Posts Tagged ‘paid links’

Time for Google to punish…itself?

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

On Tuesday, Google had to penalize it’s own web browser, Google Chrome, for violating Google’s guidelines against paid links. The action was taken because of blog posts that were part of a marketing campaign for Chrome gone bad. As the story unfolds, it looks like Google agreed to buy online video ads but did not approve the sponsored posts campaign.

Aaron Wall of SEO Book wrote a blog post on January 2 pointing out the paid links. The marketing campaign included paying bloggers to write generic, favorable posts about Google Chrome that linked to a video about the benefits of using the browser for small business. Wall pointed out that when he searched “This post is sponsored by Google”, over 400 results were found, giving scope to the size of the marketing campaign and the number of links it generated. That disclaimer itself, usually found at the beginning or end of the blog post, also linked to the Google Chrome download page in at least one case.

By paying those bloggers to write favorable posts about Google Chrome, Google was also paying them to include the links. Since the blog posts also included the video, it can be said they were also buying views of the video. Per Google’s Webmaster Guidelines, “Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results.” To prevent paid links from impacting search engine results, Google suggests that paid links should contain a “nofollow” tag, which prevents the link from affecting PageRank. However, not all of the offending blog posts used “nofollow” links.

People in the industry are upset not only because of Google buying the links. Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land explains in his coverage Google’s fight “against paid links and ‘thin’ content,” both of which the campaign produced. PageRank not only takes into account quantity, but also quality of links. The sponsored blog posts are said to be examples of the “thin” content that the Google Panda update was supposed to fight against.

Google’s stance on paid links received a lot of attention last year, when Google banned companies such as JCPenney, Forbes, and Overstock for using them. As for Google Chrome, a Google spokesman released this statement via email: “We’ve investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site’s PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.” The head of Google’s web spam team, Matt Cutts says in a post on Google+, “After that, someone on the Chrome side can submit a reconsideration request documenting their clean-up just like any other company would.”

As a result of the punishment, Google Chrome went from the second result of a search for “browser” to the bottom of the fifth page of results and has been reported sinking as low as position #73. Search Engine Land also reported that Chrome’s ranking lowered in searches for other terms such as “web browser” and “internet browser.” The Chrome download page doesn’t even rank when searching for “chrome,” “chrome browser,” and “google chrome.” Instead, a help page on Chrome installation has become the top result. When the Chrome download page does appear in results, it does so only as a sitelink.

Do you think this punishment Google placed on itself is fair? With only one violation found so far, do you think it’s too harsh, or is it appropriate for Google to place harsher punishments on itself, who “should know better”?

Like what you’ve read? Click here to subscribe to this blog!

JC Penney’s Google Problem: An SEO Mess

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

SEO can be a difficult process to grasp.

That is, of course, unless you get your lessons from this gentleman.

But there are still basic concepts of what is right and what is wrong. In the SEO world, these are called white hat (good) and black hat (bad) optimization techniques.

This past weekend, the New York Times uncovered one example of the latter. Department store chain JC Penney was outed for using link schemes to artificially get top rankings for a variety of terms on Google.

This occurs when an SEO firm creates websites that cross link to a client’s product or service site. The links to the created site are placed in a word or phrase and distributed anywhere and everywhere on the internet – most commonly found in reader comment sections. You may know this as “spamming”.

Google picks up on how frequently these links are found and asserts them to the top of its rankings accordingly. That explains why JC Penney had top billing for terms as varied as “furniture”, “tablecloths” and “area rugs” throughout the winter.

JC Penney was punished and can now be found in less-ideal positions (many pages deep) in the rankings as manually placed by Google itself.

The firm in charge of JC Penney’s search engine campaigns, SearchDex, was promptly fired and the retailer now vehemently denies any involvement in the tactics.

No system is without its flaws but for those who take their searching seriously, this is very disappointing news all around. For Google to be gamed so easily for so long (this went on for months) makes you question when or if you are actually getting the best results.

By the same token, Google’s punishment of manually placing JC Penney links deep down in the rankings seems quite dubious as well. What if a searchers best result really turns out to be for JC Penney but they never see it because it’s buried in the rankings? That’s not organic either.

I think the lesson learned here is…well don’t cross Google, for one.

But the true lesson for companies looking to expand their profile on search engines is to really understand your SEO firm’s practices and make sure they are doing things the right way.

Like what you’ve read? Click here to subscribe to this blog!