Cowardly Google Is Boycotting My Articles with the word "Banksters"

1. 62

   bgamallposted 12 years ago

   I don't know if it is just a coincidence, but Googster is boycotting many of my articles that substitute banksters for bankers.
   
   Screwgle.

   replyreport
2. 72

   William F. Torpeyposted 12 years ago

   Did Google say that was the reason? That's unacceptable if they did.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No.

      replyreport
3. 78

   mattforteposted 12 years ago

   Maybe it is just because nobody googles the word "banksters."

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Really, it does.
      
      Searches related to bankster
      bankster dictionary
      bankster meaning
      bankster wiki
      bankster quotes
      economist bankster cover
      bankster arrests
      deborah bankster md
      
      Although I doubt using the word bankster has led to some form of penalty.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Hollie, I cannot believe two people on Hubpages agreed that there are no searches for banksters without looking at the external keyword tool. Sheesh.
         
         It could be a coincidence. But it is frustrating because the content is good.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think we said there weren't, we just suggested it as a possibility because it sounded as an unlikely word.  You don't expect us to do your work for you, do you?

            replyreport
         2. 77

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The next question, then, is whether your topic about "banksters" is the same topic that google thinks it is.  I know that I've come with what I thought were good keywords - until I looked at what Google produced from a search and they were about totally different things.
            
            You'll get traffic - until G notices that no one sticks around and quits sending it.

            replyreport
         3. 78

            mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi. I did use the keyword tool.
            
            Apparently I am the only one that did.
            2,900 a month is not a keyword that is going to bring in traffic (9,900 global).
            
            A longtail that brings 50 queries a month isn't going to bring in traffic, no matter how many longtails there are. (And there aren't many)
            So unless you are ranked #1 for EVERYTHING involving that word, you are going to get garbage traffic. It's pretty simple.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               There is a *massive* sub culture throughout the world, which opposes the organised crime that is otherwise know as the global banking system, or the illegal actions of monopolistic corporations. Nothing to do with their employees or any form of lame attempt to insult.
               
               Individuals who *speak* about such crimes are often targeted in an attempt to suppress their voices, this is not an unheard of phenomenon. It 's perfectly understandable for someone who writes about these crimes to wonder whether they are being targeted.

               replyreport
   3. 62

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong. 9900 searches in the world. 2900 per month in the US.

      replyreport
4. 79

   sunforgedposted 12 years ago

   I looked, they do
   
   
   But, what does it mean to be "boycotted" by Google anyways?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      2900 Monthly local searches.
      
      That is hardly enough to consider it traffic worthy...since over 90% of searchers click on the first 2 results. Or is it 3? I forget.
      
      Even if he was in the #1 spot for that word, and got every single click - we are talking less than 100 views per day in that horribly unlikely scenario.
      
      
      So no, they really don't.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         aa liteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The way I heard it 40% of peeps click on first result, 12% on 2nd, 10% on third etc.  Even 10th result on page gets some clicks. 
         
         I am very surprised you don't think 100 views per day is worth it!  I think most people would love to consistently have hubs with 100 daily views.  You write 10 such hubs, you get 1000 which is around $3 a day.  You write 100 such hubs (really not a big deal over a few months) that's $30 a month.  You don't think that is worth it?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I can only wish I had 10 hubs that consistently got 100 views per day!
            
            But then, I'm not using a single keyword that shows 2900 "exact" global searches per month, let alone that shows that in "local" searches.
            
            I do, however, have some hubs that show 200 exact global searches per month and that get 75-100 searches per day.  It's not all about either "exact" searches or single keywords.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               aa liteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Absolutely, the exact searches is a rough indication rather than a prediction.  I too have hubs that get a lot more traffic than the 'exact' searches a month would indicate.  I just wonder that mattforte doesn't think targetting that kind of keyword is worthwhile. 
               
               If I find keywords with 2900 exact local searches, and low competition I'm going for em!  I think that's pretty good earning potential. 
               
               To address the main point of the thread, it is a little presumptuous to think that if you don't get traffic to your hub, it must be because Google is boycotting them for political reasons.  If you google "bankster" it is coming up with results, so obviously it doesn't boycott all pages that have the word, it just thinks those pages are better than your hubs.

               replyreport
            2. 78

               mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You are getting longtails.
               Look up banksters - using broad, not exact.
               longtails for that term are few and far between.
               
               My 300 a day hub ranks #1 for it's two primary queries. Those queries have 800 pages of suggested keywords. Millions and millions of potential longtails that I am probably buried deep in the rankings for, getting one click here, one click there.
               
               Let me put it this way. If you expect to get 100 searches a day for a garbage word like "banksters"  then we'd all be rich, because good keywords that get lots of searches would be delivering us thousands of views daily. And...over 3 million pages relating to "bankster" is not low competition. Not when there is such a low search volume.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, of course.  I was referring to not having a single longtail keyword with that kind of result.  And the high traffic is because there are longtails that are showing up on the hub other than what I used as a primary keyword.
                  
                  I agree that trying to rank for a single word (short tail keyword?) is unwise - you'll never get by dot gov, videos, wikipedia, dot edu, Amazon and the like.  But you don't need to - it is quite possible to pick up traffic from multiple other terms.

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            My best hub gets over 300 a day in normal conditions. Over 400 a day in last month's conditions.
            
            I didn't say 100 a day isn't worth it. Nothing of the sort, actually.
            If you actually read what I say - you will see that I said that if he somehow, miraculously took all of the traffic from that search term, he would peak at 100 a day.
            The actual numbers? #1 gets 56%. #2 gets 13%. Yeah, page ten results see clicks. But not many. 1 a month hardly counts. If he took 56% of the results, then he'd be looking at 50-60 hits a day.
            
            This is exactly my point. It has nothing to do with Google "boycotting" anything and everything to do with trying to rank for a garbage keyword...then throwing out a wild conspiracy theory just because he isn't getting traffic. That's called passing the blame.

            replyreport
5. 66

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Google adsense is dropped because of automatic word filters and I doubt that it one of the 'bad' words.  You should look at the other words you used on that hub.
   
   I don't even know would 'banskter' is meant to mean.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I haven't read Bgamall's hub yet, but I will assume 'bankster' relates to bank employees being evil and screwing over their customers for the banks nefarious reasons.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but what word is it playing off?  Wanker doesn't have a 't', and prankster doesn't have the right meaning.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Gangster"
            
            It's a silly attempt at being insulting - kind of like stealership when talking about car dealers.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, it is not insulting of bank employees. It is the finance system getting bigger than any other section of our capitalist system. It is bankers offering loans they knew would not be paid back. They didn't care because they could pawn the loans off to your county and school governments as "investments".
               
               If you don't know about this you should seriously study about it because we have another little housing bubble, not based on liar loans this time, but based upon the wealthy buying up all the real estate.
               
               And you wonder why your rent or house payment is too high.
               
               These same banksters drive up the price of oil futures by betting, and they cause you to pay about a buck 50 per gallon more for gasoline than you should have to pay.
               
               But don't hurt their feelings, and don't call them banksters!!!
               
               And BTW Kangaroo, the banksters have helped drive up the price of houses in Australia. It could crash. Once the hot money behind the easy terms lenders get scared, they will pull their loans and your house bubble will crash. Then you will know the meaning of "banksters".

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I never said anything about employees. I also never said anything about feeling bad for anybody.
                  
                  I said it was a silly attempt at being insulting, just like the word stealership.
                  
                  You just went way off topic onto some random tangent. Like you were just aching to do it. We already know banks suck. Save your breath. (Or in this case, your fingers)

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It is a well accepted word that explains the housing bubble and crash and what the TBTF bankers do to wrap themselves in derivatives so they cannot fail. Banksters is appropriate, and is well recognized by people involved in writing about finance.
                     
                     I don't save my breath about the bankers. I have ebooks, an audiobook, Hubpages and Business Insider articles which have had from a couple of hundred to 11,000 views each.
                     
                     I love to rake the banksters, and it is something that must be done if the people are to be educated about what they are about.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        +1
                        
                        You Go Hard Brother!  Totally agree with you having Industry experience... Save Nothing... it's your thread and though you may not have been boycotted - you may well have rattled your sabre enough to have upset an advertiser or his banker!   
                        
                        @Mattfort... you've made a valid point ..... but you've lost 2 points... for trying to hijack the boycott theory    And the unjustifiable personal attack! 

                        replyreport
               2. 74

                  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not quite, I will summarize in short.
                  
                  The market is very overheated, we have been waiting for the bubble to burst for 7 years.
                  
                  The housing market in Australia has had price contractions on the median prices of 1.5% for 4 years straight.
                  
                  Those under mortgage stress (the term used for repaying a loan with difficult as expenditure exceeds income) affects those on average 35 years and under.

                  replyreport
               3. 89

                  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  As I've explained to you more than once, there were never many "easy terms lenders" in Australia.  Self-certified loan providers disappeared after the GFC when their source of funds dried up (they got most of their funds from the US).   We have four big banks here, and all of them were guilty of being a little too lenient with their lending criteria - but nowhere near as lenient as the US sub-prime lenders.  Plus we have regulations that require non-bank lenders to take out mortgage insurance and the insurers were always strict, even in the "easy credit" era, which limited how much they could get away with (I know because I worked for a non-bank lender in those days:  they were very restricted in what loans they could offer, much to their frustration).
                  
                  While I agree with Jase that property in Sydney especially is ridiculously expensive, demand is still exceeding supply.  So long as buyers are still competing for properties, it's hard to see how prices are going to drop.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Marissa,I know a little about Australia but not a lot. I know ING tried to do a perpetual loan in Australia, and was called out for it. ING was the company once owned by Lambert of Drexel, Burnham, Lamber infamy. He was a Rothschild.
                     
                     So it wasn't that the banksters didn't try in Australia. Here are two ways you can tell there is a stable housing market. First, you must have most of the people putting down 20 percent. Second you must have house prices go up only at the rate of inflation or a little over.
                     
                     If you are missing one of those you have a bubble and you will crash at the first sign of economic weakness.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You're absolutely right, ING did raise the idea but it didn't get anywhere - which gives you some idea how tightly regulated our mortgage landscape is. 
                        
                        As for your criteria for a "bubble":   yes, most people do put down 20%.  As for house prices going up at the price of inflation or lower: that has been the case for the last few years.   There were greater rises in the past which is why house prices are now so expensive:  but the element you're not taking into account is the law of supply and demand.  No one in Australia wants to live in the big empty spaces:  they all want to live in the major cities, which are limited in size by their geography.  So land is scarce, and that keeps the prices high.

                        replyreport
      2. 63

         justomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         For shit sakes, bankster!! the gangsters that RUN the banks (NOT the employees) that have run this country into the ground. This guy is a great writer and knows exactly what ho speaks about. You all would do well to read his stuff, you might learn something!!

         replyreport
         1. 75

            IzzyMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7861397.stm
            
            I'm surprised so many people on this thread apparently haven't heard of the word.
            
            That said, I am still confused as to what the OP means by saying Google is 'boycotting' his hubs with this word in it.
            
            If it is simply not sending traffic, it may well be for other reasons - ie his subdomain is slapped or something.
            
            I had many hubs that Google has never sent a visitor to.

            replyreport
6. 66

   cfinposted 12 years ago

   Hi Bgamail. I was of the understanding that they would avoid what they see as misspelling? I'm no expert on that, but technically, no matter how funny that term is, they may see it as a misspelling.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting. It is a term that has been around for a long time. I wonder how much the banksters paid them to make "bankster" a misspelling?
      
      Or maybe they are just ignorant geeks. I don't know.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am pretty sure you have a different problem.  And as long as you indulge in conspiracy theories, you won't find out what it is.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Plus, Google doesn't see it as a misspelling..so the point is moot.

            replyreport
         2. 62

            bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I proved that the bankers caused the housing bubble on purpose, skinner. I bet you didn't know that the liar loans were imported from the United Kingdom. There they were called self certified loans. Of course it was a conspiracy.
            
            I bet you didn't know that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997, as guests of Unocal, now a part of Chevron. I bet you didn't know that their failure to allow a pipeline to Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea made the Taliban, not Al Qaida, the enemy of Cheney and HW Bush who has a big stake in Halliburton.
            
            I bet you didn't know that the declassified Operation Northwoods had the same MO as 911. Kennedy vetoed the idea. The MO was to have a remote controlled plane, and killing of Cuban refugees, so that by the false flag operation, we would invade Cuba. That is declassified and is on Wikipedia.
            
            I bet, skinner, that you don't know a lot of things.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               lol, he "proved" it.
               
               Ok I'm done here - this guy is a delusional joke.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I proved it if you read all my work. I bet you didn't know that the Gaussian Copula that assumed too little risk, allowing for bogus CDO's to be created with crappy mortgages, was thought up by a JP Morgan employee and adopted by Basel 2. And this was done knowing that Japanese real estate tanked all at once and that Enron's risk management was flawed. The bankers knew their risk management was bogus but you blow a bubble by minimizing risk. They wanted a bubble. If they didn't they would not have repealed Glass-Steagall.
                  
                  And again, they already saw the problems and bubbles with the liar loans in the UK way before it happened in the US.
                  
                  And Greenspan was in on it because in Feb, 2004, he said you could get a "better deal" by getting an adjustable mortgage. That was a boldfaced lie.
                  
                  And you call me delusional.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You sir are surely a generous man... but may I ask why you find benefit, in casting pearls so extravagantly and wastefully?

                     replyreport
                  2. 77

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "And Greenspan was in on it because in Feb, 2004, he said you could get a "better deal" by getting an adjustable mortgage. That was a boldfaced lie."
                     
                     Really?  I've had lots of mortgages, but only one was an ARM.  I was paying 11.5% and found an ARM that started at 3%, adjusted 2% per year and was capped at 10%.  The first year's interest savings paid for the closing costs, years two and three were gravy and the next 3 years (until I sold the house) were just slightly under the going rate.  It could never top what I already had, so I would always be able to make the payments no matter how high it went.
                     
                     Yes, you can get a better deal with an ARM sometimes, but you do have to know what you're getting.  Reading the "fine print" is a must, but is something few people do.  I looked at a few that had no cap, but wasn't interested - they're a good way to lose your home, and that's quite obvious if you but read the contract.
                     
                     None of which has anything to do with the topic of the thread; I'll try to stay on topic better.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, the adjustable mortgages were offered in such quantities that they pushed the price of houses up to unsustainable levels. Greenspan was an economist. He knows what tinkering around with demand will do. He knows massive supply made possible by easy money would push the values of houses up through the roof.

                        replyreport
7. 61

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   So... just to summarize... Someone believes that Google...  You know the company that makes bazillions of dollars and has it's finger in every pie in the world... specifically tracked THEM down over a 100 view a month (and that's being generous) hub because they felt threatened?
   
   Wow... now that really IS "the world revolves around my bellybutton" thinking.
   
   Dude... Google doesn't know you exist and if it did know it wouldn't care. If you got 10k views a month they wouldn't know or care... If you got 100k views a month... still wouldn't know or care. 
   
   Conspiracy theorists all have one thing in common... they believe the world cares WAY more about  them then it really does.
   
   Be happy for the family and friends that DO care about you because for the most part the rest of the world simply dgaf.  That's the breaks.  Sorry.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I already said, if you read my post, that it could be that they really view it as a misspelling. But I also said that they could have been paid off. Who knows?
      
      I know this, a few months ago, no one looked for the word banksters, even though it had been around for years. It is starting to gain traction.

      replyreport
8. 78

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago

   Half of what I do in life is talk about what horrible bitches bankers are....guess I'm holding my nose right or something.

   replyreport
9. 71

   Alastar Packerposted 12 years ago

   Bgamall, Gary, certainly knows of what he speaks. He's a gentleman and courageous fellow to boot. What about subbing with Banker/Bankstor, Bgamall, you might start another term trend.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, nice idea Alastar! I will consider it.

      replyreport