etc.). So while the site’s overall rankings might not drop directly, likewise the site might not be able to rank for some phrases. I wouldn’t classify these messages as purely advisory or something to be ignored, or only for innocent sites.” “On the other hand, I don’t want site owners to panic,” he added. “We do use this message some of the time for innocent sites where people are pointing hacked anchor text to their site to try to make them rank for queries like [buy viagra].” But site owners are panicking. As usual. OK, we get that Google has its rules, but there is something about the whole thing that doesn’t feel quite right. It’s not necessarily Google’s stance on any particular kind of linking, but that Google, for all intents and purposes, even gets to tell people how they can and can’t link. How they can and can’t build the web. Sure, sites are free to disregard any of Google’s rules. You’re not going to go to prison for engaging in practices that Google doesn’t like, but if you’re running a business, being ignored by Google can have a tremendous impact on your well-being. For that reason, many businesses feel that that Google has a boot on their neck. This isn’t a call for government regulation of Google, though many would like to see it (in Europe, Google is already facing it ). As I said, I do agree that competition is a click away. Nobody’s forcing people to use Google. They’re just using it because they want to. But Google could save the web a lot of trouble by handling things differently, or perhaps finding a better way to rank search results, without punishing sites for its own reliance on links. People are scrambling to have links removed that may or may not even affect their sites in Google. Some of these links are links that people would be happy to have pointing to their sites, but fear of Google’s wrath has them in a frenzy, and they don’t want anything tarnishing their search rankings. I want to include a few samples of what people are saying in link removal requests. WebProNews parent company iEntry owns a number of directories, none of which have ever accepted payment for listings, and many of which are nofollowed, yet are receiving requests like countless other sites for link removals because of the fear Google has instilled in webmasters. Nevermind that directories have existed since long before Google existed, and that Google seems to be OK with some directories . For that matter, some directories that are getting link removal requests, Google even links to itself from its own search results. Now, let’s look at some samples. “We are glad that our website ****.com is Live in your directory. Unfortunately we received a 2 notification letter from Google telling that our website is having unnatural links. Our firm decided to contact all our live links in all web directories and will request to delete it. Please kindly delete this website in your directory. I hope you do understand our concerns.” This person was glad to be listed, but feels they have to pull out because of Google. —- “Thank you so much for your effort to include ******* in your directory. However, due to recent changes in the company’s online marketing strategy, I am humbly requesting for the links to be deleted from your database…Really sorry for any inconvenience that this request will cause/may have caused you. Hoping for your consideration and understanding.” That’s another thing. Google is greatly inconveniencing not only those with links posted, but those who have posted the links. Wouldn’t be easier for Google to just take the actions it feels it needs to, without causing such a stir? This is no doubt costing business a great deal of time and money. —- “Unfortunately we’re facing an important situation right now and we could really use your help. Our website is currently under a Google penalty – basically that means that Google thinks some of our links are unnatural, and they have pushed our site to the back of their search engine results. We are working with consultants to ensure our site meets Google’s Quality Guidelines, and they have advised us to remove any links that might even appear as if they were paid for. Often, these links were naturally placed and are on great sites, but in an effort to be overly cautious, we need to have them removed anyway. ” “Our main goals is to get back to business and ensure we’re creating the best site and resources for our visitors, but until we get this issue taken care of, we’re at a bit of a standstill….” Fear of Google is causing people to seek link removal even for naturally placed links on great sites. Naturally placed links on great sites. — “Because some of our sister stores received a Google penalty, we’ve been working to clean up our backlink profile and want to remove any links that Google may even begin to consider as unnatural or paid. This is absolutely no reflection on the value of your site , and we apologize that it is necessary. However, in an effort to be certain we are complying with changes in Google’s Quality Guidelines, we would be grateful if you could remove the links from your site.” So this person is basically saying that even though we may think your site has value, we need to have our link removed because of Google. — “May I ask that you remove the link to ********** from your website? We do appreciate that the link on your site may not be causing us any problems however we wish to cover all bases as if we get this reconsideration wrong it will have huge implications on the future success of our SEO efforts.” So this person appreciates the link that may not even be causing any problems, but just in case, they want the link removed, because of Google. — “We have received a notice from Google regarding presence of links of our website ******** on your website and they have asked us to get them removed, failing which yours & our sites will be penalized in google search, resulting in loss of business for both of us. … “Therefore, you are requested to remove all the links as soon as possible, preferably within 72 hours, and confirm to us so that we can inform Google. It is not a reflection of the quality of your / our website , but only an approach to maintain our respective search engine rankings. Waiting for confirmation of removal from your end.” Speaking of inconvenience, this person even included a deadline, and still noted that it’s not a reflection of the quality of the site. — “The following site ********* has links on their website without authorisation from anyone in our company linking back to our website. The website owner needs to remove these ASAP. As the registrar you are also seen responsible to ensure the website owner/ domain host they get all links removed, this is infringement of intellectual property. Then there’s this kind of request. People actually suggesting that linking is somehow an infringement. Linking. You know, that thing that the world wide web is based upon? SEM firms are even advising clients to take such action. Some are advising that clients send cease and desist letters. For linking. Because of Google. —- Now, this all may not be exactly what Google had in mind. A lot of people are overreacting, to say the least. But that’s what happens when one company has so much power on the Internet. Not that long ago, you might have thought that the more links out there pointing to your site the better. That’s more paths to your site, and more chances for people to find it, but with so much reliance on Google, people are getting rid of many of those paths for the all important one. Many of the things Google does with regards to how it treats certain kinds of links make a lot of sense, but this kind of madness that has people frantically seeking link removals (and even sites charging for link removals) doesn’t seem great for the web. It’s understandable that people want to be very careful about not having a negative impact on their search rankings, but this goes to show how much power Google really has over the web, just in its own efforts to try and make its own product better based on its flawed algorithm. I say flawed algorithm, because it’s not perfect. That’s not to say it isn’t as good as or better than competitors’ algorithms. There’s no perfect way to rank web content. If there is, nobody to my knowledge, has implemented it yet. When Google started, PageRank and links were a revolutionary way to rank search results, and there’s no question that they have an important place today. However, it seems like Google is indirectly reconstructing the web by sending out all of these messages to webmasters, who will essentially act as pawns in the process of making Google’s own search results better (which may or may not even actually happen). It does suggest that Google is relying on webmasters just as much as webmasters are relying on Google. Perhaps even more so. What would happen to the quality of search results if no webmasters abided by Google’s rules? It’s an interesting scenario to consider, no matter how unlikely. People fear Google too much not to obey the rules. Those who don’t obey are punished one way or another. Unfortunately, it’s entirely possible, at this point, that obeying the rules is out of webmasters’ control, as long as negative SEO is able to exist, which Google seems to have recently acknowledged that it is. Google did recently indicate that it is working on a way for users to tell Google which links they want it to ignore, and webmasters/SEOs will certainly be happy when it gets here, but why doesn’t Google simply ignore the links it decides are problematic, without making webmasters jump through hoops? To some extent, Google seems to be taking the action it deems appropriate on certain links (as in the subject of this most recent round of messages), but people are still getting messages, and Google is still taking it upon itself to dictate which links on the World’s web are valuable, and which are not. Google clearly still sees links as an incredibly important signal in ranking content, hence the company’s emphasis on penalizing any manipulation of them. “I don’t doubt that in ten years, things will be more social, and those will be more powerful signals, but I wouldn’t write the epitaph for links quite yet,” Matt Cutts recently said at SMX Advanced. Smart site owners find ways to diversify their traffic, so they don’t have to rely so much on Google for traffic. Social media has been a godsend for a lot of business, and the landscape continues to change rapidly. Even Google itself is doing some interesting things to change how we find and consume information , which may actually make search less crucial. We are living in interesting times, indeed. In the meantime, however, it appears that a great deal of the web will bend over backwards to appease Google, as to not be punished for what Google doesn’t like. Are you sore from all of that bending yet? Let us know in the comments .