Schumaker 1

Jon Schumaker

Professor Kim

English 1102

9 April 2007

Search Engine Optimization: How Google Is Making

Sure Link Bombs Fail Miserably

Many people view the Internet as a democratic enterprise, one that is based on the ideal of

equal access for all users. However, most people are unaware of the extent to which Web searching

can be manipulated by advertisers and others who wish to control their presence online. In fact,

there are a number of practices, collectively referred to as search engine optimization (SEO), which

allow people to manipulate the order in which search results appear on sites like Google. This kind

of manipulation can be profitable for businesses because there is a huge difference between having

your site appear at the top of the first search results page instead of buried several pages later.

Because Google’s success is founded in part on its users’ belief in the objectivity of its results—

the belief that all Web sites are created equal—it has been necessary for them, and other search

engines like them, to fight back against these practices.

One common SEO technique is known as “link bombing” or “Google bombing,” a process

of manipulating the order Web pages appear in search results or associating a particular page with

particular keywords. Google claims its search engine works by counting links on Web pages,

“interpret[ing] a link from page A to page B as a vote” for page B. These “votes” are tabulated and

ranked by the popularity of the site where they are found (how many sites link to page A) and the

keywords associated with them. When a user then searches for those keywords, the pages with the

most links from the most popular sites are placed at the top of the results. Google bombing works

by “creat[ing] dozens of Weblogs . . . filled with positive stories and keywords” in order to

Schumaker 2

associate a person’s or company’s name with those keywords or to drive a particular page higher

up on a list of search results (Glaser).

Fig. 1. Results of a Google search for “miserable failure” before Google changed the algorithm in

January 2007.

The most famous example of a Google bomb was the association of the words “miserable

failure” with George W. Bush’s official biography (see Fig. 1). While this example was a prank,

marketers can use Google bombs to manipulate Google’s “voting” results, thus damaging the

objectivity of those results.

In damaging Google’s objectivity, link bombing harms the search engine’s credibility;

Google employee Matt Cutts and his colleagues note that many people might react to the “miserable

failure” bomb by thinking that Google itself is biased against President Bush. More critically,

Google bombs that are used for marketing purposes make it more difficult for searchers to find the

information they need. As one user tells Mark Glaser, companies that use link bombs and other

SEO practices know that they are “deceitful” because SEO is “not about providing value for

people” or “providing a great information resource.” Instead, “it’s about flooding the Web with

Schumaker 3

crap.” Since this “crap” is presented to the user as coming from Google’s search results, it makes

the company seem less like a multinational information manager and more like a door-to-door

fertilizer salesman.

To combat the damage that this tampering may cause its reputation, Google has introduced

the “no follow” tag. If a blog’s author places the “no follow” tag at the end of her or his post, the

tag “will signal to Google as it indexes the Web that [those comments] are to be overlooked”

(Olsen). This tag is especially helpful for the authors of blogs, since blog comments are one of the

primary means of executing Google bombs. Additionally, Cutts, Moulton, and Carattini note that

Google has updated its algorithm so that SEO practices are less effective. By constantly updating

its software and tailoring specific responses to the problem, such as the “no follow” tag, they claim

that Google has been able to “minimiz[e] the impact” of Google bombs. This response has already

had some success; the “miserable failure” bomb no longer works. By continually monitoring SEO

practices, search engines like Google are working to prevent search “vote” tampering, thereby

maintaining the integrity of their results.

Schumaker 4

Works Cited

Cutts, Matt, Ryan Moulton, and Kendra Carattini. “A Quick Word about Googlebombs.”

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog. Blog. 25 Jan. 2007. 31 Mar. 2007

<http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-

googlebombs.html>.

Glaser, Mark. “Companies Subvert Search Results To Squelch Criticism.” Online

Journalism Review 1 Jun. 2005. 31 Mar. 2007

<http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/>.

Google. “Our Search: Google Technology.” 2 Apr. 2007

<http://www.google.com/technology/>.

Olsen, Stefanie. “Google Aims To Outsmart Search Tricksters.” CNET News.com 18 Jan.

2005. 31 Mar. 2007

<http://www.news.com/Google+aims+to+outsmart+search+tricksters/2100-

1024_3-5540740.html>.