When algorithms attack, does Google hear you scream?

Inside Google's search penalties gulag


The evil that men Goo

There are a couple of important things to note here. First, it took a year of argument and lobbying before Google confirmed that an algorithm had been responsible, and that whitelisting was possible. Second, this confirmation came in a conversation with a senior Googler, whereas the AdWords Quality Team simply confirmed the existence of an evaluation process, and stated that its conclusions were correct without providing any justification or explanation.

From the point of view of the customer/victim, the Quality Team's response is the public one - inside Google's black box some kind of impartial, level-playing-field science is at work, it cannot be wrong, and you must therefore be a rogue or an incompetent. The havoc that has been visited on your business is all your own fault, not Google's.

Foundem's AdWords whitelisting gives the lie to this, and also raises serious questions about search, where more than three years on the company is still penalised. The two penalties hit at around the same time, and so it would seem reasonable to presume that they are in some way related. Google, however, has claimed that both search and AdWords make automatic quality assessments to determine the ranking process, but that "each system looks primarily at different signals, which we publish in our guidelines".

This is possibly something of an exaggeration. According to the AdWords guidelines, the "three main components of a quality website" are relevant and original content, transparency and navigability. Furthermore the site should "direct users to the page where they can buy the advertised product, rather than to a page with a description of several products".

When asked for the published guidelines for Google search, Google's spokesman referred us to this. Effectively this is simply a document giving some tips on how you make your website more Google-friendly, with a section on deceptive practices to avoid tacked on. It doesn't provide serious information on the "signals" search looks at to make quality assessments. But for the record, we asked Foundem co-founder Shivaun Raff to review the Quality Guidelines section, and she confirmed that Foundem is not breaking any of Google's quality guidelines.

However, the AdWords guidelines do suggest that - in Google's opinion - Foundem ought to be penalised, so it's a puzzle why the company felt it ought to bump up Foundem's quality score again. Foundem doesn't have original content in the sense Google means it (neither does Google, and as Raff tetchily points out, that's like criticising a library for not writing its own books). Foundem also puts results from multiple searches on a single page rather than sending you straight through to the vendor's sites - that is the point, and what differentiates it as a vertical search product.

Google's quality guidelines here aren't specifically saying vertical search is outlawed, but they're effectively outlawing it. Except when they give in, and email: "Our team has facilitated a change in the site quality evaluation of both foundem.com and foundem.co.uk. I've taken a look through your account, and found that a sweeping majority of your keywords now list a score of great."

Is that a whitelisting, then?

Awesome. Is facilitating a change in the quality evaluation of a site the same as whitelisting it? In emails to Foundem, AdWords support certainly referred to whitelisting (eg "I am still waiting to hear back from Fred as to where we are with whitelisting. I do know that he has spoken to engineering and they have been looking further at the website to build your case..."), but the more official it gets, the more sanitised the language seems to become. We asked Google how often whitelisting occurs, and how it is determined, but this was just one of numerous questions Google's spokesman would not respond to.

Google documentation has also referred to whitelisting for sites in natural search, on occasion. An excerpt from a Google Reviewer Guide quoted by SEOBook, for example, provides a "non-exhaustive 'white list' of the sites whose pages are not to be rated as Offensive (nor as Erroneous): Kelkoo, Shopping.com, dealtime.com, bizrate.com, bizrate.lycos.com, dooyoo.com."

And a Google spam guide obtained by Search Bistro (Word document) makes several references to whitelisting, eg "these two are not spam... Whitelist them please" and "https://www.travelnow.com/itinerary/reserve.jsp?cid=46844 Tripadvisor, as you know, is whitelisted for the added value it provides in the form of reviews and rate comparisons".

Some form of whitelisting process therefore does seem to be available for Google search, and the reference to original content giving added value chimes with the AdWords quality score strictures. Which is logical enough - if Google AdWords reckons a landing page is low-quality, then Google search should surely agree with it. Except, erm, when it doesn't.

The email notifying Foundem of its AdWords reprieve also said: "I also wanted to follow up with you regarding your conversation with Katie and Fred regarding natural search. As you know, the natural search results are a different beast than AdWords, so there may be a limited amount of impact we can have..." But this does suggest that there is some possibility that an impact could be made on the search team, somehow.

A Google spokesman quoted by the Guardian puts some more flesh on the differences between search and AdWords: "One of the core principles underpinning Google's web search has always been that natural search rankings [are] made independently of whether a website advertises with us."

The Guardian also claims that "Google's search team had alerted the AdWords team to the fact that Foundem was a poor quality website", which raises questions about whether these two different beasts really are two different beasts, and the extent to which we really are dealing with just algorithms. If Foundem is a poor quality website, can't the AdWords beast figure this out by itself? And if it's a different beast from the search beast, why is it taking its advice? Why is a website bad for one bit of Google but good for another? And why is one website bad while sites similar in intent and design appear not to be?

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Lonestar plans to put datacenters in the Moon's lava tubes
    How? Founder tells The Register 'Robots… lots of robots'

    Imagine a future where racks of computer servers hum quietly in darkness below the surface of the Moon.

    Here is where some of the most important data is stored, to be left untouched for as long as can be. The idea sounds like something from science-fiction, but one startup that recently emerged from stealth is trying to turn it into a reality. Lonestar Data Holdings has a unique mission unlike any other cloud provider: to build datacenters on the Moon backing up the world's data.

    "It's inconceivable to me that we are keeping our most precious assets, our knowledge and our data, on Earth, where we're setting off bombs and burning things," Christopher Stott, founder and CEO of Lonestar, told The Register. "We need to put our assets in place off our planet, where we can keep it safe."

    Continue reading
  • Conti: Russian-backed rulers of Costa Rican hacktocracy?
    Also, Chinese IT admin jailed for deleting database, and the NSA promises no more backdoors

    In brief The notorious Russian-aligned Conti ransomware gang has upped the ante in its attack against Costa Rica, threatening to overthrow the government if it doesn't pay a $20 million ransom. 

    Costa Rican president Rodrigo Chaves said that the country is effectively at war with the gang, who in April infiltrated the government's computer systems, gaining a foothold in 27 agencies at various government levels. The US State Department has offered a $15 million reward leading to the capture of Conti's leaders, who it said have made more than $150 million from 1,000+ victims.

    Conti claimed this week that it has insiders in the Costa Rican government, the AP reported, warning that "We are determined to overthrow the government by means of a cyber attack, we have already shown you all the strength and power, you have introduced an emergency." 

    Continue reading
  • China-linked Twisted Panda caught spying on Russian defense R&D
    Because Beijing isn't above covert ops to accomplish its five-year goals

    Chinese cyberspies targeted two Russian defense institutes and possibly another research facility in Belarus, according to Check Point Research.

    The new campaign, dubbed Twisted Panda, is part of a larger, state-sponsored espionage operation that has been ongoing for several months, if not nearly a year, according to the security shop.

    In a technical analysis, the researchers detail the various malicious stages and payloads of the campaign that used sanctions-related phishing emails to attack Russian entities, which are part of the state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec Corporation.

    Continue reading
  • FTC signals crackdown on ed-tech harvesting kid's data
    Trade watchdog, and President, reminds that COPPA can ban ya

    The US Federal Trade Commission on Thursday said it intends to take action against educational technology companies that unlawfully collect data from children using online educational services.

    In a policy statement, the agency said, "Children should not have to needlessly hand over their data and forfeit their privacy in order to do their schoolwork or participate in remote learning, especially given the wide and increasing adoption of ed tech tools."

    The agency says it will scrutinize educational service providers to ensure that they are meeting their legal obligations under COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

    Continue reading
  • Mysterious firm seeks to buy majority stake in Arm China
    Chinese joint venture's ousted CEO tries to hang on - who will get control?

    The saga surrounding Arm's joint venture in China just took another intriguing turn: a mysterious firm named Lotcap Group claims it has signed a letter of intent to buy a 51 percent stake in Arm China from existing investors in the country.

    In a Chinese-language press release posted Wednesday, Lotcap said it has formed a subsidiary, Lotcap Fund, to buy a majority stake in the joint venture. However, reporting by one newspaper suggested that the investment firm still needs the approval of one significant investor to gain 51 percent control of Arm China.

    The development comes a couple of weeks after Arm China said that its former CEO, Allen Wu, was refusing once again to step down from his position, despite the company's board voting in late April to replace Wu with two co-chief executives. SoftBank Group, which owns 49 percent of the Chinese venture, has been trying to unentangle Arm China from Wu as the Japanese tech investment giant plans for an initial public offering of the British parent company.

    Continue reading
  • SmartNICs power the cloud, are enterprise datacenters next?
    High pricing, lack of software make smartNICs a tough sell, despite offload potential

    SmartNICs have the potential to accelerate enterprise workloads, but don't expect to see them bring hyperscale-class efficiency to most datacenters anytime soon, ZK Research's Zeus Kerravala told The Register.

    SmartNICs are widely deployed in cloud and hyperscale datacenters as a means to offload input/output (I/O) intensive network, security, and storage operations from the CPU, freeing it up to run revenue generating tenant workloads. Some more advanced chips even offload the hypervisor to further separate the infrastructure management layer from the rest of the server.

    Despite relative success in the cloud and a flurry of innovation from the still-limited vendor SmartNIC ecosystem, including Mellanox (Nvidia), Intel, Marvell, and Xilinx (AMD), Kerravala argues that the use cases for enterprise datacenters are unlikely to resemble those of the major hyperscalers, at least in the near term.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022