Google

Following Matt Cutts' recent announcement that Google will allow users to report paid links, Andy Beard has taken the bold step of submitting his own content to Google's webspam team, in the hope of getting some official statement out of Google. I certainly hope he gets a response, but it seems unlikely.

The disturbing truth is that the only noise out of Google about paid links comes from Matt Cutts' "personal" blog postings. And Matt's stance on the need for machine-readable disclosure of paid links seems to contradict everything Google has ever said about building sites for people, rather than for search engines.

There's obviously a considerable gray area regarding what constitutes a paid link, and Andy's post does a good job of listing many cases where a link may be motivated (directly or indirectly) by financial gain. If Google is serious about identifying and penalizing "paid links," and would prefer that webmasters avoid them, it would seem that the obvious first step is define what constitutes a "paid link." But rather than offering such a definition, or at least some clear guidelines, Google seems content to remain silent while Matt drops hints and spreads FUD.

It's also very troubling that, while no precise definition has been offered, the only "paid links" Matt seems to be concerned about are the cheap ones. Buying links for a few hundred dollars (through TextLinkAds, PayPerPost, ReviewMe, etc) is bad. But links gained through multi-million dollar corporate partnerships are okay.

Currently there's a live link to Google at the bottom of every page of Adobe.com. Are we to believe that this is simply an editorial endorsement of Google by Adobe, and that it has nothing to with the partnership between the two companies? That would be an odd coincidence, since Google's ubiquitous presence on Adobe.com began in in May of 2006, just a month before the announcement of an agreement to distribute Google's toolbar with Adobe software (terms of the deal were undisclosed).

Maybe trading links for financial compensation is okay if it part of some larger business dealing? What about a more clear cut case? Andy says:

Companies are allowed to buy links from the Yahoo directory, which is well known to confer a large amount of trust to a domain, and has been propping up Google's algorithms for years. Will we soon see Google state that the Yahoo directory should be made nofollow for all paid inclusions? Matt Cutts has previously stated that the Yahoo directory is OK because there is editorial review.

So it's alright for Yahoo to sell links because of their "editorial review." Certainly the paid reviews that Andy submitted to the webspam team required much more editorial review than the Yahoo directory can afford to give to the many sites it receives, so if Google's stance on the value of "editorial review" is consistent, Andy should be in the clear.

But then, Matt Cutts doesn't speak for Google, according to his blog's disclaimer, so we're left to wonder about Google's official stance on "paid links." Hopefully, some day soon they'll tell us plainly, rather than making us read between the lines of their employee's personal blog. Is that too much to ask from the company that pledged to "Do No Evil?"

Last week we covered the top ten search terms of 2006, based on the results released by the major search engines. This afternoon on Google's blog, Artem Boytsov let us in on Google's methodology for generating that list.

To come up with this list, we looked at several thousand of 2006's most popular searches, and ranked them based on how much their popularity increased compared to 2005. ("Bebo", for example, had very little traffic in 2005.) We also gave a bit higher score to searches with more traffic. Similarly, our "what is" and "who is" lists are not necessarily the absolute most frequent searches, but rather those that best represent the passing year.

In other words, despite the title ("Top Searches in 2006"), Google's top ten isn't really made up of the most searched for words and phrases.  Rather, it's based mostly on change in popularity, with common words and dirty searches removed, and all in all seems to be pretty subjective.

Still, couldn't they have come up with a better title for the list? How about "Top Gaining Searches" or maybe "An Arbitrary List of Popular Keywords Ordered by Some Undisclosed Algorithm"?

And after Google comes up with a better name for this list, maybe they'll consider telling us what the real 10 most popular search terms were. Probably not, but I imagine that Googlers, like everyone else, probably searched for "Britney Spears" a lot more than they searched for "Bebo".

Now that the Big 5 of Search have all released thier lists of top searches for 2006, let's take a look at the results - and what they say about the users of each search engine.

Google's top ten shows a definite bias toward technology-related searches, with social networking players Bebo and MySpace leading the pack.  The only non-tech searches on the list, "World Cup" and "Rebelde" (a Mexican television series), are suggestive of a strong international user base, since we'd expect both soccer and Mexican TV to have stronger fan bases outside the United States. Bebo, at number 1, is also strong internationally.

1. Bebo
2. MySpace
3. World Cup
4. Metacafe
5. Radioblog
6. Wikipedia
7. Video
8. Rebelde
9. Mininova
10. Wiki

via www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2006.html

In contrast to Google's tech and international bias, Yahoo's top ten reads like a who's who of American pop culture. Not a single tech term made it onto the list. Considering the heavy emphasis on female sex symbols, it would be interesting to see how many of these searches were made from work versus home.

1. Britney Spears
2. WWE
3. Shakira
4. Jessica Simpson
5. Paris Hilton
6. American Idol
7. Beyonce Knowles
8. Chris Brown
9. Pamela Anderson
10. Lindsay Lohan

via buzz.yahoo.com/topsearches2006/lists/

Windows Live's top ten shares more in common with Yahoo than Google, though the number one showing of Brazilian soccer star Ronaldinho and another appearance by Rebelde indicates a strong international audience. Still, lots of young starlets on the list, though Live users seem to favor Shakira and Paris over Britney.

1. Ronaldinho
2. Shakira
3. Paris Hilton
4. Britney Spears
5. Harry Potter
6. Eminem
7. Pamela Anderson
8. Hilary Duff
9. Rebelde
10. Angelina Jolie

via blogs.msdn.com/...live-search-for-2006.aspx

AOL's results are predictably skewed by their generally older, less tech-savvy users. General searches like "weather" and "maps" are no doubt popular uses of the web, but more experienced users probably already have favorite sites for such purposes and don't need to search for them. The only real surprise on this list is "Tattoo".  Not sure what to make of that one - maybe regretful baby boomers looking for "tattoo removal"?

1. Weather
2. Dictionary
3. Dogs
4. American Idol
5. Maps
6. Cars
7. Games
8. Tattoo
9. Horoscopes
10. Lyrics

via about-search.aol.com/hotsearches2006/index.html

Lot's of general searches made it onto Ask's list as well.  Half of their top ten also appear on AOL's, so perhaps their users share a lot in common (except for the tattoos).  American Idol came in at number 10, making it the only search term to appear on 3 of the 5 lists.

1. MySpace
2. Dictionary
3. Games
4. Cars
5. Food
6. Song Lyrics
7. Poems
8. Baby Names
9. Music
10. American Idol

via about.ask.com/en/docs/iq/iq.shtml

While it's interesting to see how the top searches differ across the major search engines, it's also useful information for advertisers. When you're deciding which PPC networks to run ads on, it's important to keep in mind the user bases of the web sites displaying your ads. Yahoo and Live seem like good places to advertise your new gossip blog, while Google might be a better choice if your product or service appeals to the geek crowd. And, apparently, AOL would be the natural place to promote your tattoo shop.

Has anyone out there seen Rebelde? I'll confess I'd never heard of it before seeing it pop up on the top ten for Google and Live. Am I missing some great Mexican TV?

It's no surprise that Google offers preferential treatment to it's top publishers, but word has leaked out about an exclusive new ad network so secret that Google hasn't even acknowledged it's existence. John Chow reports that the Google Display Advertising Network was launched to allow Google to go after Fortune 1000 advertisers who are interested in building their brand, rather than simple click-thrus. 

The new network has a CPM (cost per thousand) cost structure, instead of the CPC (cost per click) structure of Google's successful AdWords offering. The ads themselves are video and display ads, and each publisher negotiates their own rate with Google.  Sound interesting?  Too bad.  From the article:

How do you join the Google Display Advertising Network? You can't. Google won't even acknowledge it exists... The only way to get into the display network is if Google invites you.

So for the moment, it looks like the little guys will have to stick with AdSense. But if this foray into CPM advertising turns out to be popular with advertisers, perhaps we'll see a similar offering for the rest of us soon.