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.

The article remains in the Google index but no longer ranks for it’s own name. Was this the right decision by Google?
Comments8 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from onreact 2268 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Additionally they are down from #5 to #18 for the term money in the UK.

Avatar
from patrickaltoft 2268 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I updated the post, they don’t rank for their title tag anymore.

Avatar
from Harith 2268 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Power to GOOG WebSpam Team :-)

Avatar
from Eavesy 2267 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Just the Google sandbox.

Avatar
from DaveKeffen 2267 Days ago #
Votes: 0

IMHO Google have opened their own Pandora’s Box with this one. This is just not a scalable stance. Where will it stop? After all, let’s face it, how much of the stuff written in the papers is true? In the Uk for one, all the tabloid newspaper’s sites will have to be penalized by Google if they are truly intending to carry this through - not to mention the ramblings on half a billion blogs (assuming that half of them tell ’nothing but the truth’). I really don’t think they’ve thought this one through.

Avatar
from g1smd 2267 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I don’t think they are bothered about "truth and facts" so much as they are about "deliberately promoting lies to get LINKS".It’s the getting LINKS that is the main part of the problem. 

Avatar
from Kimota 2267 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Matt has said repeatedly that they aren’t going out and try to verify everyone’s content, but this one jumped up and down in front of them and fell in their lap. It created links through proven deception so they penalised it. Not much else they could do.Doesn’t mean they will now try and police truth on the web - only when it is brought to their attention as an attempt to game Google as this one was.Matt clarified this yet again at SMX yesterday.

Avatar
from DaveKeffen 2267 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Completely agree with Kimota. Obviously there is no way they would actually do more than make the odd example, and I suppose if they admitted that then the reason for doing it would be lost i.e. making bloggers think twice before using big lies for linkbait.The point I tried to make earlier (rather badly) is that this would be completely unworkable for them, so nobody need really worry about it.Personally I think most top SEO writers  are clever enough to avoid  having to make up stories like this.  Quite frankly Lyndon Antcliff, who wrote the offending article, is a clever guy and a top writer. I’d hate to see him burned too heavily for this exercise.

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: