This week it seems that Google made some type of manual Toolbar
PageRank reduction on a handful of major blogs and portal sites
like the Washington Post (http://washingtonpost.com/), ProBlogger
(http://www.problogger.net/), CopyBlogger (http://copyblogger.com/)
and Forbes.com (http://forbes.com/). Some of these sites had
PageRank scores of 7 which have now dropped to 5, scores of 6
which have now dropped to 4 and so on. The blog buzz is that the
sites have been singled out by Google as using their high
PageRank scores to sell links and have been punished by the
world's most popular search engine as a result. There is
currently no proof of this and no public statement by Google
acknowledging or denying the situation.

A lot of bloggers have weighed in with commentary, observations
and opinions. Every time I read a new post about the so called
smack-down I imagine some Googlers at Mountain View laughing
hysterically and high-fiving each other for turning the tables
on the SEO industry yet again.

The situation has even got the SEOs turning on each other. One
of the world's best known SEOs, Jill Whalen, made a post in
response to the situation (http://www.highrankings.com/advisor/
paid-link-smack/) that included a comment about one of the
affected sites, Search Engine Guide (http://www.searchengineguide.com/).
Jill's post has been interpreted in some circles as a type of
attack. Here's the comment Jill made in her post:

"Even my very good friends at Search Engine Guide were smacked
down. I hadn't been to their home page in ages since I usually
visit through direct article links, but when I looked at their
home page today and scrolled down to the bottom, I was taken
aback to see what looks more like a link farm than anything
else!"

I've known Jill a long time and I read her remark about Search
Engine Guide as a quick off the cuff comment, not a deliberate
attack. Without putting words in her mouth, I think it sounded
more shocking than she meant it, probably because she was typing
as a response to first impressions of Search Engine Guide after
not seeing it for so long and because (being ridiculously busy)
she was probably in a hurry. So the comment itself didn't raise
an eyebrow for me. But I WAS concerned about how the general
webmaster community would interpret the comment.

Yes, she has every right to her opinion. But being who she is
and the industry reputation she's built up, Jill has incredible
influence over a large number of webmasters and SEOs who absorb
her material. Persons reading her article that are unfamiliar
with Search Engine Guide may permanently associate the site with
the term "link farm" and all the negative connotations that
brings. No matter her intent, her remark definitely has the
power to hurt Search Engine Guide and their reputation. The
site's publisher Robert Clough obviously thought so, as he was
prompted to make an uncharacteristic post in response
(http://www.searchengineguide.com/robert-clough/
search-engine-guide-publisher-responds-t.php).

Personally, I think Jill should have considered the possible
backlash from her casual comment and worded her post much more
carefully. After all, with industry influence comes
responsibility. Which brings me to the main point of this
article. Google now has extreme influence and power over the
Internet. When they make changes to their algorithm or the way
they cache and filter web sites, it has a dramatic impact on not
just web site owners, but business and life in general. Millions
of people rely on Google to survive, literally. In that respect,
this attempt at link bait humor (http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/
10/digital-point-members-put-on-suicide-watch) is a little too
close to reality to be funny.

With such powerful social influence, I think it's about time
Google started taking more responsibility by being more
transparent with their activities. If too many webmasters are
doing the wrong thing with regard to linking, or an algorithm
change has occurred, why not launch a media release to set the
facts straight? Not everyone knows about Google's Webmaster
Guidelines (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/
answer.py?answer=35769), or has a Webmaster Tools
(http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/) account. But a lot
of people read the newspaper. If they want webmasters to
co-operate, Google has to recognize it's a two way street.

By slapping on this latest penalty, (if it is indeed a penalty),
Google seems to be claiming to *know* the intent of these sites.
But what if they're wrong? What if, as Jennifer Laycock claims,
(http://www.searchengineguide.com/jennifer-laycock/
anyone-have-some-boots-i-could-borrow.php) they are merely
selling advertising space without Google being a consideration?
There's nothing in Search Engine Guide's advertising material
relating to PageRank OR Google. To assume they are trying to
use their site's high PageRank as a selling point is pretty
arrogant and irresponsible of Google, in my opinion.

Without some type of public acknowledgement from them, we can
only assume Google's latest move is an attempt to control how
webmasters use their own web site space. That's a huge line in
the sand they've crossed and I don't know about you, but it
makes me nervous.

Article by Kalena Jordan, one of the first search engine
optimization experts in Australia, who is well known and
respected in the industry, particularly in the U.S. As well as
running her own SEO business, Kalena is Director of Studies at
Search Engine College (http://www.searchenginecollege.com/) - an
online training institution offering instructor-led short courses
and downloadable self-study courses in Search Engine Optimization
and other Search Engine Marketing subjects.
Visit:Makai Studio