What’s the basis for this lawsuit?<\/p>\n Well, we maintain that after Google notifies a user of an organic search ranking penalty, they are conspiring to intentionally provide site owners with false, incomplete, and misleading data through their “tools”, thereby prolonging the time it takes to get a reinclusion request\u00a0approved.<\/p>\n In turn, that unfairly induces site owners to spend money on Google AdWords, their only viable option to get traffic, \u00a0just so they can remain in business. \u00a0Let me explain this in layman’s terms, and give you a little background in what’s happening.<\/p>\n In the old days, your site either ranked or it didn’t, and aside from theorizing, you really didn’t know why. An industry was born, the world began to learn the\u00a0basics of SEO – Search Engine Optimization”.<\/p>\n In early 2002, Google released something called\u00a0Google Webmaster tools<\/a>\u00a0and by early 2003, Google had established the constantly evolving “rules of the game” that they call the\u00a0Webmaster Guidelines<\/a>.<\/p>\n This was fantastic. \u00a0This gave us in the industry some actual tools to help us do our job,\u00a0and the progress in the tools has been amazing.<\/span><\/p>\n Today we can do everything from feed Google sitemaps of our sites, verify domain ownership, grant access to others, monitoring hacking, and get SEO\u00a0suggestions.<\/p>\n There is even a tool that examines technical site performance related to our speed and compatibility<\/a> with computers and mobile devices around the\u00a0world.<\/p>\n Sounds great, right? It actually is Webmaster tools is an amazing thing, and without it, domain owners could not be in charge of their own destiny. The world\u00a0continues to thank Google for Webmaster Tools, and I’m among its most avid supporters.<\/span><\/p>\n Now as a layperson, you need to know that besides the content and code on your website, search engine optimization also has to do with some external factors, and the most important over the years has been links.<\/p>\n Having others linking to your website was a far stronger factor than anything you might have on your webpage, \u00a0and people began to realize this. When they linked, how they linked, where they linked, and even what words they linked with, \u00a0all are considered in a way that would boggle your mind.<\/p>\n Let’s just say that the evolution of “backlinks” and how they effect your Google rankings has changed a lot over the past 15 years and I’ll try not to get too technical.<\/p>\n In the early 2000’s more and more people were writing about “SEO”, and even SEO conferences began, where people learned more and more, sort of “figuring out\u00a0the system” of how backlinks could move rankings, and cottage businesses boomed that were selling links.<\/p>\n Google began publicly denouncing these paid & manipulative links, and in 2006 began notifying Webmasters of penalties<\/a>, all the while people\u00a0continued to manipulate and exploit rankings.<\/p>\n Things got so bad that in 2006, \u00a0Matt Cutts of Google<\/a> publicly denounced upcoming speaker<\/a> Patrick Gavin<\/a> of Text Link Ads at Pubcon<\/a>. \u00a0Things really came to a head in 2007 when Google even penalized MSN<\/a>, and\u00a0Matt Cutts announced how to report paid links<\/a>. Finally, in \u00a02009 Google even developed a special form to report for your competitors<\/a>\u00a0who were cheating.<\/p>\n Paid links could hurt you, and the most publicized example of this took place in early 2011, \u00a0known to this day as the JCPenney link scandal<\/a>\u00a0 (broken by the New York Times<\/a>\u00a0), and that’s when I think Google REALLY decided to change the rules<\/a> permanently, by allowing not just PAID links to hurt you, but ANY links it deems inappropriate.<\/p>\n Over the next couple of years, with all of the whining about “backlink manipulation<\/a>” culminating in the public shaming of Google<\/a>\u00a0by Wil Reynolds<\/a>\u00a0of SEER Interactive<\/a> in his SearchFest<\/a> 2012 keynote<\/a> coming to a head, on April 24th 2012, where\u00a0<\/span>Google officially changed the rules with something they called “Penguin”<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n The exact same links to your website that used to help you rank higher, not only “don’t count” any more, but suddenly they can hurt you algorithmically\u00a0too, in Google.<\/p>\n This change to the fundamental way that Google worked not only punished the evil doers, but was widely applauded, and seen as long overdue by many in the industry. \u00a0It really was about time Google cleaned up the mess they had created.<\/p>\n Even better, to help the site owner “get out of the doghouse” Google provides us with the tools and resources we need right inside of\u00a0Webmaster tools so we don’t have to suffer this loss of revenue forever, and they can help us help ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n Google is cleaning up their act, and they’re helping us clean up ours, so how can this be a bad thing? \u00a0What possible basis can there be for a lawsuit?<\/p>\n To be clear, Google has a right to penalize anyone for anything they want, since the search index is theirs to do with as they wish. However, I maintain they\u00a0do not have the right to cause financial harm to a business by discriminating against them<\/strong><\/em> in the search results without providing the correct information for the removal of that penalty.<\/p>\n I also maintain that by providing us with this misinformation they are intentionally stringing us along, and are thereby inducing us to increase \u00a0or begin buying Google visitors through the use of their advertising platform called Google Adwords<\/a>.<\/p>\n I’ll get to that, but first you need a\u00a0little more background:<\/p>\n When Google determines through various methods that a webmaster has engaged in what they consider to be “bad practices”, they send an e-mail to the webmaster We’ve detected that some of the links pointing to your site are using techniques outside Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole. If you are able to remove At that point, the webmaster has to begin the process of requesting reinclusion, and Matt Cutts outlines the process here in this video:<\/p>\n![\"an\u00b7ti\u00b7trust](\"https:\/\/www.pdxtc.com\/wpblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/3-31-2014-1-07-56-PM.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWTF?<\/h5>\n
History<\/h5>\n
Google Provides the Tools<\/h5>\n
Backlinks:<\/h5>\n
The Evolution<\/h5>\n
Some Links Can Hurt You<\/h5>\n
Under Penguin<\/h5>\n
This is All Just Wonderful<\/h5>\n
What Misinformation?<\/h5>\n
\nand webmaster tools saying that the site has been penalized.\u00a0A sample letter looks something like this:<\/p>\n
\nWe don’t want to put any trust in links that are artificial or unnatural. We recommend removing any unnatural links to your site. However, we do realize that
\nsome links are outside of your control.<\/p>\n
\nany of the links, please submit a reconsideration request, including the actions that you took.
\nIf you have any questions, please visit our Webmaster Help Forum.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n