Frank Schilling and Shoemoney recently had two great posts about Google. When combined I think they paint a picture of Google that skips past the rhetoric and double talk. Frank said:

As a publisher, I've always viewed Google as a bit of a predator in this context.. taking publishers in, convincing them to serve Google ads, and then allowing those publishers to toil for Google, working sites into their algo to serve the beast, all for increasing revenues, finally to have Google's algorithm scrub you from the index if you become too successful at punching ad converting pages to the top.. Good publishers take on the role of sacrificial lamb to show the algo guys where the holes are and they get to ride the express elevator to the street as a reward.

Shoemoney's video about avoiding getting hit by Google stated that the key is just don't do things that make Google look stupid or undermine the perceived magic that occurs at Google.


My site that Matt Cutts hand removed from Google's search results got too much exposure and Matt killed it not because the site was spammy, but because it was mine and it was getting too much mainstream traction and exposure. My marketing was too appealing, aggressive, and effective. In another year that site would have been untouchable, and that thought made Matt Cutts feel uncomfortable.
The Changing Desires of the Magical Fictitious Average User

• One day Google sells the story of how "PageRank reflects the unique democratic reflection of the web" and a day later they talk about "hand editing to protect our users". </p>
• One day they talk about how "Users don’t want to see results sorted by who has the biggest pocketbook." and the next day they are talking about how "ads are a type of information".One day they talk about how "the FTC believes ads need to be clearly marked" and the next day they tell publishers to blend ads in the content and remove the ads by Google notification from their own ads.

How Relevancy is Defined

• Money to Google = relevant, good user experience.
• Large profit stream going elsewhere = spam, unless such classification hurts Google.
• Relevancy algorithms and user priorities change to match Google's business interests. Spam is redefined as business partnerships allow Google to increase revenues. Google is never considered spam, even if Google pays their partners to steal your entire website and wrap it in Google ads.

With Google, the whole concept of relevancy is a shifting mind control game. As long as you do not get the wrong types of exposure you can make a lot of money without them doing anything about it. Go too mainstream with something a little sketchy or something with the scent of smart SEO to it and they will try to kill you out of resentment, jealousy, and to try to protect the lies that their business model are based on.


More...