Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Trade of Google+1 "Likes" as a Business 83

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the ruining-it-for-everyone dept.
siliconbits writes "Selling Google+1 "likes" is gradually becoming a rather lucrative business, helped by cheap labour and ever-falling internet access worldwide; the trend is not unlike what we saw previously with Twitter & Digg during the days except that this has a more widespread implication for SEO and could turn the nascent social networking service into a massive headache for Google as many try to game the system. Google+1 selling sites like Googleplus1supply, buygoogleplus1 or Blackcatseo have cropped up during the last few months — amongst so many other websites — with the sole aim of selling Google+1 "likes" to publishers and businesses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trade of Google+1 "Likes" as a Business

Comments Filter:
  • by mehrotra.akash (1539473) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:39AM (#36885370)

    ever-falling internet access worldwide

    falling??

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:40AM (#36885382)

    The only thing that Google+ is saying about their +1 affecting search ranking is that it will only increase the ranking of sites that people in your circles have +1'd.. so unless you plan on following a bunch of spam bots on Google+ I really don't see how this is an issue..

    "+1 helps people discover relevant content—a website, a Google search result, or an ad—from the people they already know and trust"
    http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=1140194

  • Crowdsourcing FAIL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:46AM (#36885476) Homepage

    This is why "crowdsourcing" consistently fails as a method of business ranking. It's too easy to spam. Google was burned by this late last year when they were counting reviews on Citysearch and Yelp. That backfired badly. [nytimes.com] Local search results were polluted with junk entries. Google got a lot of bad press over this. Since then, they've stopped counting "likes" on competing sites, but they still count their own.

    Google's ad customers have been complaining local spam for years, [google.com], and Google hasn't been able to fix it. It's become worse since Google combined local results with web search results, and the value of local spam went up.

    • by EvilStein (414640)

      Google is a complete fucking pile of FAIL when it comes to anything related to customer support. They don't fix spam problems and spammers have been flocking to gmail/googlemail for ages now because Google actively protects them by hiding origin IP headers.

      Then they let users add stuff to Google maps, and guess what? IT's becoming a spam hole thanks to the hoards of Avon reps & home "Scentsy" businesses. Even in my sparsely populated area, i'm seeing several worthless mommy-biz entries.

      Google stumbles w

  • by Daetrin (576516) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @11:47AM (#36885486)
    It's a good thing they're forcing people to use real names in order to prevent abuse of the system!

    ...wait, you mean it's _not_ stopping people determined to exploit the system or make a nuisance of themselves, it's just harming the people interested in maintaining a long term presence on G+? Say it ain't so!
    • by asdf7890 (1518587)
      This won't affect anyone except the spammer's marks and people in the circles of those marks.

      The +1s you give may affect results for you and to a lesser extent the results of people who you are linked two both ways (you have them in a circle and vice-versa).

      The only way this is going to affect users in general is if those users have had their accounts hacked (by falling for a phishing attack or such) and are being used to click the +1s without their knowledge (and no spammer is going to waste time on
    • by fermion (181285)
      This is what I was thinking. There are websites selling Google likes. If this is a problem, it should be trivial to link the accounts used by the webistes and deactivate them. Google could even deactivate the accounts of those who buy the likes.

      If google is not doing this, then it is difficult to assume that the problem exists, at least as far as Google is concerned. It is like link farms. It should be easy to identify the layout of a link farm, so the fact that so many of my search have link farms i

  • by Anonymous Coward

    And another example of how SEO is a bullshit industry.
     
      Make a good product, have good presentation, and create good relationships with your customers/clients. Or, hire an "SEO expert" to "get me first on Google." Awesome.

  • Just make it so the site only shows the likes/dislikes of people who are in your circles. Trust networks are a proven, decade-old concept.
    • by vlm (69642)

      Just make it so the site only shows the likes/dislikes of people who are in your circles. Trust networks are a proven, decade-old concept.

      Which was already the plan. The point of these businesses is to sell to ignorant marketing departments... not to thwart the might GOOG.

      Kind of like how most of the money in spamming is in selling spamming services to wannabes, not selling what is in the emails.

    • Google read your comment and liked it so much, they went back in time and did it just as you said!

      How does +1 affect search results? [google.com]

      +1 helps people discover relevant content—a website, a Google search result, or an ad—from the people they already know and trust

  • I have a G+ account but can't (as of today) get it to load in Chrome. Weird.

  • Then rivals will pay for -1 on their competitors. Let the sh*t hit the fan!

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @12:57PM (#36886346)

    Meta-moderation worked on /. too, why not for Google? It should be trivial to easily identify such "services" by their likes being quickly metamoderated into the ground, hence rendering all their "likes" worthless. Of course, this again can be gamed, but with enough layers of moderation, meta-moderation and meta-meta-moderation, it should become rather tricky for such "services" to continue their business against the rest of the internet users.

    • I think part of why it works on Slashdot is that there is a community of continually interested people and a focused topic. It's hard to imagine people with that level of interest in "policing" the web at large. I think this is why crowd-sourcing is so easily gamed. While some people will sometimes be interested enough to help police things, the only ones who will be continuously motivated and dedicated are the spammers looking for financial gain.

  • by jason.sweet (1272826) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @01:39PM (#36886816)

    Selling Google+1 "likes" is gradually becoming a rather lucrative business, helped by cheap labour and ever-falling internet access worldwide; the trend is not unlike what we saw previously with Twitter & Digg during the days except that this has a more widespread implication for SEO and could turn the nascent social networking service into a massive headache for Google as many try to game the system.

    That rumbling you hear is a million deceased writing teachers digging out of their graves to make siliconbits diagram that "sentence."

  • by SmilingBoy (686281) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @02:08PM (#36887172)

    "Google+1 selling sites [...] have cropped up during the last few months"

    Hard to believe given that Google+ did not exist one month ago...

  • I'd love an invite if you happen to have an extra one. email: brian.f.thomasREMOVE@gmail.com (remove the remove) Thanks in advance.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...