Back at the beginning of October after I read a TechCrunch article about it, I had put up a widget on my side back called Scratchback. Since at the time I was preparing for my Cozumel trip, I had com……

thank you

http://www.scratchback.com/blo.....ring-beta/

I don’t see how Google is hampering anyone here but people trying to game the system, just like how people try to boost / game Digg articles all the time. Sure, you *can* build an application to try and exploit Digg’s system, but don’t expect them to take it lying down.

Likewise, you can build as many applications or start-ups you want that abuse or exploit Google’s search technology, but don’t expect them to roll over and take it as their search quality decreases. Google, like Digg, has its own interests to look out for too — it just so happens that Google’s interests happen to be a cross-section with most of its searcher’s interests, too (clean, relevant results).

I really don’t see the scenario of Google dominating the web as you’ve described it. They’re not stopping you from creating applications that abuse the system — they’re *fighting* you tooth and nail for that contested ground, but that’s a natural and really unsurprising response.

I think you’re reading too much into the terminology ScratchBack used: Google’s said they don’t like paid links without nofollow, so ScratchBack is using paid links *with* nofollow. That’s about everything you need to do to make your site “Google Compatible” according to the way you see it.

what i am trying to say is that the way things are going now, development of apps need to consider another factor — is it google friendly.

That really should NOT be the case as when one starts doing something like that, it does hamper the freedom of development. It will come to a certain extent that Google can manipulate how apps are made just because their search engine or whatever backend works that way. So we’ll see “Google Approved” or “Google Compatible” apps being made instead of just Web/ Internet apps — can you see the picture i’m trying to paint?

This sort of unhealthy monopolistic situation is not good for the web. We have to remember that the whole basis of why the internet has grown so big and so fast is because it is due to one major area — the freedom to create without boundaries. That is what i’m a little concerned about — it is the whole Microsoft rules and the old AT&T rules all over again but just on the internet.

Paid links don’t necessarily add value to a page (check out what Text Link Ads will put on your page for a quick example of this); most of them are there to game Google’s arguably out-dated PageRank system.

They don’t really govern the market-space — just their own little slice of the pie.

BTW, I would not recommend eating Google pie. It’s at $700+ a slice. Too expensive. Better to wrap it in some shrinkwrap and hide it in the fridge for awhile. That way it’ll appreciate in value!

It also looks to me like an easy way out of how they want to manipulate their spidering with least work on their end i.e. making the blogger or website implement something on their end instead of working on a way to combat spam with specific algorithms on their own engine.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Google is a great company with great offerings, but they shouldn’t be allowed to govern and rule how the marketplace, the web and blogosphere is run in such a monopolistic manner.

However, if you really want that search engine traffic, obviously this is a no-go since it is ‘approved’ by google for being search engine invisible (SEI!)

I’m using it and I chose to have manual approval of the tips for that reason. It’s an option to have manual or auto approval in the setup.

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com