Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
Well V, thanks for taking the time to follow up all this.
So as I'm now understanding the iterations and translations, Computer World has added to the confusion that was originally reported by CNET that was surfaced by others in the plural, (probably those who were still circling the squirrel on the tree) but should have been in the singular, about one blogger who has a vested interest in pounding on Google, but whose management has now gone well beyond the norm of what was necessary to remedy a problem they did not create in the first place. ,,, all this at the house that Jack built.
Right ?  |
Close.
I'm not sure who the first reporter was, so I won't speak to that.
One story, repeated several times, right.
There was one blogger, but he had no interest in pounding on google, he was apparently paid by a group at google to produce video advertisments. the ad he produced had the offending element in it (something about the absence of a nofollow parameter, I think).
The parties I implied that had a grudge are involved in SEO businesses/authors (Search Engine Optimization, from the perspective of a customer who would like to see their results move higher in the results list). There appears to be just the two of them that broke/are the source of the story. They are not the ones that were hired by google, not the ones that produced the ads, neither the valid non offending ones nor the one that did offend.
Yes on the rest about google's response, etc.