Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.

Matt Cutts, head of Google’s Webspam team, has finally waded in on the issue of fake linkbait.
Comments49 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from patrickaltoft 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 5

How exactly is Google going to be able to verify the accuracy of a news story?

Avatar
from Kimota 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Of course they can’t, unless the ruse becomes public like this one did. I think it’s unlikely to mean Google will be actively searching for news stories to penalise. We shouldn’t read too much into Matt’s comment.

Avatar
from rishilakhani 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Only sphunn because its bloody ridiculous - if G is going to be the moral police, the first thing they should do is get rid of all fake medication selling sites off their index.

Avatar
from Kalena 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

oh for fuc... First they determine whether link intent is good or evil, now they’re going to decide what’s fact and fiction too?

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@patrickaltoftYep takes "manual review" to new extremes when it involves investigative reporting. Maybe they will have a form where we can report other sites for lying? I guess this is the same as paid links. They don’t need to prove they are paid to give you a penalty. This does show an amazing flexibility in Google’s guidelines though, to cover anything "misleading or deceptive" to the user.

Avatar
from Kalena 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

On a side note Nick, what’s that Twitter plug-in you’ve got on your blog? Me want!

Avatar
from Kimota 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I don’t think this particular question is a ’moral’ one rishil. I’m sure Google doesn’t want fake content muddying their algorithm like Matt hinted. The last thing they want is to become the motivation for people to create fake stories for links. That’s not moral, that’s their business. But as to whether it is enforceable or whether they can do anything about it, that is the question.Anyhoo... my $0.02. This is only a minor footnote to last week’s debate.

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@Kalena No problem http://rick.jinlabs.com/code/twitter/ 

Avatar
from skinner 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

I have a particular affinity for the truth. But who is going to decide what is truth and what is lies? I think this is an outrageous suggestion.

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

 @KimotaWell I wouldn’t consider this a minor footnote, Matt’s view is official Google policy. Previously we were taking about the moral implications of this or the legality - no one had touched on the possibility of Google penalties (although I joked about it). It’s interesting though you write this - "The last thing they want is to become the motivation for people to create fake stories for links." As I wrote in my post, FoxNews had previously faked articles as one example. Presumably though this was for visitors, not links. People have faked news for a lot longer than Google have been on the scene. I wonder if it would be (more) acceptable to Google for people to fake news for visitors? Google have taken an increasing number of moral decisions lately though. Check out their stance on online gambling, expanded last year to also cover any tutorial sites or free games. Without a legal ruling forcing them to do this, how else can you class these decisions but moral judgements? http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/363503/google-widens-ban-on-gambling-ads.html

Avatar
from MattSawyer 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Another idea from Google that seems great in theory but falls down in practice! Before long with all of the manual paid link reporting and manual reporting of fake stories they’ll turn into Mahalo ;)

Avatar
from iBrian 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 5

I think it’s an excellent idea - I can’t wait to see Google act on political, military and corporate propaganda across the internet. :)

Avatar
from neyne 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 3

I wrote my opinion on the original thread, but i think it is ridiculous. They don’t want fake content muddying their index ? What is fake content ? Duplicate content, I understand. Fake content ??? How do you decide ? I guess then Scientology site must go, it is full of fake content. Alien souls descending upon Earth ? Linkbait if i ever saw one. All the major religion sites must get -900. A virgin birth description with a cleverly designed anchor text...As i wrote, there is no way Google can discern between fake content and fake content written for links. So what are they going to do ? Punish only the content that gets a lot of links ? Where is the logic in that ???I can already see the new department in Google - The Department of Content Verification. Or should the just cut the crap and call it The Ministry of Truth ?

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@neyneAs we’ve come to realise on other debates like this - ultimately it comes down to intent. When Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked how the company determines what exactly is and is not evil, he answered, “Evil is whatever Sergey says is evil"

Avatar
from neyne 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@Nick but that is my point exactly. How do you identify intent with fake content ? I am not even going into how do you recognise fake content. Lyndon’s story was revealed as fake only because Lyndon bragged. I can see here more babies than the water being thrown out...I also thought that Google listens to the vote of the people when it comes to content. They are slowly becoming the voice of people. Soon they will not need the people at all... it will be an index of official Google blogs.

Avatar
from rishilakhani 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

 @Kimota - I have utmost respect for what you have to say. but re:I’m sure Google doesn’t want fake content muddying their algorithm like Matt hinted.If money.co.uk ranks for 13 Year Old Steals Dad’s Credit Card well, unfortunately they are the most RELEVANT result in this case right? OK I see what you are saying that G doesnt endorse tactics that can manipulate their algo this effectively. And yes its their business and their search results. But true or not - this tactic is no different to what goes on in offline media - how many media whores get fake or outrageous stories published about themselves? Which result in the gain of several hundred inches of valuable print space? Agreed - maybe not ethical conning people - but as marketers we are ALWAYS conning people. I dont remember ever turning down a client that wanted to be seen as the BEST solution - even if they arent. Do you? Does anyone else? Granted I dont take on illegal or morally challenged clients - but small twists like this are common practice in marketing. Maybe I am biased. Or deluded ;) But I certainly DONT think that Google should penalise because a fake story went well.

Avatar
from rishilakhani 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

In addition to my view - I havent seen a better summary of Truth and Lies in media than in http://www.internetbusiness.co.uk/22052008/truth-and-lies-in-media-marketing/

Avatar
from Kimota 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

I agree that media whores twist the truth every day, but does that mean I have to endorse it? Usually, if manipulation of the truth is revealed, there is a negative backlash.I glanced through the above article when you twitted it (I’ll give it a full read tomorrow - there’s a lot in that! Good find!) and it uses some of the same arguments put forward here these last few days that politicians lie, all media lies at one time or another, so what’s wrong with this.When political lies are revealed, there is a baacklash. When media reports are revealed to be false, they are often made to retract. More minor twists of the truth - such as marketers saying something is the best when it probably isn’t - is not quite the same thing as a blatant fabrication of facts. After all, calling soemthing ’the best’ is a subjective comment that can’t be proven or disproven if the marketer created the right criteria.I think the ’everybody else does it, so why can’t we’ argument is a bit weak. If you want to aregue for the validity of fabrication I would hope your reason was better than that.I write marketing material for a living. Less an SEO, more a copywriter. Although my copy is obviously always slanted towards selling the product, I’ve never fabricated facts or lied about them. Is it deception to feign enthusiasm for a product in marketing? Is that on the same scale as fabicating an entire story including all facts contained within?There are a number of levels of grey in here and i think people are quick to excuse a much darker level with examples of much lighter.Dammit - and I told myself I was going to stay out of this now... lolAs for the Google question, I honestly don’t see them doing something with this. So on that we agree. (We maybe differ slightly just on why we think they won’t)

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 2

@sza Like it or not, while Google controls the marketplace whatever Matt Cutts says is important. He is de-facto the official spokesperson for the company. Many announcements have been channeled through his blog or comments rather than from official Google blogs or press releases.  His comments on this issue are more valid than most. If Google disagrees with this technique then we face the possibility of them penalising it (which isn’t speculation, it’s the expected result for breaking Google’s guidelines). Matt is saying this breaks them. NB: Yep - I see what Barry means now. It would be better to address de-sphinns within the flow of the comments.  

Avatar Moderator
from hugoguzman 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

So does this mean my April Fools column on Jason Taylor would be devalued?Should google make an April Fools exception or something?

Avatar
from JamesDuthie 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I’m with Nick re the Desphinn on this article. This is an important discussion and naturally Matt’s opinion on the issue is of great importance to us all (particularly copycats). Personally, I had stopped following the comments on the original linkbait post, so this post brought my attention to Matt’s remarks.

Avatar
from DVOLA 2352 Days ago #
Votes: -2

what a load of tosh ... Cutts says somthing just to scare the seo - marketing community and you suckers belive him ... how can you police that ?    does that now mean the BBC are in for it after releasing that april fool pengiun bait ?  I doubt it !

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@DVOLAI don’t think anyone was scared? Many of us have been around for years and are quite aware of Google’s FUD tactics. It’s not the first time you know? It’s an important comment on this technique though, for all the reasons James explains above. It’s useful to know Google’s opinion on techniques, if only so you know what best to be quiet about. I’m sure there will be another post or two if people find evidence of penalties happening. Keep an eye out for something entitled "Yes, Virginia, Google Will Hurt Your Site For Lying". 

Avatar Moderator
from incrediblehelp 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I am glad (since I asked him too) Matt came in a offered his opinion on the topic, but I think Google is on a slippery slope here. When they stop being objective of content that is published online I can see huge problems going forward.  I don’t think it is Google job to differentiate real and fake.  This is now entering the gray area of opinion, censoring that could be bad for everyone.Now sure the Lyndon issue is pretty cut and dry.  Easy to spot, but how or why in the world would they expect to actually try to demote/penalize/ban on a larger scale?  Demoting Lyndon link bait is as easy as a hand job.  Scaling a way to demote/penalize/ban other fake stories surely is impossible while being objective.This is similar Google war on paid links.  There is truly no way for Google to know I am paying or not paying someone for link on another website.  Making these assumptions can be very dangerous.

Avatar
from nelisx 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

So you found a way to abuse the system.  That is, getting links through social media news sites, for a fake story.  This is ok because...???

Avatar
from bwelford 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Yes, yes, Google is already on so many slippery slopes in the way it handles information.  If it now wants to get into the editorial business as well, I see even more trouble ahead.  The other problem is that most Americans don’t understand British humor.  Oh dear!

Avatar
from bwelford 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

On another point, just noticed Nick from your comment the two Desphinn ’comments’.  You also can’t vote down Desphinn comments, which I would have done. :(

Avatar
from DarkMatter 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 5

I eagerly await the "inevitable" TruthRank algorithm that can detect lies!

Avatar
from sza 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@NickWilsdon,What Matt Cutts said in that other thread is non-news. What did you expect from him? That he will embrace the practice of creating hoaxes for links? What he said is about as surprising and newsworthy as "Steve Ballmer doesn’t like Google!!!" or "Larry and Sergey are billionaires!!!"You are a clever person who knows that "Matt Cutts" in the title is second to none as Sphinn-bait. Perhaps "Jason Calacanis" comes close.Now, blogging and promoting a non-news with a calculatedly baity headline is something I’m inclined to desphinn.On the other hand, you’re saying whatever Matt Cutts says is important.When was the last time Matt Cutts was involved in something and people came away like "oh, now things make more sense" and "my life/job is a bit easier thanks to him" (apart from his "let’s explain the basics to newbies" kind of posts, videos etc.)?I’m afraid usually the exact opposite happens.Wherever he’s involved, there’s heated debate, unfounded speculation, confusion and uncertainty arising.Don’t let his jovial looks, love for cats and friendliness obscure the fact that he actually makes our life harder. That he acts in the interests of his employer, and his employer has an interest in keeping webmasters on their toes.His is a more harmful than a beneficial presence in online marketing, as not simply Google’s de facto spokesperson, but also their de facto Chief Public Manipulation Officer.But then obviously, many bloggers will go ahead cynically exploiting the mesmerizing effect his name has on lots of online marketers -- it’s still somewhat better than making up fake stories...(bwelford, here’s your big chance)

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@szaSure, I don’t think any of us expected him to embrace the technique. Having him actually state that though is newsworthy, it stops any speculation on that point. As I said before, in his position, what he says does count. I also know that having Matt Cutts name in the post helps. I’m a marketer, do you really expect me not to write the best headline I can for this post? I don’t bame you for Desphinning, you’re a smart guy too and I can see where you’re coming from on this issue. Assuming it’s more the content than the baity headline, it’s boils down to - why perpetuate the FUD? It’s a good point. Though I’ll always take the knowledge despite the bias and make my own choices.I can’t really argue your other points. The same thought occured to me at a recent conference in Moscow. I had many conversations with search engineers and project managers at Yandex, the leading search engine here. No FUD, just sharing information. Exactly the kind of stuff that made you think "oh, now things make more sense". Their openess was refreshing. Even though I appreciate what Google have done, having a dominant search engine is not healthy. I don’t think it encourages a positive relationship between the search engine and their userbase, there’s no incentive.

Avatar
from mike 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Hold on, Gogle want to send people to sites that are relevant (keyword based SEO 1.0), Important (Basic link analysis and linkpop SEO 2.0) and trusted (Advanced link analysis SEO 3.0). And y’all think lies are trustworthy how? This whole concept of finding bad is new how? Seems to me that trust, and if I read trustrank one more time on a second rtae blog I’ll scream, trust is something all SEs have talked about for internetmellenia (netllenia?) That whole "This site may infect your computer" stuff is the same concept.Everyone needs to stop being such gossipy, exagerating panic merchants, and go blow someone elses comments out of all proportion, or just blow someo... oh never mind.

Avatar
from Kimota 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Just on the April Fool thingy...An April Fool isn’t an April Fool if, on April 2 you don’t somehow let the gullble into the fact that they have been fooled. That’s how April Fools have always worked - the gotcha moment. We know when the BBC does it to us - like the ’smellable website’ joke a couple of years ago.There has so far been no gotcha moment on Lyndon’s piece. We only know about it cause it was on his blog - the wider community still has no idea and seems never will.

Avatar Administrator
from MattMcGee 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Can I assume that Colbert and Jon Stewart have been completely de-indexed by now?

Avatar
from Kimota 2352 Days ago #
Votes: 1

**beats head on desk**The Onion, Jon Stewart et al are established satirical entities with as much reputation for real news as Garfield. Their material is regularly submitted to Digg under ’comedy’. The fact that you are able to merely cite their names to make your point for satire indicates how unassociated with real news they are.money.co.uk, which started this debate, is a serious financial services site with no hint of satire or comedy and no reputation as such. This piece of linkbait was submitted to Digg under ’news’. In describing money.co.uk to anyone, they wouldn’t hear the name and immediately associate it with satire, unlike the examples you gave.The fact that people are failing to make this pretty clear distinction is more than a little worrying.

Avatar
from SamIWas 2351 Days ago #
Votes: 0

An April Fool isn’t an April Fool if, on April 2 you don’t somehow let the gullble into the fact that they have been fooled. That’s how April Fools have always worked - the gotcha moment. We know when the BBC does it to us - like the ’smellable website’ joke a couple of years ago.There has so far been no gotcha moment on Lyndon’s piece. We only know about it cause it was on his blog - the wider community still has no idea and seems never will.You mean kind of like how Google still doesn’t have anything like that on http://google.com/virgle/ ? Give me a break. Both that and Lyndon’s story are CLEARLY fake. If anyone is stupid enough to believe either, they need to have their brains re-examined. Just because one happens to have been made up on the 1st of April doesn’t mean their back links should be valued any more or less than another piece. Or maybe the links to CNN/Google News/Fox articles about WMD should also be de-valued? That was also a made up story spun by a few PR people and hyped beyond belief. A lot more people bought that hoax than Lyndon’s. And I do wager a bet that that story affected a few more people negatively than Lyndon’s story...Too many people here (and at G) seem to see the world in black and white and just conveniently forget all the shades of grey that actually make up the society they live in. Must be nice for them, but I prefer reality. And reality is that Lyndon’s a bloody genius for what he did here.

Avatar
from mvandemar 2351 Days ago #
Votes: 0

"If anyone is stupid enough to believe either"zOMg! Did you just call Fox news stupid?

Avatar
from DarkMatter 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Lyndon is a genius at attracting links and viewers, the same way reality tv is now probably considered genius by television writers. Unfortunately, both of these ideas set the bar significantly lower for their industries, and in the end, it’s the reader (or viewer) who gets screwed.

Avatar
from Kimota 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Still find it amazing how many people can’t see the difference between (say) a website reporting the true facts that politicians claimed there were WMD and a completely fabricated story with no basis in the real world. So many people have become used to poorly informed arguments and disinformation that they can no longer draw the distinction anymore - hence some of the bizarre defenses of this linkbait.People searching for political speeches leading up to the War in Iraq should be rewarded with highly relelvant links to WMD propaganda. People searching for the facts on teenage credit card fraud shouldn’t be rewarded with a story that didn’t happen.And if Lyndon’s story was CLEARLY fake, why did he himself submit it as news, instead of comedy at Digg and encourage people to assume it was otherwise (and thousands of people clearly did not know it was fake judging by Digg comments so it wasn’t ’clear’ at all)? Why did anyone think it was okay to include a CLEARLY fake story on a website that needs a high level of trust in factual information? Why does that fact that Lyndon was fired by this particular client and that the client is now in damage control not factor into people’s assessment of whether this was a successful technique or not?

Avatar
from neyne 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 0

"Why does that fact that Lyndon was fired by this particular client and that the client is now in damage control not factor into people’s assessment of whether this was a successful technique or not?"Kimota, do you honestly believe that this is why Lyndon was fired ? Is this what you tell to yourself ? His employer found out that the article published on the site is a hoax, got really upset about the moral detoriation of today’s online journalism and fired Lyndon ? What separated from Lyndon getting a hefty bonus by that same client and Lyndon being fired is one blog post and maybe a few twitters. That is all. You can put down that can of pink paint, because it ain’t sticking to this world.And if you cannot see the underlying principle that connects Lyndon with the WMD story, then you are a poorer judge of situations than I thought you are. Both cases represent fabricating a story so that the source can get benefit out of that fabrication. Yes there are many differences between the two cases, for example, Colin Powell used MS Powerpoint, while Lyndon probably used MS Word to make the fabrication. We could go into all the religious stories as well, but I will skip that, since people get all hyperventilating when you touch into their illogical beliefs. Another very important difference between Lyndon and Colin Powel is the cost and the damage each of those fabrication has caused. That is a huge difference, yet it does not reflect on the levels of protest displayed in each case. I am sure that the anti-war movement is dreaming about the level of protest from the general public like you guys have expressed over the past few days, protecting the rights of youth-credit-card researchers.Had you (not you personally, but everybody that has expressed similar opinion over the past few days) let this story slide without getting all righteous about it as if Lyndon is sending your boys to an unjust war, there would be much less SEO reputation damage you are all lamenting about. Some of us do reputation management and the first thing you tell a client, that is in that kind of problem, is not to stir any more shit. Yet numerous posts are being written about Lyndon, his linkbait, how this is bad for SEO, blah blah blah blah. AS if he killed someone.

Avatar
from Kimota 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 1

No, they fired Lyndon because their site was getting negative flak. Which some of us predicted in the bloody beginning but were shouted down. I didn’t give the flak to them (cause I doubt they read my blog or come to Sphinn) but the mainstream media did  as according to Lyndon it was the Daily Telegraph in Australia that called their bluff in the end.Your argument hinges on the idea that this is trivial compared to WMD fabrication. I honestly don’t see what place WMD lies have here as Powell didn’t post a WMD story on his webpage purely to get links, so they are incomparable.Plus they negative fallout of the WMD situation only goes to demonstrate the negative backlash media lies can have.You then imply that we are blowing this situation out of proportion when compared to the WMD story.Well, not really. No one’s started a march against linkbait yet. I haven’t set up an anti linkbait website similar to the anti war one I ran a few years ago exposing the media lies about WMD. All I did  was write one blog post to state my case against what Lyndon did, but the flak I received for that from people with a zealous belief that Lyndon is a martyr required a response.The WMD fiasco actually happened. That doesn’t mean Google should penalise links leading to sites that talk about WMD in Iraq. The 13 year old credit card story didn’t happen. Can people stop trying to compare apples with pears?And your last argument is rather worrying. People shouldn’t express their argument now for fear of ’stirring shit’ and damaging the reputation? Nice way to try and stifle debate. You lot can praise Lyndon (which in our eyes creates a worse impression) but we are the ones creating the bad impression by speaking out? Good one. Now that is the thought police mentality you are accusing Google of. My view shouldn’t be heard. Or defended.Not everyone agrees with Lyndon’s tactic. Not everyone disagrees with it either. That much is clear. I accept that and know that won’t change. But to say that we shouldn’t even express our opinion is rather naive. I’ve not made out that Lyndon is killing our children and to misrepresent the strength of my argument by making that comparision is rather offensive. I believe what he did was wrong. You don’t. But don’t tell me I’m overreacting for having that opinion or tell me how strongly I should feel about it.

Avatar
from neyne 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 0

"And your last argument is rather worrying. People shouldn’t express their argument now for fear of ’stirring shit’ and damaging the reputation? Nice way to try and stifle debate. You lot can praise Lyndon (which in our eyes creates a worse impression) but we are the ones creating the bad impression by speaking out? Good one. Now that is the thought police mentality you are accusing Google of. My view shouldn’t be heard. Or defended."Do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim that you shouldn’t express your opinion. All I claim is that had you been worried about the SEO reputation, you wouldn’t be raising all the dust. Which you are, therefore all the claims about worriying about SEO reputation are crap. I don’t think that my (extensive) taking part in the debate could be called stiffling it.I honestly don’t see what place WMD lies have here as Powell didn’t post a WMD story on his webpage purely to get links, so they are incomparable.that comparison is as relevant as my MS Word vs Powerpoint comparison. Yeah, Powell is black and Lyndon is white, so they are incomparable. Dude, they both presented hoax stories as real so they could benefit from it. The currency of the benefit is irrelevant. Is that so hard to grasp ?Not everyone agrees with Lyndon’s tactic. Not everyone disagrees with it either.To be honest, I am not sure where I stand in regards to Lyndon and the hoax. However, I am pretty sure where I stand in regards to crusading against it, while thumping "101 Marketing Morals" book. I am even more sure where I stand in regards to opinions that say "he who hurts Google’s relevance is hurting me"I believe what he did was wrong. You don’t.I believe that this story does not fall under right or wrong. Especially when right and wrong are being defined by a public company that answers to share holders. The fact that you see Matt’s agreement with your position as something that upholds your argument, gives me a creepy feeling that I shouldn’t be really taking your definition of right and wrong seriously. BTW, congrats for scoring links from Matt’s blog. That’s some clever piece of linkbait :D

Avatar
from Kimota 2349 Days ago #
Votes: 1

If by raising dust, you mean posting the original post commenting on the issue and then defending myself from all comers, then yes, I raised dust. Should I have blogged about it in the first place? Of course. Should I have defended my position when people attack my argument? Of course. Does that count as raising dust unnecessarily? I don’t think so. I raised a point. People countered. I defended my position. That is debate.To claim I’m over reacting when all I did was raise a counter argument that many people agree with and defend that position is a bit unfair. I’m worried about the SEO reputation so I should stay silent? That’s a bit weak. I should stay silent when I disagree with something for fear of drawing attention to the thing I disagree with? That’s a bit like a family all trying to keep the secret of the twin locked in the basement because of how the scandal will affect the family. They shouldn’t be locking him in the basement in the first place! I can’t be held responsible for the negative backlash of pointing that out. ;-)And the WMD lie failed. Got them into Iraq, was a political mistake. I see your comparison , but I’m saying the WMD lie ended up backfiring. It was bad. If you want to make that compairon, you have to say that Lyndon’s hoax has bad consequences too. You can’t pick and choose the bits of a comparison to make them fit your argument. The bigger picture has to be considered. I don’t endorse the WMD hoax and I don’t endorse the linkbait hoax. Just a small point as people have begun to suggest I opushed this debate just to draw links to my blog. Never expected my post to go as far as it did. It obviously hit a nerve with people. Didn’t plan it as linkbait - my blog was too small and has never seen anything like this before so didn’t expect it to happen here. But that’s how blogs work. I don’t want to appear as if I’m standing behind Matt Cutts. He agrees with me is fine, but I never said his agreement sealed the argument. In fact, I said Google shouldn’t be part of the debate. I’ve not tried to manipulate this argument for my own linkbait needs at all. In fact, and a couple of people here can attest to this, I emailed some names from these parts for comments for an article I’m writing this week and specifically to avoid the criticism of me just trying to produce link bait, I made the offer of hosting the post or the debate elsewhere - off my blog. I wanted the discussion to be free of talk of bias or manipulation. Not one person responded saying they felt it should be hosted elsewhere.Anyhoo, meeting to go to... work to be done... have a beer on me. **shakes hand**

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2348 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Kimota has already done a fine job of defending himself on this point, but I can’t help but also respond to this bit Neyne wrote:All I claim is that had you been worried about the SEO reputation, you wouldn’t be raising all the dust. Which you are, therefore all the claims about worriying about SEO reputation are crap.Do you seriously believe that? Some of us feel the need to defend the reputation of SEOs so that we are not all lumped into the same category.  There are a number of SEOs (one can only hope the majority) that would never consider posting made up stories and passing them off as news. It is important to us to make sure the rest of the world understands that this is not the normal behavior nor job description of a search marketer. In fact, I don’t know about Kimota, but I couldn’t keep quiet about it even if I wanted to because it is so disturbing to me that I wouldn’t have been able to sleep at night had I just shut up and let it quietly go away.  The tactic is such a slippery slope that needs to be brought into the open so that others (both the general public and budding search marketers) don’t think it’s a perfectly legitimate marketing technique.

Avatar
from neyne 2348 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Just a small point as people have begun to suggest I opushed this debate just to draw links to my blog.At least my comment on that issue here was a joke. You definitely deserve the link, after all the time and effort you put in putting out your point of view. Which you did very eloquently.In any case, I usually get out of discussion when it gets personal and re-reading some of my comments from the past few days, I see that some of them had that tone in them. I don’t agree on some (not all) of the principal issues raised here, but there was no need to be unpleasant, so I apologize to anyone that felt that way from my posts.Now this thread is messing with my browser, so I think it is time to let it go.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2348 Days ago #
Votes: 0

neyne, although I disagree with some of what you wrote, for what it’s worth, I don’t think you were offensive or unpleasant in your posts.

Avatar
from neyne 2348 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Jill, don’t make me debate you on that issue :)))thanks

Avatar
from Kimota 2348 Days ago #
Votes: 0

neyne, the beer is on me. I have exactly the same tendency you described so thanks for that and ditto.

Avatar
from sza 1936 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Inflate every utterance of Matt Cutts into a speculative blog post, put his name in the title and reap dozens of sphinns within hours. Gets tiresome at one point.

Avatar
from DVOLA 1936 Days ago #
Votes: 0

desphunn due to same as comment above, to hard to police !

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.



Join us at an upcoming SMX event: