Google’s John Mueller was asked if a site was being penalized because of receiving thousands of adult links. John Mueller suggested the problem was not the links but the domain itself. John’s response surprised the publisher by pointing out a deeper issue that was the likelier cause of the ranking issue.
Finding Solutions to Ranking Problems
From an outside perspective it is easy to understand that if a solution doesn’t solve the problem then perhaps the diagnosis in incorrect.
An incorrect diagnosis is like taking an aspirin for a headache when the problem is a broken arm.
Yet for many reasons, some publishers will continue insisting the problem must be the spammy links, ignoring that no amount of link disavows provides relief.
Don’t be one of those publishers who settle on a diagnosis and refuse to consider that the problem might be something else. In almost every case, ranking problems are not due to random spammy links.
If the “pain” does not respond to disavows, then the likelihood is high that the problem is something else.
This is what John Mueller advised:
“These kinds of links from spammy sites are really common. I wouldn’t necessarily worry about that.”
I want to pause to point out that Mueller was saying that the thousands of adult links pointing at a website were not something to worry about and that those kinds of links are common. What Mueller means by advising to not worry about those links is that Google is stopping them from negatively influencing a sites ranking.
“One thing I did notice looking at your website is that it’s built on an expired domain. So there used to be completely different content there. And that I think is probably the bigger effect that you’d be seeing and not so much …the links from adult content sites.
But really it’s like …your website is not what it used to be. There’s like a really big change there, with regards to the way that the content used to be and what you have there now.
So, on the one had I wouldn’t expect that your current website ranks the way that the old domain used to rank. I would expect that things are slightly different.
On the other hand if you’re building on an expired domain then obviously all of the things that this domain has collected over the years, they’re still around there too.”
A publisher who keeps an open mind and is able to accept that Google is discounting these kinds of spammy links will be able to look deeper and spot the likelier explanation for ranking issues.
In this case the problem was the fact that the site was built on an expired domain. It’s easy to point at the obvious culprit. But when it comes to spam links that a publisher has nothing to do with, look elsewhere for the real reason why a site is having difficulty.
Mueller ended his response by saying:
“So it’s not that you can just say …they’re some random adult content links linking to my website and I don’t know what the effect is.
But rather, you’re building on a very shaky foundation already and whether or not those particular links are the problem or like the whole shaky foundation that’s kind of the question.”
Diagnosing Why a Site No Longer Ranks
An important takeaway is that spam links that you have nothing to do with are unlikely to be the reason why a site is having ranking difficulties.
Look elsewhere for a reason why a site may not be underperforming. In taking a second look you may discover several more reasons, any one of which may be a more likelier explanation.
Google to pay $391.5 million settlement over location tracking, state AGs say
Google has agreed to pay a $391.5 million settlement to 40 states to resolve accusations that it tracked people’s locations in violation of state laws, including snooping on consumers’ whereabouts even after they told the tech behemoth to bug off.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said it is time for Big Tech to recognize state laws that limit data collection efforts.
“I have been ringing the alarm bell on big tech for years, and this is why,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said in a statement Monday. “Citizens must be able to make informed decisions about what information they release to big tech.”
The attorneys general said the investigation resulted in the largest-ever multistate privacy settlement. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, said Google’s penalty is a “historic win for consumers.”
“Location data is among the most sensitive and valuable personal information Google collects, and there are so many reasons why a consumer may opt out of tracking,” Mr. Tong said. “Our investigation found that Google continued to collect this personal information even after consumers told them not to. That is an unacceptable invasion of consumer privacy, and a violation of state law.”
Location tracking can help tech companies sell digital ads to marketers looking to connect with consumers within their vicinity. It’s another tool in a data-gathering toolkit that generates more than $200 billion in annual ad revenue for Google, accounting for most of the profits pouring into the coffers of its corporate parent, Alphabet, which has a market value of $1.2 trillion.
The settlement is part of a series of legal challenges to Big Tech in the U.S. and around the world, which include consumer protection and antitrust lawsuits.
Though Google, based in Mountain View, California, said it fixed the problems several years ago, the company’s critics remained skeptical. State attorneys general who also have tussled with Google have questioned whether the tech company will follow through on its commitments.
The states aren’t dialing back their scrutiny of Google’s empire.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was filing a lawsuit over reports that Google unlawfully collected millions of Texans’ biometric data such as “voiceprints and records of face geometry.”
The states began investigating Google’s location tracking after The Associated Press reported in 2018 that Android devices and iPhones were storing location data despite the activation of privacy settings intended to prevent the company from following along.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich went after the company in May 2020. The state’s lawsuit charged that the company had defrauded its users by misleading them into believing they could keep their whereabouts private by turning off location tracking in the settings of their software.
Arizona settled its case with Google for $85 million last month. By then, attorneys general in several other states and the District of Columbia had pounced with their own lawsuits seeking to hold Google accountable.
Along with the hefty penalty, the state attorneys general said, Google must not hide key information about location tracking, must give users detailed information about the types of location tracking information Google collects, and must show additional information to people when users turn location-related account settings to “off.”
States will receive differing sums from the settlement. Mr. Landry’s office said Louisiana would receive more than $12.7 million, and Mr. Tong’s office said Connecticut would collect more than $6.5 million.
The financial penalty will not cripple Google’s business. The company raked in $69 billion in revenue for the third quarter of 2022, according to reports, yielding about $13.9 billion in profit.
Google downplayed its location-tracking tools Monday and said it changed the products at issue long ago.
“Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this investigation which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a statement.
Google product managers Marlo McGriff and David Monsees defended their company’s Search and Maps products’ usage of location information.
“Location information lets us offer you a more helpful experience when you use our products,” the two men wrote on Google’s blog. “From Google Maps’ driving directions that show you how to avoid traffic to Google Search surfacing local restaurants and letting you know how busy they are, location information helps connect experiences across Google to what’s most relevant and useful.”
The blog post touted transparency tools and auto-delete controls that Google has developed in recent years and said the private browsing Incognito mode prevents Google Maps from saving an account’s search history.
Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees said Google would make changes to its products as part of the settlement. The changes include simplifying the process for deleting location data, updating the method to set up an account and revamping information hubs.
“We’ll provide a new control that allows users to easily turn off their Location History and Web & App Activity settings and delete their past data in one simple flow,” Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees wrote. “We’ll also continue deleting Location History data for users who have not recently contributed new Location History data to their account.”
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.