A few days ago, some were shocked when news of Google’s own admission that they pick and choose over search results started breaking on the Internet.

Personally, I think the implications that Google picks and chooses what comes up in a search quite shocking, particularly when those choices distort what ordinary people perceive to be the truth (as in the case of what exactly is going on in Gaza, for example). So i decided to ask around to see what other reactions I could find to this revelation.

The first to respond, and the view which most closely matches my own, was Aaron Wall, who can always be relied upon for in-touch and relevant news and opinion on the field of search and SEO.

Search has never been about being impartial or promoting “the truth.” Search engineers only talk from that perspective because it is a nice public relations angle for their ad networks. How interested in divine truth can they be when they are willing to sell clicks to just about anyone willing to meet their minimum bid requirements?

Search is about promoting a diversity of remarkable views…which means it often caters to the opinions of whack jobs and mainstream propaganda. If a person lies it is much easier for them to write something remarkable than if they are fair and balanced.

Research has been done on political blogs to show that they don’t cross link to blogs of alternate political ideology very often (and when they do it is often to point sharp criticism rather than to agree). These linking and reading patters lead to a selection bias that over time can warp our view of ourselves and of society. And then there are technologies like search personalization which aim to capture our flaws and feed them back to us, which could make people even more radicalized. And there are patents out there to exploit people’s mental weaknesses. Read this entry ( http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=556 ) about how Google has a patent to target ads to video game players based on mental weaknesses observed during gameplay:

“the dialogue could indicate that the player is aggressive, profane, polite, literate, illiterate, influenced by current culture or subculture, etc. Also decisions made by the players may provide more information such as whether the player is a risk taker, risk averse, aggressive, passive, intelligent, follower, leader, etc. This information may be used and analyzed in order to help select and deliver more relevant ads to users.”

NOTE: SEObook is one of the best online SEO resources: I’m enjoying Aaron’s new SEO Toolbar. Don’t forget to try it out.

Andy Beal over at Marketing Pilgrim has had lots to say on the subject in the past (but probably before Google came right out and admitted that they tweak results). Here he’s talking about What Google SearchWiki Means for Your Ranking

Black Hats Salivate as Google Prepares to add SearchWiki to Algorithm.

I also asked Guy Kawasaki, entrepreneur of note and owner of Alltop.com for his input. He said:

I expect and want Google to provide human input since so many people are trying to game. This is not an issue in my opinion.

You might like to take a look at Alltop’s page for Google.

Barry Welford of The Other Boke’s Blog was of similar opinion to Guy:

In general I believe Google allows its algorithms to determine rankings and I have not seen anything substantive to change that view. Of course they can adjust their algorithms and that might have an effect that some do not like, but it’s not judgement applied directly to what entries appear in the SERPs.

The only situation that I am aware of where human judgment comes in is that apparently they do adjust page rank where a web page sells links (and does not apply rel=nofollow).. However even there I am not sure that affects the implicit PageRank used in rankings as opposed to the visible display of PageRank that they show on their toolbar.

However I see nothing here that will change my relationship with Google.

So, there you have it. A cross-section of professional opinion on how Google does, or does not manipulate what we see in a search result. I am firmly of the opinion that they do manipulate results.

Although I’ve been working conscientiously and diligently to serve my clients with the latest and best SEO techniques, I now feel that more than ever before it’s important to take your online presence into your own hands a bit more and not just leave it to the integrity of the search engines. We’ve obviously been giving them a whole lot more credit than they deserve. I also find Google’s hypocritical attitudes towards Blackhats all the more amazing, under the circumstances. I don’t like out-and-out Blackhats, but I think Google’s policies are a whole lot worse than Blackhats could ever be since they masquerade as ‘industry standard Whitehat.’

“Search engine optimizers’ Backhat social media optimization tricks can hurt you without you doing it yourself? Yes, it’s true, and here’s why.”

Today’s search engine optimization or SEO is rapidly changing to meet the New World Wide Web order of things. SMM (social media marketing) SMO (social media optimizing) SSM (social search marketing) and ‘personalized search’ are not only the catch-all SEO phrases or marketing fads of the moment: Search and social marketing now go hand in hand. Both social media and search optimization can work beautifully in tandem when used properly as a combined marketing strategy. Social media is here to stay, but Web 2.0 is old. Personalized Active Semantic Grid 3.0 is going to be the next Big Thing.

All in all, while technically things are different, nothing has really changed for SEO. What’s different to the Web as it was a short while ago is that Blackhats, marketers and Whitehats alike now use social media as part of their daily routine. The core principles of optimization have maintained identical faces in both worlds. Good gets good results and bad gets bad results. So most likely SEO professionals will continue to develop their talents and meet a demand through to the next phase of the Internet.

Why ramble on about what we already know? For some reason no SEO has yet broached the subject of the real issues with Blackhat optimizers. Once, link farms and mass directory submissions were just about standard practice, and when a Blackhat got started on your site, all that would be left was a disreputable, hollow husk. Even then, using these shady methods would hurt your ranking far more than they would help, and the same is true today. But what so many online business owners don’t realize is that when you have a Blackhat inside your social circle operating in stealth mode, you will unknowingly be ruining you own social search rankings just by associating with them.

“HOW in the WORLD could that possibly EVER happen?”

If you’re a quietly-observant person who is active on the internet, you may have already asked yourself this question. It may also be that you have already noticed the very thing I am about to unveil.

To make my point I can give some simple examples any social media user would have seen recently.

Blogs: Have you ever heard of Akismet? How about these spine-chilling terms: comment spam, feed scrapers, hacked blogs, hidden links, pingback spam, trackback spam, XSS injection? These are Blackhat tools and blog-abusing tricks. Every single one of these can destroy a site’s authority, ranking and traffic.

Take Delicious: Once a quality indicator for websites across the internet, now the most overcrowded, insanely dense sea of innumerable tags, more an exercise in pointlessness than anything at this point. What does that mean for you? Your bookmarks may or may not get credited, listed or scanned. Why? Because of the flood of spam, Delicious is now filtered to protect the site itself. Poisoned links can seep into your pool, fed by mass shares, bot armies and forced homepage listings that only seem interesting at first glance.

Digg: Wow this one is Easy. Digg.com has virtually ground to a halt in the last few weeks. Reports of hundreds, if not over a thousand diggers banned for unwittingly aiding technical social Blackhats. It’s a story that has played out many times, but perhaps not on so large a scale.

As the redirected sites and obviously ad-fueled ADVERTISEMENT INCORPORATED sites flooded the Digg gates, scores of unwittingly complicit users then vanished. A new community of new and old faces replaced them. Now those users are mingling in a social site permeated with fear. Yes, it could and probably will happen again.

StumbleUpon: This is by far the most dangerous target for users. Blackhats can send you direct pages, often in a friendly way that will leave you unsuspecting. Yet according to the terms of StumbleUpon, no click should be asked for or suggested. Users guilty of asking for Stumbles can be banned, no questions asked. So next time you get a Stumble request, ” blah blah … stumble and review plz” read “make me money … get banned dummy”.

Twitter: Twitter oh our cruel mistress of dread. It’s addictive once you get started, yet staring you in the face is the Blackhat core from the dark depths of the Internet. Everything from adult and hijack redirects to mass-Google blacklisting has befallen Twitter users. Again as a Twitter user you may not be doing anything you would think could harm you, but you can get tagged as a spammer by association, and this can be visible to everyone and totally out of your control on ratings sites all over the Web. Talk about a reputation management nightmare.

As you now may see, the Internet as we know it has changed, in many ways for the better, but in some ways for the worse. Facets and faces of marketing will always be part of any product or consumer driven society, therefore greed or need will always drive some to choose the darker path.The bright side for all of us is that as technology changes, new and better is always just ahead. Test it, try it, explore the possibility of the Web. Go search and be thoughtful, be vigilant while you’re being social. Consider your actions and your associates carefully, and all will be well.

Another ridiculous yet interesting searchable socialized rant-ramble by: Mich D … yeah the very same dude [ @MichDdot 4D twest U pleepz N tweepz ]