Home
Search
Login
Register
Show Posts
1
LoudGhozt's Characters / Even more laughable than SEOs selling
« on: September 03, 2023, 01:10:40 am »
Social media as the key to SEO is their open ignorance of the political nature of various relevancy signals. Does Facebook sell likes? Yes. Why would Google want to subsidize a competing ad network? It isn't hard to notice Google's dislike for Facebook through their very public black PR campaigns. The same sort of "why would I subsidize a competitor" issue is also in place with Twitter. They sell retweets & follows, so why would Google want to subsidize that? Google counts YouTube ad views as organic views, but they own it & they only rolled out universal search *after* they acquired YouTube. In summary... Google Copyright Transparency Report Google timed a nice Friday evening release to update of their.
Policy toward copyright infringement. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. Wow. Sounds like trouble. Surely that Phone Number Data means that YouTube's rankings are about to get torched. Oh, nope. One quick exemption for the video king: This data presents information specified in requests we received from copyright owners through our web form to remove search results that link to allegedly infringing content. It is a partial historical record that includes more than 95% of the volume of copyright removal requests that we have received.
For Search since July 2011. It does not include: requests submitted by means other than our web form, such as fax or written letter requests for products other than Google Search (e.g, requests directed at YouTube or Blogger) requests sent to Google Search for content appearing in other Google products (e.g., requests for Search, but specifying YouTube or Blogger URLs). Google does not state where the thresholds will be set & grants blanket immunity for themselves, yet they (illegitimately) emphasize that they are being transparent. Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate.
Policy toward copyright infringement. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. Wow. Sounds like trouble. Surely that Phone Number Data means that YouTube's rankings are about to get torched. Oh, nope. One quick exemption for the video king: This data presents information specified in requests we received from copyright owners through our web form to remove search results that link to allegedly infringing content. It is a partial historical record that includes more than 95% of the volume of copyright removal requests that we have received.
For Search since July 2011. It does not include: requests submitted by means other than our web form, such as fax or written letter requests for products other than Google Search (e.g, requests directed at YouTube or Blogger) requests sent to Google Search for content appearing in other Google products (e.g., requests for Search, but specifying YouTube or Blogger URLs). Google does not state where the thresholds will be set & grants blanket immunity for themselves, yet they (illegitimately) emphasize that they are being transparent. Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate.