Google: Orwellian, Irrelevant, or Just Doing Their Job?
Yesterday, PCWorld posted an article about the recent removal of BMW.de’s website from Google’s search results. Matt Cutts, quality engineer for Google, said “BMW.de had been removed last week because certain pages on the site would show up one way when the search engine visited the page but when a Web user opened the page, a redirect mechanism would display a completely different page.” He further stated that Google would not tolerate the blatant disregard for their terms of service, and that it would likely require a reinclusion request for BMW.de to get the penalty lifted.

The search community’s reaction to this has been strong, and hotly debated on Slashdot, Search Engine Watch, and many other forums. With Google’s recent success though, more and more people outside of the search community are weighing in with their two cents.

Forrester Research says Google’s Irrelevant

Hellen Omwando, a principal analyst at Forrester Research believes that Google has a problem; that because “BMW's Web site practices have been discussed online for years,” Google should employ human editors to account for these kinds of situations. Her statement “Google needs to focus on enhancing its algorithms to deal with this kind of situation because right now BMW isn't the only company that does this” implies that BMW should somehow receive a free pass just because other websites use these tricks.

It raises an interesting question. Should household names get a free pass? Matt Cutts says no. Omwando replies with, "Google is saying, 'we're the gatekeepers, if you will, of the information on the Web and if you'd like to be a part of that database you need to step in line.” She believes that if people don’t find exactly what they’re looking for, they’ll go elsewhere for information, and that Google should allow certain sites exemption from the rules.

Some Think It’s Orwellian

Publishing 2.0 takes a more aggressive stance, writing that, “You could argue that Google has searchers best interest in mind, but when you smell the stench of “orthodoxy,” you have to ask yourself — is Google’s unchecked power really serving its users well, or is it being blinded by its own definition of “right” and “wrong” in the struggle to get noticed online.” The post further states that Google is acting like Big Brother in an Orwellian attempt at mind control.

I disagree. Aside from the other search options that still exist, a current Google.de search for BMW contains many other BMW sites, including the US and UK versions, as well as plenty of paid search links for BMW cars, parts, and accessories. In fact, the only piece of missing information appears to be the German BMW site. And even that’s not really missing. “BMW” is such a general keyword search; the user’s intent could be any number of different possibilities, including looking for the manufacturer. If it is the latter, many of the pages that do come up in the SERPs link to BMW.de, so all is not lost.

Just Doing Their Job

Leaving 1984 behind, does Google still have a problem? There is a balance between information and control that Google will constantly struggle with, but I don’t believe this situation applies. They have been very clear on their terms of service to be listed in their engine, and anyone who violates those should be treated the same way.

In this case, ignorance is not a valid excuse. Danny Sullivan, of Search Engine Watch states, “that degree of savvyness [to create the redirected pages] also means they should be aware that search engines generally don't like doorways." I agree with Danny; BMW.de knew what they were doing. They can’t possibly expect Google to bend the rules for them just because they’re a well known name. If Google opens the door to BMW, what will stop the next William Hung (a household name, however fleeting) from expecting the same treatment?
Jenny Halasz | permalink | +marktd |