Is there any rhyme or reason to Google supps?

[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.