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


Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Additionally they are down from #5 to #18 for the term money in the UK.
I updated the post, they dont rank for their title tag anymore.
Power to GOOG WebSpam Team :-)
Just the Google sandbox.
IMHO Google have opened their own Pandoras Box with this one. This is just not a scalable stance. Where will it stop? After all, lets face it, how much of the stuff written in the papers is true? In the Uk for one, all the tabloid newspapers 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 dont think theyve thought this one through.
I dont think they are bothered about "truth and facts" so much as they are about "deliberately promoting lies to get LINKS".Its the getting LINKS that is the main part of the problem.
Matt has said repeatedly that they arent going out and try to verify everyones 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.Doesnt 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.
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. Id hate to see him burned too heavily for this exercise.