Is there any rhyme or reason to Google supps?

[walrus]

Originally Posted by twn

They don't have to censor (aka block/ban) the words, they can lower the sites ranking when a site uses these words. I always say: whatever i can think google can and will think of. No one knows how google rates pages and comes to a ranking, but it would be rather dumb not the rank pages on their content. And when ranking pages on their content it includes looking at the used words and given these words scores. "nude teen" could have a negative score, "women without clothes" will have a much better score. Like i said whatever i can think of the guys at google can think of.

Ok, I understand what your saying now. Fonz posted a link to an article in the SE section of the board that discusses what may be happening at the G.

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites. In other words, unless the surfer makes it perfectly clear they are searching for a porn site, the non-porn site will rank higher for the term.

Thats a good news / bad news type of thing. It's good for people like me who are a bit verbose and have almost always used long tail combinations. Bad for those who tend to stick to single or two word phrases when it comes to keywords.

[Halfdeck]

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites.

That's just one guy's theory.

And thanks to people (mostly guys in mainstream) linking to that seoblackhat article

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q....y=0&go=Search

its now on the first page for "free porn"

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...rn&btnG=Search

The blog post is only one month old.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by walrus

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites. In other words, unless the surfer makes it perfectly clear they are searching for a porn site, the non-porn site will rank higher for the term.

I tend to believe that that is exactly what Halfdeck referred to it as - one guy's theory.

Do a search for free teens in Google. No need to use the words porn or fucking or sucking or nude or xxx. Six of the first 10 results, including the number one spot, are porn. Good SEO will always triumph over alleged filters. If mainstream sites happen to better optimized and have better linking strategies than porn sites, why shouldn't they rank high in the results? In other words, Walrus, I agree with your initial response.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

That's just one guy's theory.

And thanks to people (mostly guys in mainstream) linking to that seoblackhat article

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q....y=0&go=Search

its now on the first page for "free porn"

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...rn&btnG=Search

The blog post is only one month old.

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I tend to believe that that is exactly what Halfdeck referred to it as - one guy's theory.

Do a search for free teens in Google. No need to use the words porn or fucking or sucking or nude or xxx. Six of the first 10 results, including the number one spot, are porn. Good SEO will always triumph over alleged filters. If mainstream sites happen to better optimized and have better linking strategies than porn sites, why shouldn't they rank high in the results? In other words, Walrus, I agree with your initial response.

I stand properly thumped aside the head.