Trade of Google+1 "Likes" as a Business 83
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."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you have to have a Google+ account to see what a +1 like is...?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 came out before Google+. It was a way to basically "like" a search result. It also had a social component, so you could see the likes of your other friends when performing a search.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...after reading further down...and saw that this is something apparently added to regular google searches I looked for it on a search..and can now see the very faint +1 link near links returned by a search. Strange, I had never noticed that being there at all before just now.
I'm not familiar with this concept of "liking"
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not familiar with this concept of "liking" something...I take it this is something done on those social network sites like FB and twitter?
It has something to do with that new inner-web thingy. Maybe this [lmgtfy.com] will help. You can search for information these days, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Like without dislike bothers me.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 is implemented in Goggle+, but it did not come out of Google+ (at least not publicly).
+1 came preceded Google+ by a few months. Google is trying to tie +1 into other Google services as well, not just Google+.
Re: (Score:1)
+1 came preceded Google+ by a few months. Google is trying to tie +1 into other Google services as well, not just Google+.
+1 preceded Google by decades, since it came out of TSR in the 1970s. Anyway, +1 is for munchkins, I wouldn't even go near a Mind Flayer without at least a +3 sword, better a +5 if you can get one.
I thought it was going up (Score:3)
ever-falling internet access worldwide
falling??
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing two different things. Google +1 [blogspot.com] is not "Google+".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or even better - actually pay one of the services for +1s relating to some fake/obscure unlikable thing, and ban every user that +1s it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really no.
Take my blog, obscure and possibly disliked by many who read it. That does not mean anyone who dislikes it should be banned. In fact what i want from the like/+1 system is that it shows me obscure gems that would otherwise fall under the radar.
What's wrong with each user has a certain value, not all +1's being equal and all that. If google tracks you as well as some people think they do then fixing this could be as simple as:
1) track all the websites a person visits (probably by IP address to
Re: (Score:1)
if someone makes a brand-new account and like more than a few things a day, it is an obvious seller of likes. ban.
Eh, when people make an account on Facebook or Google+ they usually have a huge spike of likes then. All your favourite music, movies, games and so on.. After that it slow downs and people like things randomly when they come across new things they, well, like.
Even if Google does get some code running that detects and bans them, well, it doesn't take long for people to study what works and what works and act upon that information. People aren't that stupid that they would just continue doing shit that gets
Re:should be a simple fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if somone gets a shit-ton of likes from brand new accounts that only "likes" stuff, it is an obvious partaker of purchased likes. ban.
Too easy to game to DoS a legit site.
Not really a problem.. (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Not really a problem.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone mod this up for God's sake. It shows that Google not only realized the potential for the problem but even addressed it before the beta began. Not to mention it shows exactly how Google intends to monetize Google+, by personalizing search results based on what a self-selected group of people similar to you enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really a problem.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not really a problem.. (Score:4, Funny)
Thinking ahead (Score:3)
It's pretty easy to see where this is going, though, and these companies are only thinking ahead.
Google quantifies you somehow. Person A and Person B aren't friends, but they both read a lot of /. and constantly search for tentacle porn. If Person A clicks on a link involving Natalie Portman and an over-excited tentacle monster, it might display that result with more importance for Person B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Social connections outside Google+ (Score:2)
[+1] 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
But the +1 button [google.com] was around before the Google+ field trial began. In addition to Google+ circles, +1 also uses [google.com] Google Contacts, Google Talk chat contacts, Google Reader, and Google Buzz to determine social connections. But how can these be gamed?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need bots? Can't you just pay people with large followings to +1 things?
Yeah, and...? (Score:2)
There's a word for that... it's called an endorsement.
What's the difference between paying Kim Kardashian to appear in a commercial for your product and paying her to +1 your product?
Re: (Score:2)
sounds kind of like a protection racket to me.
Re: (Score:2)
so unless you plan on following a bunch of spam bots on Google+
A *lot* of people follow Robert Scoble you insensitive clod!
Crowdsourcing FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Today's fad isn't always tomorrow's English... (Score:3)
hey look, i'm standing on your lawn with hundreds of millions of other global millennials and we cherish the thought of forcing you to accept our grammar and "incorrect" forms of activism for the rest of your fragile and worthless existence. Lulz.
Might happen, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. For every permanent addition to the language, there's a fad that dies the death when its time is up.
"Groovy" was a cool, popular word during the flower power era. *No-one* uses it now, except as a tongue-in-cheek invocation of the era it's inexorably tied to.
More recent example- remember 13375p34k? Pretty common a few years back. When was the last time you heard anyone use it seriously, or even tongue-in-cheek?
As for "FAIL", the way it's generally used
Re: (Score:3)
"Fail" isn't a noun. Leave the mangling of communication to the children who think defacing sites is some sort of activism.
Google wasn't a verb. Look how well that turned out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is if you treat it as an abbreviation for failure. This is the internet, communication mangling is its specialty on every level from the Link Layer to the Organic layer.
It's not really the Internet, it's English:
English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll
Re: (Score:1)
Guess what, the English language is constantly evolving. Either way you're wrong: [merriam-webster.com]
2fail noun
Definition of FAIL
1
: failure —usually used in the phrase without fail
2
: a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale
See fail defined for English-language learners
First Known Use of FAIL
13th century
And here: [reference.com]
–noun .
13.
Stock Exchange
a.
a stockbroker's inability to deliver or receive security within the required time after sale or purchase.
b.
such an undelivered security.
14.
Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.
—Idiom
15.
without fail, with certainty; positively: I will visit you tomorrow without fail.
Maybe next time actually know what you are talking about before speaking up?
Well thankfully.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That shouldn't leave you conflicted, because what you describe is already happening with or without the guff mentioned in the article
SEO (Score:1)
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.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google read your comment and liked it so much, they went back in time and did it just as you said!
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see... you're posting advertising on a page for geeks and nerds who have an innate hatred for people who try to abuse "their" system and who are also well known for their zeal to protect their turf and prefer meaningful search results to bullshit advertising in them. In other words, you're talking to the people who will most likely hate you with a passion and who also happen to know a fair lot about the technology you use.
So I wonder, do you want a free audit, are you trying to find out how resilient
In Chrome (Score:2)
I have a G+ account but can't (as of today) get it to load in Chrome. Weird.
Re: (Score:1)
How about liking the likers? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny not only can you turn off the instant search, it is even off by default, which means you or someone who uses your phone turned it on.
Brains... (Score:3)
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."
In the last few months? (Score:3)
"Google+1 selling sites [...] have cropped up during the last few months"
Hard to believe given that Google+ did not exist one month ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 predates Google+
March 30th: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/03/google-1.html [blogspot.com]
Would love an invite if you have an extra! (Score:1)
I would also like an invitation. (Score:2)