Google Hates SEO Software


After Web Position (a while back) and WebCEO got banned, it's SEO Elite's turn to get some.

So are users safe from using these ?



That's why smart people check SERPs using proxies, it's built into WebCEO which probably ticked 'em off.

They've hated this software

They've hated this software for awhile. Someone at Google actually took a second to write a sentence in the guidelines about these tools, so you know that can't be good.

Google's API

Google tends to be fairly forgiving if you use their API, I'm not sure why it makes that much difference from their point of view, I suppose it just so they can control it.


I thought WPG integrated the API?


From the test I did on that a few months ago, I thought they integrated the API.

Is this ban on WebCeo new?

The API is great, but it is

The API is great, but it is also way too restrictive with its 1000 queries a day limit. Yahoo's limit is much more sensible at 5k.


Not only is Yahoo's query limit 5k, it returns up to 100 results at once -- Google will only return 10, limiting ranking analysis to 100 keywords a day...

1000 on Google...

that's if it's actually working. How many people actually successfully get that every day?

don't even try

I just scrape its easier and I have only been banned a few times in the last year or so.

Is this ban on WebCeo

Is this ban on WebCeo new?

Relatively yes. It's been banned a month before, but been reincluded for a short period, and now it's banned again.


It seems like bullshit to ban a website that is within guidelines just because the software they sell isn't. So, why not ban affiliates of theirs?

the long history of Google as righteous parent

Google has behaved that way since the start. I suspect the founders and early employees were raised by righteous parents. Do something wrong, get slapped-so-hard-your-brother's-cheek-glows-red so you don't do it again.

Is the website within guidelines?

I don't understand why people have pages like those on their site after they are already doing well. Sure claw your way up (and if you got nothing then you have nothing to lose, etc.), but if your site makes like $1,000 a day eventually it is worth taking a hard look at the risk / reward ratio when hosting pages like those.

To me, a large part of the SEO game is risk / reward analysis. When I made software similar to SEO Elite I removed the ability to directly query Google because I didn't want to get nuked. Those link pages probably did not help him much and also added a bunch of risk to the site.

I just wonder why they banned it now? It is not like anything with the site changed recently? Why is Google so damn inconsistent with their policies? Why can SEO Chat scrape Google SERPs and add PageRank to it and that is an ok tool, but if someone like me or Brad scrape PageRank in a publicly available and publicly marketed tool there is much more risk.

It's just a matter of those

It's just a matter of those freekin' reinclusion request. They (Google) have to act on these as much alike as on any other website.

So if they do one, and show that they removed the X violation, they will reinclude them i guess.

But with seo software, it's so much more personal than with any other website.

My 2 cents.

Is the website within guidelines?

Yea, not sure on seoelite. Thought webceo was pretty clean (assumption) though. My point is that "if" they are removing these sites because their software conflicts with Google's operations then that criteria should be added to their webmaster guidelines. And if they do add it... it's still crap.

Just a simple thought about

Just a simple thought about WebCEO. Notice the little info in the header :

At the moment 235091 businesses rely on Web CEO

Now go the the perl script that actually counts that :

At the moment 175894 businesses rely on Web CEO

My 2 cents.

Why Google Loves SEO

Google may hate SEO software that hammers their servers, but they do like the SEO industry, just like the NHL likes fighting. A little fighting fills hockey arenas. Fighting in the organic results creates a little irrelevance that drives CTR's for paid links and Google's revenues.

You can read my argument here if interested:

I think the "Google likes

I think the "Google likes irrelevance for profit" angle falls apart at first glance when you think about the fact that they kick spammy AdSense sites out of their SERPs but still allow them to stay in the AdSense program


Google loves PR, yes... so SEO vs. Google is good for Google. Anyone who can get PR related to others trying to knock them down should be very very happy. It makes them look good. Just ask incrediBill.

The NHL doesn't like fighting as much as it likes money, so if there is a way to reduce fighting and still fill the seats with customers willing to buy six $8 beers each, they will. Hockey (the sport) is cleaning up from the bottom up (starting with kid's hockey) so after a while either pro hockey will be like pro wrestling, or there will be far fewer fights (of course the hockey parents may defeat the attempts to keep kid's hockey clean... always a good chance at that).

As Aaron suggests, Google not only likes money, it loves money. Whatever it takes.

Google likes

I'm not saying they don't make some efforts and I think you know more about these efforts than I do Aaron. I don't think they want organic results in their SERP's that are completely irrelvant, just slightly less relevant than their paid listings.

If Google's organic results were perfect for commercial terms, no one would click their ads. Don't they have a really strong incentive to allow some irrelevance in their SERP's?

Don't they have a really

Don't they have a really strong incentive to allow some irrelevance in their SERP's?

It's subjective. I am sure you and i and everyone else can pinpoint numerous niches where such a thing does not happen at all.

Maybe at a certain higher level competition niches or terms ?

Ah, I think you have the

Ah, I think you have the answer, but the wrong approach.

How do you make the organic listings irrelevant to commercial queries? Not by letting junky sites rank at the top, but by giving queries an informational bias.

See this
slide the search bar to the right (toward research) and the results start to look a bit more like Google than Yahoo!.


Interesting Aaron. Is that because legitimate links (favored by ranking algorithms) are generated more on informational pages? Maybe another way they accomplish organic irrelevance for someone wanting to get out their credit card . . .

That said, I have a problem with the way webmasters and SEO's pros have to optimize a site to get it listed in the organic results. Look at a search in Google on "printer cartridges" for example. The paid links up top are clean, with a perfect crisp message. Because of the system, the SEO optimized organic results are let in, but they are displayed in a jumbled mess (lots of titles, confusing descriptions, etc.) I think Google loves this.

the stars and other random

the stars and other random characters in the top organic serps are because site owners WANTED them to display like that. Sometimes I make page titles like that just to be a smart ass or goof around.

I think part of the informational bias is related to how quality links are cast, but as you can see from checking Yahoo! Mindset both Google and Yahoo! chose what they want to count and how much...there is a desire to make the results look cerain ways.

Yahoo! has tons of internal content so they want you to read content on Yahoo!'s properties, so they don't care if there is a bit of commercial bias to their results. Google is the other way around.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.