As more people use search engines, Search Engine Optimization (SEO) has become a profitable way for website owners looking to boost their ranking in organic search results. Some companies have made SEO into a business by learning the intricate details of a particular search engine’s algorithm and tailoring a client’s webpage for prime placement. Clearly, the focus of most SEO companies is the 500 pound gorilla in the search engine market: Google. With Google’s market share doubling the combined shares of all its competitors, website owners prefer to ranking highly on Google over any other search engine. SEO has split into two main categories: white hat SEO, and black hat SEO (sometimes known as ‘Google bombing’). White hat SEO is optimization designed to be a lasting rank improvement by not breaking any search engine rules or terms of service. Conversely, black hat SEO involves deceptive techniques that violate these rules. Google bombers attempt to keep their ranking improvement as long as possible, before the search engine takes notice and bans the offending site.

A recent blog post by SearchEngineWatch.com chronicles the fine line Google is walking by selectively permitting or banning Google bombs. In most cases, Google will ban deceptive practices. For example, BMW Germany attempted to improve its search ranking by using a secret page loaded with key words that only Google crawlers could see. When Google discovered this blatant violation of their rules, they lowered the PageRank of bmw.de to 0, effectively putting the page last in any search. At the same time, a Google search for the term ‘Jew’ used to return an anti-semitic news site as the top result. Google found itself in a public relations nightmare by allowing the link to stay, claiming the site did not use deceptive practices to increase rank. When pro-Jewish groups found out, they organized an extensive Google bombing campaign that employed massive linking to the Wikipedia entry on “Jew”, pushing it to the top of the results. Was such a ranking due to “natural” patterns and did it fall within Google’s terms of service? Unlikely. However, Google instantly found itself with an easy exit to the controversy. By allowing the Google bomb to stay, Google no longer had to face the backlash of an offensive first search result. In fact, Google placed a disclaimer on the top of the results page indicating that the anti-semitic website did not reflect the views of the company.

So, how should Google deal with Google bombs? Should it adopt a blanket policy by banning all black hat SEOs or should it selectively permit certain bombs, possibly those that could benefit its image? By what criteria can Google make such judgments? These questions cannot be answered by a complex algorithm, thus revealing a very human side to the world’s largest search engine.