Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Matt Cutts: BMW reincluded Google, and SEO � Recent reinclusions

Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO � Recent reinclusions: Cutts writes "I appreciate BMW�s quick response on removing JavaScript-redirecting pages from BMW properties. The webspam team at Google has been in contact with BMW, and Google has reincluded in our index. Likewise, has also removed similar doorway pages and has been reincluded in Google's index."

The phrase that jumps out at me is "The webspam team at Google has been in contact with BMW"...did BMW not have to submit "a reinclusion request with details on who created the doorway pages. We’ll probably also need some assurances that such pages won’t reappear on the sites before the domains can be reincluded." as posted earlier? It doesnt sound like it..

In comments it appears they did but there are still many questions:

" Can small sites without BMW’s financial clout expect comparable treatment from Google or can we consider this as just another newsworthy case study?"

"How convenient for BMW to be in touch with google. How exactly does the average webmaster get in touch with google? How often is the regular webmaster told why their site has been taken out of the google index? How quickly (or delayed) is the re-inclusion of banned sites?"

Cutts replies: "Our main goal has to be to give the most relevant results to our users; there is currently a trade-off between taking action to remove spam from our index vs. removing sites that lots of users look for with navigational queries. In my mind, the most scalable, robust direction to move in is to provide tools like Sitemaps and the webmaster console that allow everyone to diagnose and debug as much information as possible with their site. As we introduce features like the robots.txt checker, that helps every website owner equally, whether it be a mom and pop website or Nissan, Metallica, or the California DMV (all of which have had robots.txt issues in the past)....

we’ve been working on programs like emailing webmasters when we find quality violations on their sites...

it’s a pretty common idiom to have a Flash site and then provide a text version of a site; I wouldn’t worry about anything like that "

No comments: