That was the strangest part, for me. Google clearly can trust outgoing links from www.google.com/chrome.
Its clear they had no intention of gaming their own system with this campaign. But they obviously feel the need to act in a 'beyond reproach' way, to avoid the accusation of conflicts-of-interest.
In one way its good that they are being held to high standards; on the other hand, this is resulting in less relevant search responses, for no real benefit to anyone (including those whom antitrust law, which they might be thinking about, is there to protect).
Hard to say what what the right thing to do is. Sometimes, it looks like its a tough job to maintain the 'dont be evil' image.
Google.com/chrome isn't even the top result for the query "Google Chrome" or "Chrome"
https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&sourceid=chrome&...
https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&sourceid=chrome&...
Good on you, Google.
Google Chrome Download | google.com
www.google.com/chrome
Google simply can't afford to worsen their positions in courts should they have to do any serious battles against antitrust/monopoly allegations.
Dumber still, is that Google Chrome is in the 50th position? The second most popular web browser comes in at #50? Penalty or not, that makes no sense.
Snark aside, I have to say that was my reaction - it's a more sincere apology than we usually get, and can be accepted as such.
See also: "If I change my name to Mark Zuckerberg, they can't sue me, because the judge will think I'm Mark Zuckerberg!"
50 or 60 domains all hosted on a cheap shared hosting account running some lame PHP link farm script from a few years ago should do well. Just make sure the domain reggie doesn't point back at you.
You only buy links so that it appears like you've got an organic link farm instead of a mass produced one. Remember only Google is allowed to sell links, cuz they put them in a slightly yellow box or something. If other people could get you to the front page of google it would undermine Google's business model.
1. Firefox 2. Wikipedia "browser" 3. Wikipedia "Google chrome" 4. PC Mag "Browser chrome definition" 5. Google's Chrome download page
For "chrome":
1. Google's Chrome download page 2. Wikipedia "Google Chrome" 3. PC Mag "Browser chrome definition" 4. Chrome messenger bags 5. CNet's Google Chrome download page
I really doubt they'd release a publicity statement that let loose such a big secret so what am I missing or misinterpreting? I really thought there was just no way possible to change results. I get that they can mess with ads but organic results?
Edit: Not to be that guy but what's with the downvotes? I'm honestly asking. If there's something dumb about it I'd really appreciate someone telling me. Then downvote all you like. Am I being naive to think they can't change a ranking? Am I misusing terms? What's up?
Google has done this before. Binggate was one very public example.
As in the case of demoting Chrome, Google's rationalization was that the ends justified the means.
It would be somewhat unsurprising to me if that was also the rationalization behind promoting Chrome - keeping in mind that Google is a publicly traded company with an obligation to its shareholders not its users. Google is not a moral agent.
In other words, I am not inclined to bestow accolades upon them for making real the concerns which were raised.
But yeah, it's like praising someone saying "ok, ill stop murdering people now", on a much lower level of course. (specially after being slapped on the wrist)
Instead, they said, "We were manipulating search results, and therefore we are so sorry, we are going to manipulate search results."
Promoting Chrome through the manipulation of search results was not the root problem. It was merely a symptom. Manipulating page rank for their own benefit is the problem, and that is their proposed solution.
It came only after the manipulation came to light and does not appear to be part of a larger project to end all manipulation for their benefit.