Google’s Page Rank hiccup

Google logoOn Thursday morning I saw an interesting item in my feed reader from Darren Rowse at Problogger. The evening before, Darren had posted about his PageRank dropping from a 7 to a 4, in the space of a few hours. He was, naturally, concerned at this unexpected turn of events. As the story unfolded, it turns out that he was not the only blogger to see their page rank tank.

Some background. PageRank is the patented algorithm that Google uses to determine where your page sits on the return page of a search query. This means that a high page rank is, potentially, a very lucrative commodity:

It can be an effective and viable marketing strategy to buy link advertisements on content pages of quality and relevant sites to drive traffic and increase a webmaster’s link popularity. However, Google has publicly warned webmasters that if they are or were discovered to be selling links for the purpose of conferring PageRank and reputation, their links will be devalued (ignored in the calculation of other pages’ PageRanks).
Wikipedia.

As Darren and many others found out this week, Google’s warning went from a bark to a bite. It seems there was a PageRank update and Google decided to penalize those who were selling links.

Fair enough, you say. In the same week that saw research released showing 7 out of 10 American’s experience search engine fatigue, who doesn’t want to see link farms torched?

Incidentally, the reality of search engine fatigue for the average user is not to be underestimated:

More than three out of four (75.1 percent) of those who experience search engine fatigue report getting up and physically leaving their computer without the information they were seeking – either “always,” “usually” or “sometimes.”
search engine land.

However, as Mashable pointed out with their wonderfully titled post, Three Clicks to Spam: Google’s Hypocritical Link Selling Policy, it is a little rich for Google to take the high road when they are turning record profits doing exactly this. AdWords anyone?

Now, in terms of reputation management, antagonizing high profile bloggers by threatening their income is probably not the smartest move for any organization — unless you are Google. Third quarter earnings of $4.23billion and a virtual monopoly on search apparently mean you can pretty much ignore the whole thing.

That’s right. Despite the fact they run dozens of corporate blogs, Google just toughed this one out. Not a peep. Both the Official Google Blog and the Webmaster Central Blog studiously ignored the issue. There may have been official comment through another channel, but I couldn’t find it (search engine fatigue, alas).

Darren finished the week with nice post capturing the lessons that he learned, but despite him getting his page rank back, for me the story was a more cautionary tale.

Google is the 800lb gorilla and, despite their vaunted motto, the extent to which we rely on search – and on linking strategies, means that you would hope for a slightly more transparent and engaged approach from them in these circumstances.

Perhaps more terrifying though, is the other finding from the fatigue research; 78 percent of all survey-takers wished Google could read their minds. Apparently the respondents are unaware that they can already do this…

Share this post
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • co.mments
  • Google
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
  • ScoopIt

One Comment

  1. Posted November 8, 2007 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Hi, I was sent to read your post about the realities of social media - I wanted to writ e a comment but it looks like comments are closed for all posts but the homepage?

    I was going to write about ongoing conversations anyway - I think the more active your public is in debating with and talking to the government, the better the democracy. When I heard of the website ‘they work for you’ it gave me great joy - How cool is it that we have a small enough country that we can ALL be actively involved in shaping the way it looks - not just leaving it to a 3 yearly election and then the small number of people in government.

    Conversations through social media, by their very nature shouldn’t be controlled! Maybe I’m mistaken, but I always find it a little sad when people take something that is inherently open and collaborative mould it into something that resembles something more closed. It may be risky and it’s certainly very new - there will surely be issues, but if the government approaches social media with an ‘open mind’, I can only see benefits.

    I look forward to fully checking this blog out :)