<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.12-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Bowling And Identity</title>
	<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/</link>
	<description>Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-64186</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:49:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-64186</guid>
					<description>Hi - depends on the techniques that are being used. 301/302 hijacking isn't strictly a Google problem but a DNS problem. Spammy link buying has been progressively frowned on - but that doesn't mean that the idea of link buying is dead - it means a shift to using techniques that are less visible. Smarter Black Hat SEOs are already using signal analysis techniques that increasingly mimic natural user behaviour, but with bots to plant links. The more like real users the behaviour, the harder it is to tell.

This is essentially an operation of the oft-touted "Turing Test", to determine whether a real human or a masquerading AI is on the other side of a conversation. When all you have to assess the other party is responses, at some point the messages from a sufficiently smart correspondent become indistinguishable from those of a real human. Hide your signal in the noise of normal looking transactions and then Google has been gamed - until the rules are changed.

If you can track my comment back to my birth certificate, you have a strong chain that this posting was made by me, and not a sufficiently well informed AI. :)

What I didn't talk about - because this was a response to someone elses' article about Google Bowling - were the many other techniques that I've thought of, or learned from SEO friends. Some can, I'm pretty sure, drain page rank...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi - depends on the techniques that are being used. 301/302 hijacking isn&#8217;t strictly a Google problem but a DNS problem. Spammy link buying has been progressively frowned on - but that doesn&#8217;t mean that the idea of link buying is dead - it means a shift to using techniques that are less visible. Smarter Black Hat SEOs are already using signal analysis techniques that increasingly mimic natural user behaviour, but with bots to plant links. The more like real users the behaviour, the harder it is to tell.</p>
<p>This is essentially an operation of the oft-touted &#8220;Turing Test&#8221;, to determine whether a real human or a masquerading AI is on the other side of a conversation. When all you have to assess the other party is responses, at some point the messages from a sufficiently smart correspondent become indistinguishable from those of a real human. Hide your signal in the noise of normal looking transactions and then Google has been gamed - until the rules are changed.</p>
<p>If you can track my comment back to my birth certificate, you have a strong chain that this posting was made by me, and not a sufficiently well informed AI. :)</p>
<p>What I didn&#8217;t talk about - because this was a response to someone elses&#8217; article about Google Bowling - were the many other techniques that I&#8217;ve thought of, or learned from SEO friends. Some can, I&#8217;m pretty sure, drain page rank&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Brisbane SEO Consultant</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-64075</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-64075</guid>
					<description>I was under the impression that Google mostly ignores stuff that your competitors can do to your site like spammy link buying and links from bad neighbourhoods.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was under the impression that Google mostly ignores stuff that your competitors can do to your site like spammy link buying and links from bad neighbourhoods.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Matt &#124; Advertising Course Internet Marketing Online</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-38628</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-38628</guid>
					<description>Great post, thanks for opening up my eyes to the kinds of potential problems are out there!  Bookmarked!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, thanks for opening up my eyes to the kinds of potential problems are out there!  Bookmarked!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kristine Buenavista</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-31312</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2007/09/17/google-bowling-and-identity/#comment-31312</guid>
					<description>This blog post is really worth-reading. I have felt more educated about Google. It's a kind of learning that I don't get too much from other readings so far.

Thanks for sharing. I'd bookmarked you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This blog post is really worth-reading. I have felt more educated about Google. It&#8217;s a kind of learning that I don&#8217;t get too much from other readings so far.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing. I&#8217;d bookmarked you.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
