- 19
- Sphinn It!
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.blogstorm.co.uk)
Category: Google SEO
8 Comments
8 Comments
Save the date for:
SMX London - Nov. 4-5: Pre-agenda rate now available. Click here.
SMX West - Feb. 10-12
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Comments
Additionally they are down from #5 to #18 for the term money in the UK.
I updated the post, they don't rank for their title tag anymore.
Power to GOOG WebSpam Team :-)
Just the Google sandbox.
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.
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.
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.
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.