2 of 2
2
HD: 2002 Words
Posted: 26 July 2012 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  246
Joined  2007-02-16

To save us unedumicated ignoramuses googling time:

Rickrolling Etymology ex Wiktionary

Coined by an anonymous user on the site 4chan in 2007. It combines Rick, Astley’s given name, with roll, in a reference to a 2005 prank on the site that replaced the string egg to duck, famously resulting in duckroll, where eggroll was meant.

Verb

rickroll (third-person singular simple present rickrolls, present participle rickrolling, simple past and past participle rickrolled)

(Internet slang, transitive, neologism) To coax one into clicking on a hyperlink which leads to something other than what is claimed, originating with YouTube videos of Rick Astley’s song Never Gonna Give You Up.
(transitive, neologism, by extension) To harass with misleading hyperlinks of this kind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2012 03:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4750
Joined  2007-01-03

Is there a technical difference between Google bombing and SEO? As far as I can tell, they to accomplish exactly the same thing.

That’s an odd point of view.  Language is more than “technical difference.”

The only difference that I can see is intent; Google bombing is done for comic, satiric, and political purposes, while SEO is done for commercial purposes.

In other words, they’re entirely different, and I have never seen them confused before.  You’re defending the wrong hill here.

By “technical difference” I mean the techniques used. Is there a way to distinguish Google bombing from SEO without trying to judge intent. For example, the Google bombing of “miserable failure” linking it to G. W. Bush was satiric, but it was also political. How does this differ from SEO attempts raise the online profile of a politician or political cause? Intent can be very slippery and I’d prefer not to use it in a definition if I can avoid it.

The problem is evident with the 2003 entry for santorum. Was Google bombing involved, or just SEO? Was one side Google bombing and the other engaged in SEO? Does that differentiation not have serious political intent behind it (i.e., it’s not just comic and satiric)?

I thought I had a clear handle on the difference until I tried to define the two terms, then I realized they are really the same thing. The difference is only in the eyes of the beholder. If I’m wrong, and there are legitimate differences in practices, I’d like to know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2012 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2334
Joined  2007-01-30

I concur with Dave on the definition of a google bomb. FWIW none of the online definitions I’ve checked confine the word to a satiric or political use. It’s a method for boosting a site’s page ranking and whether put into effect by a wiseacre or a businessman it is still a google bomb. Certainly some of the online definitions, as Wikipedia, say it is “often” used for comic or satiric purposes but none confine it to that purpose.

From Wikipedia:

The terms Google bomb and Googlewashing refer to practices, such as creating large numbers of links, that cause a web page to have a high ranking for searches on unrelated or off topic keyword phrases, often for comical or satirical purposes.

..................................................................................................................................................

It is done for either business, political, or comedic purposes (or a combination of the latter two).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2012 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3506
Joined  2007-01-29

Intent can be very slippery and I’d prefer not to use it in a definition if I can avoid it.

How do you distinguish “leer (at),” “smirk (at),” “look askance (at),” and the many other ways of describing particular kinds of gaze?  The dictionary definitions use words like “lascivious” that imply intent, which makes sense because it is impossible to give “objective” definitions.  It seems to me you are trying to describe language while draining it of one of its essential factors.  Humans are not robots, and their languages are full of intent.  Sure, if you’re not familiar with Google bombing and SEO, they can look the same based on objective factors; so much the worse for the factors.  They are not used the same, and language is use.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2012 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  710
Joined  2007-02-07

In terms of techniques, it’s a matter of intent and degree. If you’re writing an article about “purple widgets” and you use those words in the title and then mention them three times in a 300 word article, that’s SEO. If you repeat them twice in the title and repeat them 50 times in a 300 word article, that’s bombing.

For what it’s worth, the days of “tricking” Google like this are a thing of the past. Their algos now recognize keyword stuffing (among other bombing techniques) and it’s a good way to get de-indexed.

It’s still possible to influence Google through both on-page and off-page optimization, but brute force bombing techniques like keyword stuffing and link farms are history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 04:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1370
Joined  2007-01-29

My thought wasn’t that British people would be at a loss as to what the phrase “British professional soccer” referred to, but, rather, that they would find it deeply annoying.

Kindly stop making generalized and inaccurate assumptions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4750
Joined  2007-01-03

Thanks, Happydog.

I’ve added a sentence to the commentary, which now reads:

A Google bomb is an attempt to design a website to take advantage of a search engine’s, especially Google’s, algorithm in order to make the site appear first among the listings. Google bombing differs from search engine optimization only in degree and intent, with Google bombing being an abuse of techniques that would be deemed legitimate when used in moderation.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ HD: 2001 Words      HD: 2003 Words ››