Big Fish Caught Spamming

[John Baron]

Good Read :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html

 

[mosilager]

wow, that's a very interesting story, just goes to show you that Google are adamant that spammy back-links will get you in trouble!.

 

[pit]

I thought it was interesting also. What surprised me was the popularity of the story in the Business Day section. #1 spot for most emailed. #2 spot for most viewed. Looks like the word is getting out.

 

[Smiler]

Interesting read. At least now we know that Google does not play any favoritism for deep pocketed retail stores like Penny.

 

[NPQueen]

Thank you for sharing that very interesting article. It's a shame people can't just earn money honestly, that they have to try and cheat their way to it

~Rachel

 

[HostMantis]

“J. C. Penney did not authorize, and we were not involved with or aware of, the posting of the links that you sent to us, as it is against our natural search policies,” Ms. Brossart wrote in an e-mail. She added, “We are working to have the links taken down.”

I don't buy that at all. So a bunch of webmasters just decided to add keyword specific text links to their websites, linking to JC Penny out of the kindness of their heart?

 

[NPQueen]

“J. C. Penney did not authorize, and we were not involved with or aware of, the posting of the links that you sent to us, as it is against our natural search policies,” Ms. Brossart wrote in an e-mail. She added, “We are working to have the links taken down.”

I don't buy that at all. So a bunch of webmasters just decided to add keyword specific text links to their websites, linking to JC Penny out of the kindness of their heart?

I think that it was more referring to they didn't know that the SEO company they were using was getting them the rankings via that route.

~Rachel

 

[HostMantis]

I think that it was more referring to they didn't know that the SEO company they were using was getting them the rankings via that route.

~Rachel

They could have said the SEO company they were using, SearchDex, used methods they don't approve of and will no longer be using them or something to that affect. But to just play dumb about it and fire SearchDex without comment, makes it look like they may have known more than they are letting on.

 

[pit]

JcPenney's response: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380306,00.asp

 

[wishbone]

I think it is more on manipulation thing that Google didn't filtered before, it is not easy to believe that JC Penny didn't authorized such move yet they sure felt the great traffic being ranked on top for those highly competitive searches. Another proof that Google algorithm is still not as perfect as what internet should be, some deserving sites are being down...

 

[john edword]

This is quite interesting.
Thanks for sharing such a wonderful and informative article.

 

[johnarthton1]

I think that manipulation is more to the point that Google was not the first filter, it is easy to believe that JC Penney did not authorize such a measure was still feeling great traffic they sure most of those at the top competitive search space being. Another proof that the Internet should be the Google algorithm still is not as accurate, some worthy sites going down.

 

[Joe Abraham]

Interesting story. These "Dirty Little Secrets" are really something that we need to think of. It's really insightful.

 

[DU]

Thank you for sharing that very interesting article. It's a shame people can't just earn money honestly, that they have to try and cheat their way to it

~Rachel

What is that flashy ad that I block on the top of Namepros again?

200 free links?
Buy PR5 links?

Something like that. At least that's part of an honest days work. Isn't it?

 

[thebutler]

The company that built the backlinks still reference JCpenny on its website. I actually thing some people might hire them based on the article.

 

[synapsis]

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if everyone who ranks for any competitive kw is doing this. Gotta figure, lots of these businesses didn't just build from the ground up on clean money either - so why would they stop there. Either they take the risk, or watch another company who does take the risk and rip through them.

 

[maniako]

very interesting article... black hat in action...

 

[DubDubDubDot]

It's amusing that JC Penny is playing dumb. Legitimate SEO services charge a fortune. I knew a guy a long time ago that was getting $3,000 per keyword per month to keep the keyword in a certain spot in the rankings. So JC Penny was paying out a pretty penny for this project, and they had to of known exactly what that was getting them.

On a side note, this illustrates the difference between the true SEO services and the hack SEOs posting all over the forums. One type delivers #1 rankings for impossible keywords and the other is nothing but empty hype for $47.

 

[enlytend]

So JC Penny was paying out a pretty penny for this project, and they had to of known exactly what that was getting them.

I'm sure they were paying a small fortune! Might have been a case of "do your job and get results, we don't need to know the details." (And non-technical management is usually happiest just seeing reports of the results, even if what you're doing is strictly white-hat.) BUT, I understand this wasn't the first time Google caught them doing something "questionable."

On a side note, this illustrates the difference between the true SEO services and the hack SEOs posting all over the forums. One type delivers #1 rankings for impossible keywords and the other is nothing but empty hype for $47.

:bingo:

 

[DU]

On a side note, this illustrates the difference between the true SEO services and the hack SEOs posting all over the forums. One type delivers #1 rankings for impossible keywords and the other is nothing but empty hype for $47.

Can you clarify which is which?

It seems to me that hack SEOs get #1 rankings but the other doesn't cost $47....