<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>A letter to the Googles, From (Mini) Me</title>
		<description>Discuss A letter to the Googles, From (Mini) Me</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:30:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/84/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Searchbrat says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-100</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think it's harsh to pick a few cases from the entire search landscape and say Google is failing. For the most part Google do a pretty good job. I also think a lot depends on the search being done. For me, each search could have a different profile and that may determine how the SERPs look like. For example "speed up my computer" is a spammy area. You will always find spammy sites in spammy searches because they all use the same kind of tactics. That being said, recently it appears Google's quality signals have slipped. This was brought up at PubCon and Matt Cutts seemed to suggest it was a resource issue that has been resolved now, so you can expect some Google moves over the coming months. Oh, on the above, I completely agree with Mahalo, that site is thrash. :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Searchbrat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-100</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>simon says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-95</link>
			<description><![CDATA[google's algorithm addiction to links is still stronger than it seems. Check out also the SERP of "http" "www" and "http://www" to see more interesting fails :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>simon</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-95</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron Stauffer, Jr says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-94</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'll put a large John Hancock signature here as well. I second everything in this letter. I've wondered why it seems nobody talks about this. There are several garbage sites that do extremely well in the SERP, and I too have had embarrassing moments when clients ask "uhh, why is this spammy, junk-filled crapsite doing better than mine?" This is a big part of my irritation with the "SEO industry." There are far too many unanswered questions, and most information out there is bad. As it's been pointed out here, why is Google rewarding a site that's worthless to users? www.experts-exchange.com is a great example. Matt has addressed this one by saying "teeeeeeeeeeechn ically, they're not breaking our TOS" but the net result is that it's extremely unhelpful to users. Probably 90% of users would never think to scroll *all the way down* to the very bottom of the extremely long page to view the solution to a problem. Most people would do what the site owners want you to do: sign up for a paid account so you can "view" the answer. This doesn't pass any "good faith effort" test, and is certainly misleading. www.answers.com does this often as well. It frequently shows up for search terms phrased as a question, but the page you land on only repeats the question and has no answer anywhere…. even when other sites DO have the answers. That's the inherent problem with the nebulous "SEO industry"… it's just the opinion of one "expert" pitted against another. There's often no way to get the "official" answers for specifics, and even when Matt Cutts answers them on one of his videos, he's sometimes wrong.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron Stauffer, Jr</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-94</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Corey McNeil says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-90</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ian, you are right on the money. We are conditioned from birth that the guys who wear the white hats win in the end. I am beginning to loose faith in that ideology at least on the this front. Our clients come to us and give us money with faith and understanding that we know what we are doing. The irony is that we ourselves have bought into this idea that we understand what is going on. We are supposed to trust that Google has the users interests as their motives. You know....serve "relevant" data. The problem is they have positioned themselves so deeply in our culture it would be like trying the metric system all over if we attempted a conversion to another search engine. These are well documented examples that we are being served a big fat red herring with a side of potatoes when we're told...play by the rules....great content, focus on quality not quantity.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Corey McNeil</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/2010111084/General-SEO/a-letter-to-google-you-suck.html#comment-90</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
