Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 68
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: May 25, 2008 - 4:52 am
Posted By: philbutler 90 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.money.co.uk) my network
Category: Other Social Media
53 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
philbutler
-
MattMcGee
-
digitalfever
-
planetc1
-
lorenbaker
-
martinbowling
-
Kimota
-
vikramprashant
-
jpoyer
-
dao
-
beussery
-
northrock
-
Jill
-
JamesDuthie
-
NickWilsdon
-
dailymoolah
-
KenJones
-
webprofessor
-
chris2930
-
HamletBatista
-
Harith
-
ViperChill
-
pittfall
-
toddmintz
-
aleyda
-
Feydakin
-
seowoman
-
KevinCheng
-
seanmag
-
babychen
-
AdamAudette
-
UtahSEOpro
-
gyutae
-
mrmarketing
-
neelakanthap
-
wrttnwrd
-
HustlinGrind
-
rustybrick
-
bhartzer
-
MattCutts
-
incrediblehelp
-
stvalentine
-
websuccessdiva
-
crashingflwrgrl
-
TheMadHat
-
mpind
-
HafizD
-
SEOinSeattle
-
MelissaF
-
clickfire
-
TheNanny612
-
jamiegrove
-
FuzzyMarketer
-
HawaiiSEO
-
sem4u
-
MarkBarrera
-
Nyckelplaya
-
mrgarylee
-
oldschool
-
davidmihm
-
thinkingserious
-
karizmo1129
-
baiduyou
-
chyneclicks
-
shocs
-
isaSuperstar
-
rjonesx
-
ChrisLang
Comments
Wow, this whole thing is playing out interestingly. A topic likely discussed at search related events for some time to come.
I think that puts the final nail in the 'this was the best linkbait ever' argument.
Yeah, safe to say they would do it again if they thought they could get away with it!
......sounds like another hoax written by Lyndon
Someone was fired?
As an aside, did anyone notice what money.co.uk's toolbar PR was a few weeks ago? I'm seeing a PR3 home page and nothing on inner pages. But I didn't pay attention to what it previously was.
I think that puts the final nail in the 'this was the best linkbait ever' argument.
I am not surprised that you see it this way. I on the other hand see it as "this is the last time someone brags about linkbait"
Actually, it was the Daily Telegraph in Australia which first exposed the story, they had the sense to phone the Newark Sheriff. All I can say is I did my job very well, until letting my fellow seos know what I did. In future I will not be sharing with the people here as some have shown themselves in their true light, with one of them mooching over to my stumble account and leaving a negative review.
But, such is life, I hold no hard feelings, apart from those who stole my content and bandwith of course, silly to make an enemy with little upside for them.
Don't feel bad for me, I have doubled my rates and have a full order book, future work will be done underground and you wont be hearing about it hear.
When Linkbait goes Mental! Indeed.
"fake stories will be clearly labeled as such". So they plan on publishing more fake stories.
yup, i gave the thumbs down stumbleupon review of you lyndon but it wasn't a 'hoax'. unlike some people, i care about the realtionships i have with them. su has hated seos and marketers to the point of criminal terroristic gang-like action towards them. your tactics are hated by a large amount of stalkers and abusers. ask the feds. they have to spend gov money to enter into it just to have them removed..thanks lyndon. you're a champ.
by the way..will someone email the article to me? i refuse to give them the traffic. dont know if this is a 'hoax' to save face. hmmm, if you think about it, lyndon is dying to tell someone the real truth so he can revel in that too.
@SpostareDuro
That's pretty harsh considering Lyndon is one the few SEO/SMO on Stumbleupon who hasn't p**sed off the userbase there. Take this review by Imogan, who is not only a regular SU user but a member of the "famous" anti-SEO group.
"The SEOs on SU trying to make a few bucks then stirring up trouble with the very people they're sponging traffic off could learn from this guy Lyndoman. Yes, he seems to be a 'netpreneur' type, but he also contributes to SU with a variety of stumbles and has learned good manners somewhere along the way. Most of us get a bad review now and again; it's not the end of the world. People who are simply trying to 'game the system' really ought to take a tip."
I've taken an interest in the all the SEO/SMO vs SU wars that have been going on and I can't recall Lyndon's name ever being mentioned. However I clearly note that some of the people condemning Lyndon, even in this thread, have been right at the center of those conflicts. Should they not think about their own glass houses before throwing rocks?
Perhaps it would have been better for Money.co.uk to just declare that all its stories going foward would be 'nothing but the truth, and the whole truth, so I swear by the Queen' (Lol)
It's unfortunate things turned out this way, and at the end of the day, despite our different positions on the situation, I feel that the Search Marketing community lies divided. This is too utopian a result to ask, but we really need to band together more, especially in the face of every body non-search marketing out to shoot down seo/smm.
nick, first of all, imorgen gave her review 4 months ago..
her review was far BEFORE this latest drama and is irrelevant..yesterday is yesterday..today is a new day. even i followed lyndon around before this. now i do not. not a big loss to him..but it has been growth for me.
watching all the support he has received from those whos reputations were also in the spotlight has taught me that i need to be more choosy about where my trust goes. because people
around these parts will chew you up & spit you out, the same as the attackers in SU..and seem to be proud of themsleves for that.
i guess i just dont have that sourness in me. (when its undeserved)
i use SU the way it is intended. i give thumbs up when its called for and thumbs down when its called for. its not my fault that they have been manipulated by him to think he's not the type of SEO that they talk poorly of and attack.
he's obviously proven his ability to deceive..i think there may have been some manipulation on his part to keep the attack dogs at bay for himself. behind the scenes..which is where he best does his dirty work and brags about that too.
e.g. "future work will be done underground"..
they attack people that dont deserve it and support the people that DO ask for it..same as here in sphinn...same as too many places online, which isnt my fault either. change is worth the fight. the floor has belonged to a bunch of bully's.
even you guys would be a 'meal' to him if theres more gain from screwing you over to move to the next level..
must this also be a beating from YOU? touche'..
there's no "glass house" here..we reside in two different houses.
one last thing.. the mindset applies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P01ZxSb3SZM
@Kim
I'm not beating anyone here, that's my point. I recognise that as a marketer my job is manipulate the audience. I'm not throwing any stones at Lyndon here. I have my own glass house to look to :)
I just don't think Lyndon deserves the amount of flak he's getting over this. I think everything else has pretty much been said on this topic.
Matt Cutts reponded on May 23, 2008 to the current statement of money.co.uk as follows:
"The statement comes a few days later than some might like, but otherwise it’s exactly what you’d want to see from a site that wants to maintain credibility and trust with readers. Kudos to money.co.uk for a good move that their readers will appreciate."
This is the reality of the quite-ignored possibility that link-baiting can and sometimes does have some serious ramifications. Sure, they mention negative branding and all, but they certainly don't consider that it can get you (the SEO) fired. Nobody discussing the endless benefits of link-baiting bothered to stop and think about the possibility that Google might penalize you for it.
Don't take my word too seriously, I'm young, fairly new to search, and I haven't ventured into any strategies that would be considered even remotely risky. My white-hat has been firmly in place for each of these first six months. I've little room to talk.
Story feels like a way to extend the linkbait even further.
justfred
"My white-hat has been firmly in place for each of these first six months."
Hopefully you will continue as such. Thats a long term successful SEO stratigy for sure. On the other hand balck-hat is a very short term procedure which might be very risky both for the SEO and clients. The current story of money.co.uk illustrates that very well ;-)
I have never been a fan of "hats".. I tend to view business decisions in terms of risk vs reward.. In this case the risk may have exceeded the reward..
I think the more important take away here though is that Google appears to be stepping up to police truth now.. The world of marketing is littered with companies that take risks and succeed and fail, this is nothing new, it just happens to be in a world that more internet people have noticed..
Feydakin
"I tend to view business decisions in terms of risk vs reward."
Fair enough. But when a SEO makes a decision in terms of risk vs reward, shouldn't he/she inform the clients about the risks?
I guess money.co.uk wasn't aware of the risks! It might be therefore they wrote:
"The contractors responsible for this mistake are no longer associated with money.co.uk in any way."
oh please Harith, gimme a break "money.co.uk wasn't aware of the risk". Do you honestly believe that ? They were not aware of the fact that the story is hoax ?
neyne
They might have been aware of the story is a hoax, but I doubt that the SEO made them aware of the risks ;-)
I wrote: "I guess money.co.uk wasn't aware of the risks!"
@justFred:
"Nobody discussing the endless benefits of link-baiting bothered to stop and think about the possibility that Google might penalize you for it."
Yes I did ;)
Harith no-one, I repeat no-one could have assessed the risks of this story beforehand ... this flies in the face of everything gone before. So, to make a statement like that before all the facts have been laid on the table is ... well its a lot of things except true.
It may be the case now when people want to use this tactic that they can be made aware of the worst case scenario but not before all this hulabaloo kicked off could you ever turn to a client and state
"We'll y'know this might go Global and Google might get pissed off a bit at you ... oh, and they'll be sections within the online media world decrying your site for publishing the story and as for myself, we'll I'll have groups call me a whore, liar and spit my name like some evil monster worse than Satan himself ... but them's the risks that go with creative story-telling ...eh? What's that? Where do you sign, just here ... good man you know it makes sense!"
"hey might have been aware of the story is a hoax, but I doubt that the SEO made them aware of the risks ;-)"
aha. so they were posting a hoax story on their site, which I trust they want to pass as reputable, while not being aware what will happen when the shit hits the fan...
do you honestly believe that ?
I am sleeping with mu neighbour, but I am not sure what will happen if my wife discovers. hell, she may join us, so who knows....
(just for the record, the above example does not reflect my opinion on the mentioned linkbait. and this was a hoax, I am not sleeping with my neighbor. I don't even know who my neighbor is, unless she is on sphinn, which I doubt)
nsmseo
"I repeat no-one could have assessed the risks of this story beforehand"
It was a deliberate action trying to game Google system and get links with a false story. I'm sure the SEO knew that it was a risky business.
neyne
"so they were posting a hoax story on their site, which I trust they want to pass as reputable, while not being aware what will happen when the shit hits the fan..."
The question remaining to be answered; did the SEO told them that there was a risk of being penalized by Google WebSpam Team if/when caught gaming the system?
Maybe the site knew about the nature of the story and the risks associated with it, they probably just didn't know or expect the SEO would disclose and gloat on such "accomplishment" and created all the backlashes.
I guess this is something for all businesses to consider: branding vs SEO.
Harith, how do you know that the client wasn't informed of what may happen?? Were you sitting in on the meeting??
I've worked in many places where superiors were well aware of what we were doing and they were making us well aware that if it went badly we would be the ones on the choping block.. They need to have a reasonable amount of denyability and ability to blame someone else to keep themselves clean..
Joost had a great blog post about this.. Should Google automatically ban or penalize anti-holocaust websites?? Scientology?? Magic?? April Fools Day posts??
From what I can see the only people harmed by all of this were the "traditional" media that failed to do a fact check and "Google" for having a pretty obvious flaw in their algorithm paraded under glaring spotlights.. I suspect we will see a lot more copycat attempts shortly..
Feydakin
"Harith, how do you know that the client wasn't informed of what may happen?? Were you sitting in on the meeting??"
I don't. Therefore I wrote:
"The question remaining to be answered; did the SEO told them that there was a risk of being penalized by Google WebSpam Team if/when caught gaming the system?"
I honestly can't see why people can't grasp the difference between completely fabricated stories and legitimate webpages reporting the real facts of what some people believe (scientology or magic to take two of the above examples). The validity of opinions and the debunking of scientific fact or religious differences are nowhere near this argument, but people keep bringing them up to try and make Google sound ridiculous.
Matt has been very clear. No judgment calls or value judgements on websites. But they will take a dim view of people who demonstrate they have fabricated facts in order to game the Google algorithm through links.
If people can't grasp this distinction, can they please stop commenting until they've either fully read Matt's post or workked out what the difference is, because it's only misinforming the debate even further.
This is taken from Digg about the 'Fake Story Apology' - shows somebody has a sense of humour :
"BS the retraction is fake. The kid is now using his dads credit card to hire a fancy New York City public relations firm to try to bury the story."
I fully grasp the difference.. The issue is now that Google has declared that they will police fact/fiction, where do they draw the line??
Does something like the holocaust require that x number of people deny that it happened before they can post stories that it didn't happen?? This extreme example can be quite easily proven as fact, yet people continue to deny it happened.. Since their thoughts are clearly fiction, should they be banned?? How about the moon landings?? UFOs??
Will Google begin fact checking every popular story "just to make sure" that it isn't a fabrication?? What if they check it out and find the supporting evidence lacking?? Or will everyone start putting disclaimers like Shoemoney has on his blog?? And if they do, is that enough??
Feydakin, you've demonstrated that you don't grasp the point. Please read Matt Cutt's post where he explains it. They have not said they will police fact/fiction at all and it is a huge beat up of Matt's argument to say they have designed to provoke reaction.
The denial of the holocaust has been going since the end of the war and some people honestly believe it - whether you or I agree with them is moot. Reporting that online isn't a fabrication and links going to those sites are relevant for people running searches on the arguments against the Holocaust.. Many people believe in scientology. Reporting that fact and their beliefs online isn't a fabrication. There is a major difference between belief and disbelief (as in the case of whether people believe in the Holocaust) and fictin. Look up fiction in a dictionary - it doesn't cover it.
People can be wrong in their beliefs, but that doesn't make their beliefs fiction, it just makes them wrong - a different thing entirely. Fiction was created to be wrong. You are talking about Google making value judgements. Matt is only concerned with talking about those people who make stuff up purely for the ability to generate links and game Google. None of your examples fall into that category.
PLease read Matts post as you obviously haven't done so. He answers all of your points quite clearly. And then clarifies them again in the comments for those that can't follow.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/something-is-wrong-on-the-internet/
As quoted by Matt Cutts "But if someone is sloppy enough to get caught (or to admit!) making up a fake story"
Its that ol' devil called FUD again. Should we expect a 'Report a Fake Story' link in Google Webmaster Tools? Its a tough call.
I really don't see what the fuss is all about, it's just a funny story, no need to get your knickers in a twist.
April Fools jokes aren't created to be wrong??
I seem to remember a blog that was "hacked" that a ton of people linked to and thought was real.. I think the point you are missing is that Google continues to extend it's authority over what is to be allowed and what isn't and people are willing to simply smile and clap while they do it because they still make money from them.. I'd be far happier to see them go after all those MFA drug sites with little or no fact based information..
I wonder, if by your definition of belief, if enough people believe that the fabricated story may be true then it's ok to leave it up.. After all, enough people truly believe in it..
Not read that post yet, have you Feydakin...
Lyndon rocks...regardless on which side one comes down on this dialog...cheers mate....keep on truckin'
Sphinn is sounding like a bunch of old washerwomen (apologies to any old washerwomen in attendance). Hey Lyndon, now's a perfect time to call SEO bs and get keep your name up in lights for another month or so.
For all the rest of you interested in continuing the debate of ethics and "White Hat SEO" vs. performance-based marketing, try here and here. There's always room for a good mob action in the forums.
"Lyndon rocks...regardless on which side one comes down on this dialog...cheers mate....keep on truckin'"
I agree. For me the debate has never been about Lyndon. Yeah, I attacked what he did, but that's fair game. Alot of this back and forth is fueled by nothing but petty jealousy. What's done is done, the horse's been dead for days, its time to stop kicking and move on.
I had stopped kicking days ago until some of the above decided the apology was another excuse to start kicking my side of the debate again. I'm more than ready to let it go, bhut only if I'm not going to see my viewpoint attacked in the meantime.
Folks,
Ok. Once you decide to stop on this thread, would you be kind to move to the next one :-)
Matt Cutts: Don’t burn your credibility by using fake stories!
Thanks for the support guys. After all, we don't work for Google do we?
Lyndon,
There is still a missing link in all this. With all due respect. Did you tell money.co.uk about the risks before starting your operation for them?
The funny thing is that it was probably Lyndoman himself who wrote that apology and now even has MC linking to the site. Legendary stuff I tell you! This whole episode is just too funny for words. As if anyone expected a different outcome like SEO's agreeing on a topic LOL
Harith, for someone so against spam, asking people to vote on your story here on Sphinn seems exactly like someone asking for Diggs on Twitter, one of the three points highlighted by MC as to why this story was a problem. See how quickly something goes from black/white to gray? Hopefully you'll consider yourself a little less whitehat now ....
SamIWas
"Harith, for someone so against spam, asking people to vote on your story here on Sphinn".
My friend. That was for fun. Life is too short to take everything so serious :-)
If money.co.uk was my site I would have milked this to death and tried to put more and more spin on it gaining more and more publicty ... lets face it the only people who actually know this whole thing was fake are very savvy internet users and marketers... so no real damage has been done to moneys site cred, from the actual end users point of view.. Caburys had a massive recall of their chocolate a while ago due to a "life threatening" super bug !! but yes people still trust their brand any buy the chocolate buy the truck load....
money simply didnt act quick enough to spin it cleverly to their advantage....
And as for them sacking thier marketer , well if thats true I look forward to seeing the next marketer get 10,000 links and that kind of publicty for a grand !
Um if money.co.uk is sorry about the story why is it still live on their website? They know exactly what is going on.
I'm confused. Why is this such a big deal. Keep it up Lyndon. Bunch of pansy babies.
DVOLA, few things that strike me as wrong in your comment.
The apology from money.co.uk wasn't prompted by marketers like us, it was (according to Lyndon) the Daily Telegraph in Australia that exposed them - a mainstream newspaper - so there was obviously a risk their lack of cred was aboutt o geet out to the public. That's why the apology didn't come sooner - they didn;t care what we thought, but when a newspaper reacted...
Second, Cadbury recalling chocolate and seeing a dent in sakles for however long the scare went on for woulld have cost them millions. Product recalls are very expensive. The dip in sales that always follows an event like that is very damaging and is the intent of the hoax. Of course Cadbury recovers, but at the time, it was very damaging to them
Geez, I don't know where to start on this one. I guess my two cents is that it should have been disclosed from the onset as "humour". If Lyndon gave them the idea, kudos to him and shame on them for not being editorially responsible with how it was presented.
As some have eluded in this thread, if they were really concerned, they would have removed the story, but they are contiuning to milk it by their "sincere" apology. If they are that concerned, they should have just pulled it and this whole debate (and subsequent spike in traffic) would not be taking place. Perhaps Lyndon taught them too much?