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.

Rand Outs a company ranking for SEO Company in Google sighting poor links and Aaron disagrees with the decision to write such a post. Who / where do you stand in this argument?
Comments130 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from g1smd 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -8

I don’t think he "outed" a company - as they weren’t technically doing anything "wrong".<div></div><div></div><div>The intention of the post was clearly stated in the title of said post...  it was asking why Google ranked sites "doing X" well, when they keep asking webmasters to "do Y", and saying that "doing X won’t help you".</div><div></div>

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 22

>>>The intention of the post was clearly statedThen, IMHO, he should have done what the rest of us do in that situation when we see a site doing something wrong and benefitting - we find a site about "knitting doilies" or something else non-commercial having the same effect...

Avatar
from coreyhammond 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 7

I agree with Aaron and Rae, and like Aaron writes in the post, Rand outed them but then has an endorsement for paid links, seems hypocritical to me

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 16

I don’t think he "outed" a company - as they weren’t technically doing anything "wrong".<div></div>g1smd, that’s what makes it even worse.<div><div></div><div>What if I compared you to a bank robber, but said, "well, he wears a ski mask over his face when he jogs to work, which is what bank robbers wear when they rob banks."</div><div></div><div></div><div>While that doesn’t make you a bank robber, many will just hear that you are a bank robber, after all, you must be since you wear that ski mask. Calling someone something is often just as bad whether they are it or not. </div><div></div><div></div><div>It certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  </div><div></div><div></div><div>Sugarrae has it exactly right. You can point out tactics and discuss them without calling out a specific company. It’s just icky.</div></div>

Avatar
from g1smd 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -7

If I subsequently found out the cops were a bit trigger happy around those parts, I’d change my attire a bit sharpish.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 22

And to the person who submitted this... I wish I’d have beat you to the punch because I’d have titled it "Bad SEOs, bad SEOs, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when SEOMoz comes for you?" HAHAHAHA (I kill me)

Avatar
from DaveKeffen 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 12

Much as I have a lot of respect for Rand, I have to agree with Aaron in this instance. I think Aaron’s quote of Nick Wilsdon summed the thing up fairly comprehensively:’Yes, Google probably already knows about them but that’s not the point. Once a SERP or a naughty company becomes a public embarrassment, it then gets "cleaned up". Google can’t be seen to be gamed. There’s an element of politics involved.’Google would have little choice after an article like Rand’s to hand edit the SERPS. I also agree will Jill, it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Avatar
from steaprok 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

IMHO not only was this just plain player hating on @rands part, but clearly a distraction technique from the lies of linkscape. Goes to show what happens when  you start to get drunk with influence and no one to check you.  With the size of seomoz, WTF does it matter to him that comoany was ranking? It surely cant be that he feels they were unethical, that would just be straight hypicrisy after the linkscape BS

Avatar
from streko 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 15

snitches get stitches.

Avatar
from theadvinci 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Rand just doesn’t like the fact that when he’s forced to hide links that are built in a SEO campaign, others don’t do it and still rank. A pro is pissed because an amateur gets a prize.I actually wouldn’t take sides here... yes, Randy is hypocritic... but then again Google does do a poor job ranking that site #1.

Avatar
from discuit 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 10

"No, SEOmoz is not trying to rank for "SEO Company" I’m sure you are not Rand, you just happen to own one. Well thats just a lovely coincidence.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 23

>>>"No, SEOmoz is not trying to rank for "SEO Company"I’m sorry Rand, nothing personal, BUT - according to Compete Pro, "SEO Company" is the ONLY phrase in the top TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY phrases your site competes with naturalpositions.com on that SEOMoz isn’t beating them out on. Seriously, that does seem a bit coincidental... and any of us who have been at this for a year or more know that when they (Google) go into this SERP to look at Natural Positions, they’ll look at the rest of the sites ranking for the phrase as well... which might clear more than a few out. Outing is bad.Outing a company in reference to the only term they beat you on is worse.Sorry, but that’s my two cents.

Avatar
from DazzlinDonna 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 9

Rae, the that proposed title is hysterical!I just finished commenting over on the post itself, but I’ll just reiterate it here.  No Outing!  That’s just bad karma.  I don’t care what that stance says about me, that’s how I feel.

Avatar
from notsleepy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 7

You don’t need to apologize for your two cents Rae because this DOES stink. Bad karma and blatantly taking out competition whilst pretending to be looking out of the better good of the SERPs. I bed Doug Heil is on the phone as we speak applying for that open position at MOz.

Avatar
from rishilakhani 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

I dont know where I stand on the whole "outing issue". But I do think there was more to some of the content of the post than just the fact that outing was done. It could have been done without the outing, and I give you that. Maybe it should have been. Maybe "SEO company" was too controversial an example to use, given the fact Rae just highlighted above. But I still feel that G has to answer for the tactic employed actually working, politics aside.

Avatar
from seofactor 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 9

I’m kinda with Rae on this. And @g1smd, I think Aaron wrapped it up well when he quoted Nick:"Yes, Google probably already knows about them but that’s not the point. Once a SERP or a naughty company becomes a public embarrassment, it then gets "cleaned up". Google can’t be seen to be gamed. There’s an element of politics involved."I really hate feeding into the drama, but I think it may be a professionally good idea for Rand to back off a bit. After the whole Linkscape thing and the perceived history he has (correct or not) it probably isn’t a good idea to jump on something he knows is going to ruffle some feathers. Unless that’s his intention. And this post really did seem to hammer on Linkscape, so that could be likely. I guess we have to remember that there are a ton of people that have no idea who we are, even Rand. Those are some of the people that read his stuff, and they may buy into his services. As the owner of a company, maybe he feels that alienating his peers is an acceptable loss. Either way, I wonder how many directories link to SEOmoz? Bah, I’m rambling. I call Shenanigans with you, Rae. But I think it may be a plan. Even bad attention on a new product from one segment of people can end up being good attention overall.

Avatar
from Feydakin 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

It’s amazing how much reputation someone can burn in a few weeks.. I wonder if he has read Andy Beal’s book?? My guess is no..

Avatar
from joehall 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -8

The below is pasted from my comment at Aaron’s blog, sure go ahead and out me for duplicate content spamming..."Honesty, I kinda agree with Rand on this. How can we as professionals expect to be treated as professionals if we make a habit of turning a blind eye to practices that we disagree with. As professional SEO’s we should work to elevate our industry with standards and practices that ensure the term "SEO" is thought of as positive marketing strategy. How do we expect to differentiate our selves from true blue spammers otherwise."

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 15

From Rand’s original post, he mentioned that the links for his competitor were >>>pretty much all low quality directoriesWhat I find odd is that seomoz should INDEED know that low quality directories can help a site since they have so many linking to them due to their page strength badge (which 1. redirects to trifecta in most cases now 2. shows no info on the referring site unless you login - so the link is essentially useless to the user who clicked on it). But lets not confuse legitimate, completely unrelated link popularity and... you know, that manipulative stuff.It’s funny how illigitimate a legit tactic can be made to seem if you purposely look at it negatively ain’t it...

Avatar
from DazzlinDonna 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 10

"It’s funny how illigitimate a legit tactic can be made to seem if you purposely look at it negatively ain’t it..." - you hit the nail on the head, Rae.@joehall - I doubt anyone has a problem with professional SEO’s talking about best practices and disagreeing with spam tactics.  But that can all be done without outing anyone.  If someone feels the need to discuss particulars, do it in private.  Get together in a private forum with your homies and discuss away.  But don’t open it up to the public, for crying out loud.  That’s just not good form.  Not good form.  And unfortunately, some people do it again and again and again and again....and then say they don’t do it "lightly".  Sheesh.  I’d hate to think what "heavily" would entail.No Outing!

Avatar
from Feydakin 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

From Rand’s post: "Anchor text distribution. Linkscape is showing me that they’re earning an incredibly disproportionate share of what I’d call "optimized" anchor text."Isn’t the word "optimized" in the term SEO?? And isn’t optimizing what we are supposed to be doing?? I wonder how "optimized" rand’s anchor text is..

Avatar
from joehall 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -1

@DazzlinDonna - I have worked as an in house SEO for a real estate company for awhile now. In real estate when an agent or broker goes against industry ethics, usually, if they get caught....they will be reported to their local NAR board’s ethics committee. Most of the honest agents and brokers are very quick to report scumy agents because they understand that it is not only the repretation of the agent in question thats on the line, but it is the whole local industry as well.The biggest difference that I can see with the example above and the one with SEO. Is that by its very nature the SEO industry is much more transparent and there is no SEO ethics board (thank god), as a result we have to discuss these issues on our own medium and as a result will in itself be making them public. Otherwise there is absolutely no reprecussons for the "SEO Company".  

Avatar
from massa 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

>I bed Doug Heil is on the phone as we speak applying for that open position at MOz.<Who ??? I thought I knew everyone in this industry that had ever said anything even remotely intelligent but that name escapes me.As far as outing anyone:Let he without sin cast the first stoneWhen you point a finger at someone you have three more pointing back at youA man is known by his actionsI believe Gillian and Rand as a team make up one of the best online marketing teams on the net and I also believe little gets done without forethought. Hell, with them kids,it could be up to fivethought by now.I believe Aaron is ALWAYS right whatever he says.   Finally :who gives a damn? I gotta go sell some crap.

Avatar
from massa 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

I’ll try one more time to get my post to show up,but if not,then I give up :-(**********************************>I bed Doug Heil is on the phone as we speak applying for that open position at MOz.<Who ??? I thought I knew everyone in this industry that had ever said anything even remotely intelligent but that name escapes me.As far as outing anyone:Let he without sin cast the first stoneWhen you point a finger at someone you have three more pointing back at youA man is known by his actionsI believe Gillian and Rand as a team make up one of the best online marketing teams on the net and I also believe little gets done without forethought. Hell, with them kids,it could be up to fivethought by now.I believe Aaron is ALWAYS right whatever he says.   Finally :who gives a damn? I gotta go sell some crap.

Avatar
from yrewol 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 8

From Rand’s post:Linkscape is showing me that they’re earning an incredibly disproportionate share of what I’d call "optimized" anchor text.subtle advertisment

Avatar
from neyne 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 6

I think Rand has just given the whole SEO community a big thumbs up on banning those SEOMoz, ahm, oops, Dotbot robots. Really, there are two kind of footprints Rand has left in the last few weeks:1. A bad move, followed by a long period of silence, probably used to consult the lawyer/investors/whoever2. A bad karma post, probably "shot from the hip" without consulting anyone.So I don’t knw what is worse, when he consults and fails to mend or when he shoots straight and the bullet hits his foot

Avatar
from SEMSpot 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

So they are outranking Rand on a keyword they optimized, that is part of SEO the last time I checked.  So instead of taking it like a man and trying to beat the competition, he will use his "mozer" fame and just call them out on it.  Rand’s reputation is like that of a sculpted statue, with the linkscape fiasco he chipped away at his own reputation.  Now with this outing post, as it surely is his way of throwing a hissy fit my 2yr. old would do when he doesn’t want to go to bed.  He is chipping away even more from his reputation statue and one day it will just crumble to little pieces.  You support the use of paid text links for your clients, yet bitch when a SEO company out ranks you for a competitive term using directory submissions.  Contradiction’s you put out are amazing, keep it up and I will bet from this day fourth you will surely be looked at differently in the community. 

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 13

Fact is, Doug wouldn’t join up with Moz. Whatever you may think of him, he’s always been consistant in the line he takes. It’s hard to see Moz/Rand as holding the moral high ground when a few months ago they were writing about whitehat cloaking and cookie stuffing. The latter technique, being slightly more than "spammy", can land you in court. The Moz ethical position seems to be based more on what proves popular with their community or agreed by consensus. I don’t blame them for this. They are a business and must appeal to their customers first but makes it implausible for them to later claim to be acting on a moral imperative. The company in question had (as far as Rand wrote) simply been gaining low level directory links and concentrating their anchor text too much. Hardly blackhat. They could just have followed some of the Moz advice last year on finding links:Directory Search TermsAppending the word "directory" and other similar terms can help to dig up valuable hubs where you can submit your site for inclusion. Note that many of these use advanced operators and will generally have a short list (top 10-25) of valuable targets. snowboard equipment directory intitle:directory "snowboard equipment" inurl:directory "snowboard equipment" snowboard directory snowboard * directory directory * snowboard It seems inconsistant to now find this practice "manipulative" and "blackhat". You’re left wondering if this was a move on the SERPs or, more likely considering the current direction of the company, an opportunity to promote Linkscape. If that is true, it’s sad that someone else’s business had to be put on the block to achieve that goal.

Avatar
from Vingold 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 20

Obviously, a few days later and we’re still talking about this - so here we go:1)  The site is not doing anything wrong.  They submitted their URL and their preferred anchor text to lots of directories.  I always thought this was a basic link building practice.  Up until October 3rd it was even recommended by Google guidelines.  So in my eyes they should be able to withstand a manual review.  For all we know they could be a good SEO company.  Not all of the world’s best SEOs speak at conferences and comment at Sphinn.2) The search phrase "SEO Company" is so generic that any of the search engines should be able to serve up any of a hundred different websites and feel they delivered a relevant result to the user.  The search results in this case aren’t much different than cabs at the airport.  So in my eyes this site even passes the Shoemoney "Don’t Make Google Look Stupid" Rule. 3) If you watch the most recent "What is Web Spam" video from the SMX East Panel you’ll hear all the search engines describe their opinion of web spam, and again this site doesn’t meet any of that criteria.4) Rand did intend to "out" the company.  And we need to stop saying he didn’t.  He posted the blog under the "Blackhat and Spamming" category of the blog.  He used the phrase "you know I don’t lightly call out manipulative activities in the search results very often" to indicate he was about to do so.  Of course he later went on to say his real problem wasn’t with the site, but with the search engines and that the site was not doing anything that would "technically" be called blackhat. But by then his intention and his "outing" was clear.  He even concluded the post with ways you can report web spam on your own. Note: If submitting your URL to sites for them to post with your preferred anchor text is blackhat, then I don’t think there are any whitehat SEOs.5) Rand could have, if he chose to, posted nearly everything he did and featured Linkscape as he did with a slightly different view.  He could have titled it "Link Building, Low Level Directories Can Still Help You Rank (for now)" and put it under the link building category of the blog.  He could have used 99% of what he did and just changed a few words or sentences.  He didn’t, his outing this time was intentional.6) I think Rand’s post shows there is a disconnect between how we would like to think the search engines work - and how they actually work.  Rand talks of building a site with "ideal" SEO in mind and knowing one day that Search Engines will catch up and do it right.Sometimes it is like this.  I can spend all night at a bar talking to a girl, laughing at her jokes, telling her she’s beautiful, asking about her hopes, dreams, childhood etc. - and generally treating her with the respect, care and attention she deserves.Come closing time she is still going to go home with the scruffy biker for a one night stand.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 8

That’s what’s so troubling. "Outing" a company for following his advice.

Avatar
from notsleepy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

@NickWilsdonYeah I was only joking about Doug Heil joining SEOMoz. I did feel like I was listening to Heil when I read:"It’s been my general opinion that there’s no better place to start this enforcement than our field, search engine optimization, and the SEO companies that offer this service."

Avatar
from JoshuaSciarrino 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

(I wrote this on the blog but reposting it here)<div></div><div>Hey Rand, I think your trending on ice with this topic. Personally, I really don’t care. It’s something you feel thats ’right’. Business wise, I think this is a very unwise choice. Because, what if someone goes and literally takes extensive time and tries to find your paid links and then opens a case with Google citing all your paid links. Then your probably gonna get delisted.Rand, your clearly not blameless. Unless you think Google is gonna change their stance on paid links. :?Your seriously setting yourself up for de-listing. Not by me, nor any of my friends/enemies. You don’t bite the hand that feed you bro. And your doing that. Get away from ’specifically’ outing and just refer to people/company’s as ’them, they’ etc. Or, ask the company/people first. If they don’t care.....then go for it. I like you Rand, I really do. Moz has been a great deal in help to me learning the art of SEO. I don’t want to see it get de-listed because you pissed off a bunch of SEO’s, who collectively could get you banned. Think long and hard. Ask your employees what they think. This isn’t going to be good Rand. </ careful warning></div>

Avatar
from notsleepy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Oh no. Just noticed I really screwed up my spelling in a bad way! :)"I bed Doug Heil..."

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 10

@Notsleepy Yep Tony, that does sound like a Dougism but I can’t take it seriously from Rand (sorry). Not after they spent a whiteboard friday explaining the ins and outs of cookie stuffing. This was an attempt at the moral high ground to get away with an advert for Linkscape - simple as that really. I’m getting really reluctant to get involved in the drama though as the increasing frequency here is just pointing to this being part of a marketing campaign.

Avatar
from TheMadHat 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 5

I’m adding Rand’s name to this as we speak http://www.whosarat.com

Avatar
from Skitzzo 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 16

Sweet action, I found this thread before the inevitable "This is good for the community but I probably should have done things a little different. Please realize my intentions were as pure as the driven snow and my personal history of making high profile ’mistakes’ like this to gain attention had nothing to do with this" comment from Rand... People seem to be focused on whether or not the company did anything wrong but as Aaron points out in this post, that really has nothing to do with it. It’s all about making Google look bad. Rand made a very public statement that Google was being gamed and to maintain the reputation of their results, Google will have to respond. The way I see it they can either defend their rankings (and by extension the SEO company at the top) or "tweak" them. Which do you think they’ll choose? That being said, I’m not at all surprised that Rand has decided to take this path. The simple fact of the matter is that SEOmoz is no longer in the SEO business, they are in the business of selling TO us. As such, they no longer have to worry about the actual practice of SEO or the industry as a whole, as long as they garner attention and gain subscribers.

Avatar
from streko 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 2

"Oh no. Just noticed I really screwed up my spelling in a bad way! :)"that miss spelling can be taken ohh so many ways =)

Avatar
from mphung 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 18

"Is that by its very nature the SEO industry is much more transparent and there is no SEO ethics board (thank god), as a result we have to discuss these issues on our own medium and as a result will in itself be making them public. Otherwise there is absolutely no reprecussons for the "SEO Company"."Except that the company being outed wasn’t doing anything even borderline "unethical." I think our industry is way too cavalier about throwing the word "ethics" around. Using low-quality links to get your site ranked has nothing to do with ethics. In fact, using black hat techniques doesn’t have anything to do with ethics/morality either. Using your industry clout to destroy a competitor (allegedly) for outranking you on a term you want to dominate, when they’ve done nothing wrong... that tends to be much more a question of what’s ethical and what’s not.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 14

>>>I think our industry is way too cavalier about throwing the word "ethics" around.There is an old webmasterworld.com saying that still rings true.To many, SPAM = Sites Positioned Above Mine

Avatar
from antonaf 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -3

I am not taking either side, I think they both make valid points.  Rand is right that as a community we should "look at strategies and tactics publicly" (he probably could have done so without naming the company).  I think we should discuss things which perplexes us and as SEO having a fair amount of discussion is how we grow as an individual SEO and as a community.  However, I also think Aaron is right, because I am not one to "out" a company so they lose their rankings -- I’d rather study their methods, perfect my strategy, and outrank them like the good ole’ days.  And particularly in this case the company did not do anything wrong.  Aside from everything, I think the most important take away is how the company achieved its ranking "directory submissions" -- that is what I find most interesting about this entire case.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 28

>>>Aside from everything, I think the most important take away is how the company achieved its ranking "directory submissions" -- that is what I find most interesting about this entire case.I’m gonna get flamed up and down anyway today, so I’ll be the one to up and say it. If someone seriously doesn’t get why two year old links to a three year old site from four year old+ sites helps a site rank, regardless of the actual QUALITY of the links, then they need to READ about SEO, not write about it. I don’t care how big of a "SEO brand" you are. Period.

Avatar
from SEOHonolulu 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 6

"If someone seriously doesn’t get why two year old links to a three year old site from four year old+ sites helps a site rank, regardless of the actual QUALITY of the links, then they need to READ about SEO, not write about it. I don’t care how big of a "SEO brand" you are. Period"<div></div><div><b>That pretty much sums it up right there...</b></div>

Avatar
from joehall 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@mphung When I was speaking about ethics in both the SEO industry and the real estate industry I wasn’t pointing to any spesifics from any given company. Basically, I am saying that its ok to talk about these issues in a public blog or forum, in the hopes that we can determine what if any ethics have been breached.

Avatar
from robwatts 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 11

Maybe we should leave it to the search engines to decide what is spam. They do anyway and they call it their guidelines. Nothing we say or do makes any difference.I read that seomoz article and found myself saying wtf, as Sugarrae just said, it seems like another case of ’site positioned above mine’ type of sideways reporting stuff.As so many others have said already in forums and threads and tweets immemorial, in whatever competitive vertical you care to look at, if you look hard enough you’ll be able to construct a case for evidence of someone breaking search engine guidelines. Where do you draw the line?I’m not saying that such things aren’t worthy of discussion, it just leaves a dodgy taste in ones mouth when reading stuff clearly designed to push a site off the pitch.I remember not so long back, some seo blog or other wrote about counter spam and the use of the noscript tag to get back links and what not. Both the sites ’outed’ lost ranking as a result. Whilst I can understand the competitive reasons for doing such things I still think it’s a little sh1tty to do so. Don’t complain , just do it better and win.

Avatar
from pmac 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 6

This is the best Christmas EVAH! Its about time someone that has the respect of the SEO community, namely Aaron, finally had the stones to what so many of us have wanted to do for so long. Call out a self serving hypocite and habitual "outer." Rand, you really shit the bed this time mate.

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 12

@joehallOffering up other people’s sites to public debate over whether or not they have breached Google’s guidelines is dangerous. As Aaron pointed out in his post. If you are going to do this, you better be certain that they have broken the rules. This can have a real effect on someone’s business. Apparently they used to dunk accused women in water to verify if they were witches. If they floated they were a witch and burnt at the stake. If they sunk, and often drowned then they were declared innocent. Having "public debates" on specific sites seems somewhat reminiscent of that procedure and logic.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 19

Ok, why the HELL does my comment keep disappearing? here is it again: Rand, I am really sorry - I like you. I do. But if you are going to call a company out, publicly, then you have to expect the same. You said: "No, SEOmoz is not trying to rank for "SEO Company" Maybe not today. But it seems you changed your site right before you published that post outing a competitor on the term "SEO Company". As anyone can see via archive (link was breaking post) your old design clearly said "seo company" on the page (use archive.org to look up seomoz) Ok, but you redesigned - maybe you changed focus? Nope. According to the screenshot: http://themilwaukeeseo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/seomoz_redesign1.jpg posted here: http://themilwaukeeseo.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/the-new-seomoz-redesigned-and-rebranded/seomoz_redesign1/ you clearly had the word "SEO Company" on your homepage until very recently. To me, in theory, one might be able to theorize that by removing that word, for now, you could claim no competition while outing a competitor and shoving your site down to the sixties in the search results (the oddity that you DIDN’T rank for the term was what made me go looking) - safe from the hand reviews about to ensue. In theory, after a few weeks, you could have added the term back to your homepage and moved back up. Of course, not saying you did that, but I’m simply trying to show plausible conclusions based on the information I have at hand.(You’ll have to lookup archive link - sphinn kept eating the post if I put that link in)

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 5

Oh what a tangled web we weave...<div></div><div>Over and over and over again, apparently.</div>

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Um, why is my comment suddenly edited?

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Ok, that was weird - everything below the first colon (right before the first link) disappeared - I have no re-edited my comment to put it - again.

Avatar
from robwatts 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3



Avatar
from notsleepy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@SugarraeWeird that you were edited.  I assume you were pointing to :http://img.skitch.com/20081029-c2hgp5u7b8uu1qdhs2cay5is84.jpg

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I just made the links NOT clickable - maybe that will help KEEP them there?

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 5

Reviewing his original post again now too, does clearly make it appear that he’s using it to attempt to rank for the phrase instead of using his home page.<div></div><div>Just highlight seo company within the post...bing, bing, bing, bing....</div>

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@SugarraeYep the editable space has issues with some characters inside links. I noticed that on another post where I was trying to give live links to search queries. Best thing is to turn them into Tinyurls and repost (or leave them static). Edit: Sorry did I say Tinyurl - I obviously meant the far superior Zi.ma or Cli.gs systems ;)

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Ok, removing the archive link seemed to solve the problem...

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@notsleepy the archive link pointed to their old design - but as you can see in the other links I listed, it was also in the new design - WAS

Avatar
from jfj3rd 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Sugarrae I changed the topic just for you.  I figure I owe you one after giving you a hard time a long while ago about a twitter post I caught.

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

HAHAHA. thanks. That’s so awesome.

Avatar
from yetanotherben 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Seems like a whole lot of people are riled up by this.  Is it because one of our own were outed do you think or because it’s one too many?  @ NickW In response to: "This was an attempt at the moral high ground to get away with an advert for Linkscape - simple as that really"...high ground or not, maybe he was venting as opposed to providing a transparent Linkscape advert, especially considering all the heat from fellow SEO’s he (and SEOMoz) have been under...Ben M

Avatar
from jfj3rd 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 4

I didn’t much care for most of what I took from Rand’s post.  I can probably sum up what he said in three specific topics<div><div></div><div>Outing a CompanySolicitation of LinkscapePointing out theoretical flaws within Google and other search engines.<div>Two out of three of those simply turn me off and were overwhelmingly what I took from the post more than anything else.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I’m not entirely sure I agree with Rand’s following statement:</div><div></div></div>"It’s been my general opinion that there’s no better place to start this enforcement than our field, search engine optimization, and the SEO companies that offer this service."<div><div></div><div>My concern with that is and always has been my personal feelings that Industry super stars should not dictate or control enforcement.  There are simply too many ’groups of buddies’ within our industry that make abuse too easy to accomplish in one way or another.</div><div></div><div>Now; who would or should step up and promote enforcement in our field?  Well I think Robwatts partially hit it right when he commented above and said:</div><div></div><div></div></div>"Maybe we should leave it to the search engines to decide what is spam. They do anyway and they call it their guidelines. Nothing we say or do makes any difference."<div><div></div><div>Anyways not that it counts much within the larger parts of the SEO community but these are my thoughts on the topic; back to work I go.</div></div></div>

Avatar
from rhcerff 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

makes one think.  Was this:a) perfect linkbaitb) calling someone on a cheaper service than their "Linkscape" tool and they couldn’t handle it?@ Sugarrae: I’ve agreed with you all along.  Loved the SPAM saying!  Ethics is a term that far too many people use.  Someone really needs to define that as I believe many people have taken a moral ground on many issues throughout history believing that they were very much in the right... only to be very wrong.In any case I’m calling Rand on this one.  I think that while you often have very good points and some great case studies this was nothing more than a cheap shot in my view.  It’s almost as bad as a couple of todlers crying foul because someone managed to get an extra sweet.  Oh and just because you consider it a useless/spammy directory, doesn’t mean that it is (however I conceed you are most likely right).

Avatar
from HeadlandDigital 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -5

The article in question was merely describing what was happening and as such should not elicit controversy.Also, its "citing" not "sighting" :)

Avatar
from Vingold 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 4

I also like and respect Rand and everyone over at SEOmoz, but this is my big takeaway from everything over the last month:"Not ranking high enough? Buy Linkscape and you too can report your competitors as being spam - even if they aren’t - by calling attention to all of their "low quality" or other "suspicious" links. Report your findings using your Webmaster Tools console, or write a post on Sphinn or YOUmoz about them.  Google will have to take action and all of your competitors will be removed from above you - thus clearing the path for your rise to top of the rankings.And we’ve made Linkscape virtually escape proof, no site will be able to hide their backlinks from us, even if they remove themselves from our index.  So you know you’ll be able to find out about your competition - no matter who they are.Buy Linkscape today!  Before your competitors do!"And you know what, it will probably work.Arms dealers sell to both sides by convincing them that war is coming, and you better be armed.Pure genious if you ask me.  I don’t begrudge anyone their success, Rand has his own future and a beautiful wife he needs to take care of.  I am sure at the heart of it all - this is a pure business decision.

Avatar
from jfj3rd 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Interestingly enough; I am still finding National Positions ranking for ’SEO Company’ in the number on position.  Perhaps Google hasn’t taken any action, won’t take any action or has taken action and doesn’t believe what they’ve done is considered spammy... speculation in regards to what will, won’t or already has happened is probably going to be a little chaotic over the next few days; I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one watching that position now.

Avatar
from johnandrews 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 10

Keep going Rand, you’re on a roll for a banner year in the "who I really am" dept.And as everyone pays his "premium" fee, buys his Linkscrape tool, and invites him to be on panels, he shall power on. Maybe Rand should be the next president of SEMPO, where he can properly represent SEO to the Fortune 100.

Avatar
from cre8pc 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 12

I left my comment on SEOMoz’s blog post.Business decisions can be implemented with integrity and ethics.  If this was intended to be a demo of Linkscape, I would have preferred it to be a positive case study where no company reputation was brought down in the process.I don’t believe in policing by wrecking reputations. Don’t believe it is an SEO’s job to destroy others to build up one’s own interests. 

Avatar
from MattSiltala 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

and Rand just sits back loving all this Press talking about him, his website and his tools...

Avatar
from yetanotherben 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Going home - it’s been a long day, and it’s date night tonight!I wonder what tomorrow shall bring.........

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

jfj3rd I doubt you’ll see them suddenly lose position.

Avatar
from Oggy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Seems strange that Rand isn’t doing any damage control here... neither is he on Linkscape (decieving people on how many pages they indexed): http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2008/10/20/how-to-add-7-billion-pages-to-your-index-overnight/ He’s promoting a product through lies... to me that’s more unethical than building directory links (which is not even against Google’s guidelines).  But hey... when you’re not number 1, no matter what you’ve tried, outing a site for doing nothing wrong and having all the moztrolls agree to it seems like a good way to get started? He still hasn’t learned his lesson and is ratting out sites just like 5 months ago when I called him a RAT:http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-spam-illuminates-the-algos-reliance-on-domain-authority#jtc57176

Avatar
from jimbeetle 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

yetanotherben > "especially considering all the heat from fellow SEO’s he (and SEOMoz) have been under..."Yeah, maybe, but Rand has been putting himself in the position to take heat for a number of years, from the days he referred to himself as a "journalist." Maybe it’s just an appearances and perception type of thing, but you would think that as such a bright guy (so folks tell me), he would have caught on by now.And sure, there is no such thing as bad publicity, except maybe when negative comments are being made by folks you would wish to be counted among as a peer. Take a look at what some of the long-time heavy hitters have said; to me, the comments are quite astonishing in their severity.This SEOmoz bashing is getting to be old hat and is not good for the industry as a whole. Rand must stop repeatedly putting himself -- and by extension his company -- in these situations. He must realize that trust and discretion are essential to the community and he must understnad that if he wants to be one of its respected members.Well, he’s still a young and somewhat inexperienced whippersnapper; maybe with time he’ll grow into the large-sized boots he wants to wear.

Avatar
from CozyKittens 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -4

the post was stupid

Avatar
from neyne 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I wonder whether linkscape can be used to get emails of anti-government journalists in china ???

Avatar
from neyne 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

and the greatest thing in this whole story ? www.nationalpositions.com is getting GAZZILIONs of links from SEO blogs... I bet the site owners are having a small heart attack :)

Avatar
from Skitzzo 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 2

@neyne, maybe SEOmoz was hired by nationalpositions.com to do link bait for them? :D

Avatar
from joehall 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@NickWilsdon So your saying that we shouldn’t talk publicly about the ill deads of folks that work in our industry, so we don’t hurt their reputation/business? To me that seems allot like the likes of industries that have bad reputations such as the tobacco and oil inustries. I really think its rediclous to assume that we can’t talk openly about folks in our industry, I mean hey, no one has come to the aid of SEO Champion yet. Everyone hasn’t had a problem talking publicly about him.

Avatar
from johnandrews 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 2

"and Rand just sits back loving all this Press talking about him, his website and his tools"If true, that’s (another) mistake as JimBeetle notes above.As for SEO Champion, he’s a whole nother animal. He boasts of success and makes positive claims, and except for the allegedly off-color personal appearance at some search show, he is all about the success. No one can argue with a guy who claims to know the 249 parameters of Google’s algorithm (or is it 275? 290? I’m only up to 194 myself). Maybe he does... so why not take a small risk and pay him to demonstrate his SEO abilities? What’s the downside? None... give him a try, and see how it goes. There’s little risk in trusting SEO Champion. Now what about trusting Rand? Is there any risk in trusting Rand?

Avatar
from jonnyscottie 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -9

what a bunch o bawbags

Avatar
from Jeremy 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@joehall - no "ill deeds" have been done....at least not by the company that was outed. Even if you disagree with that you have to understand that you can discuss the issues without naming names.

Avatar
from NatashaRobinson 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Wow - I love that Sphinn is becoming more like ThreadWatch every week.  I’ll make sure to pop some popcorn and come back to this thread later ;)

Avatar
from jimbeetle 2099 Days ago #
Votes: 1

> ThreadWatchHe, he, yeah, had a Rand controversy or two back then also. Gotta’ say, he does keep things interesting.

Avatar
from joehall 2099 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@Jeremy I understand that, but the fact remains that we should be able to have public discussions with out worrying about hurting other folks. I think the general concesus here is that there wasn’t any ill deeds, but should we be restrained from having this discussion???

Avatar
from jfj3rd 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@joehall<div></div><div>There are TONS of websites, blogs, forums and social networks where public opinion is completely acceptable.  I don’t think anyone is saying that public opinion is bad; I think the bigger issue is that public opinion at the expense of another person or company without their knowledge or consent is wrong.</div><div></div><div>I’ve read through every comment above and Sugarrae noted that up until Rand’s post that SEOMoz was targetting ’SEO Company’.  Public Discussion at the expense of others and for your own personal or company related goals just seems cold, especially coming from such a powerhouse like Rand and SEOMoz.</div><div></div><div>Add to this that our industry is heavily opinion based and what facts we do have are subject to change at the whim of any given search engine and you have people, under the cover of ’public discussion’ expressing their opinions on their competitors or clients competitors.  </div><div></div><div>Rand’s opinion is that low quality directory submission is spammy and he is entitled to that opinion as is anyone else to agree or think differently.</div><div></div><div>We don’t need ethics; we need SEO Political groups.  The extreme right groups believe all link building is bad, extreme left the completely opposite and so on.  Anyone want to take that on? :-)</div>

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 3

@joehallIt’s about responsibility. Having discussions about sites can have negative consequences, as Aaron writes. In my example above, even if you have been found innocent of witchcraft, I doubt you’re thanking anyone for the experience of the trial. Of course you can argue that your rights to have an academic discussion are more important than their business. Freedom of speech and all that. That’s your call. Personally I think people should accept the responsibility for their own actions. If you *are* going to out someone and put their business at risk, I’d hope you have some evidence to go on. All signs here point to the fact that Rand had none but did this anyway. Even Doug Heil couldn’t see any reason to out the guy

Avatar
from Jeremy 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@joeSure, we should have the dicussion but I think Nick is right on when he says it’s about responsibility. If we want to have a naming names discussion that could hurt someone else’s business we should be prepared to accept responsibility for our actions...and I for one would "worry" about the damage that could be done to someone else’s business. I’m sure that business has employees and clients that rely on them being in business to pay the bills and put food on the table. I would think that as a business owner himself that thought would have crossed Rand’s mind...obvioulsy it didn’t or he just doesn’t care what damage he does to someone else’s business.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 11

Outing competitors sucks. Period. Rand, I’m disappointed.

Avatar
from BeantownSEO 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Wow it is amazing how quickly someone or some company can go from being the toast of the town to down and out. SEOMOZ’s reputation, along with that of its fearless leader, seems to have taken some serious hits in a short time that it may never recover from in respect to the community it operates in.Would be an interesting case study in reputation management no? Will also be interesting to see how SEOMOZ recovers from this, if it can.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 3

BeantownSEO, this too will blow over. It’s just the SEO controversy of the week. Don’t worry, SEOmoz will be the toast of the town by next week or the week after.<div></div><div>That’s how it works in this industry!</div>

Avatar
from WilliamC 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Jeeez, what is it with Rand putting his foot in his mouth here so much lately  :P

Avatar
from arteworks 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -8

Rand was absolutely right to do what he did.  If there is nothing to fear, why is anybody upset with the supposed "outing"?  Everyone can whine if it makes them feel better, but it won’t change anything.  The fact of the matter is that Rand was advocating for a better user experience on the web.  Anyone who disagrees with that is entitled to their opinion, but certainly has no legs to stand on when it comes to "reputation".  Maybe if more people had the cajones to stand up to this kind of b.s. (example: how many of you folks are fighting Jason Gambert?), the industry would have a better reputation.  But the large majority of supposed "seo’s" are content to sit by and do nothing to assist the industry.  GREAT JOB RAND KEEP IT UP.

Avatar
from jimbeetle 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 3

BeatownSEO > "SEOMOZ’s reputation, along with that of its fearless leader, seems to have taken some serious hits in a short time that it may never recover from in respect to the community it operates in."That’s the problem, it is not a short time -- this is a pattern that Rand has established over the period of a few years. And it does appear to me to be the way he likes to operate; if not, he would have made a few adjustments long ago.But, as Jill says, it will blow over and Rand & Co. will again be the toast of the town until...

Avatar
from mvandemar 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 10

Guys, really, it’s not an outing. Let’s not even give it the tiniest pretense of altruism.What Rand attempted to do was sabotage, nothing more, and nothing less. It’s worked in the past, so why not try again. He didn’t present the information in a different light because his purpose in posting had nothing whatsoever to do with talking about how the search engines work, or SEO. Melanie is dead on... Rand was simply trying to use his clout and his readership to harm another business.

Avatar
from Jeremy 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 4

"The fact of the matter is that Rand was advocating for a better user experience on the web."Give me a break...unless better user experience = companies I suggest or maybe my own should have that spot."If there is nothing to fear, why is anybody upset with the supposed "outing"? "The only "fear" is that the business mentioned gets a hand edit our of the serps becuase Rand "outs" them for tactics he himself has advocated and provides tools to help people accomplish.

Avatar
from mphung 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 10

This community sure does like to build them up just so it can tear them back down. And the bigger we’ve built them, the harder they fall, and the more sadistic pleasure we seem to take in kicking them on the way down. Would this SEO controversy of the week (or last week’s) really have gotten this ugly if it hadn’t been SEO’s golden boy at the center? As a wise man once told me, you’re never as good as they think when they love you, but neither are you as bad as they think when they’ve turned against you. I.e. public opinion is always a bit hyperbolic.On the record now: I thought the excessive fanboy-like love accorded to Rand & Co always seemed way out of proportion to anything real. But the vitriol being slung at him personally over this is way over the top too.Let’s get some perspective, and not turn this into some sort of personal witch hunt.

Avatar
from Gab 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@Rae -on SPAM - I wrote that exact thinbg at seomoz lol...

Avatar
from webuildpages 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 6

I’m not religious...but "let he w/o sin cast the first stone".... or something like that.... or "don’t throw stones in glass houses"... that kinda stuff is my thoughts.

Avatar
from jfj3rd 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

With over 90 comments now and 109 sphinns on this topic it is obvious that the SEO community is concerned in one way or another about what has taken place.  We’ve taken sides, agreed, disagreed and given our own input on the topic but where to go from here?  Will this simply blow over like Jill suggests?  Probably so as far as any damage to Rand & Co.  However, should the core issues behind the attention of this post be forgotten?We have an opportunity to collectively make an impact in the SEO community at large because each of us are bloggers, diggers, forum contributors and the list goes on and on.  Many of us are small time marketers but there have been many contributors to these comments that have large followings and a prominent position within our industry.What can we all agree upon or at least the majority of us agree upon?  This might be a good time for a poll and then with results in hand a mass flooding of our respected arena’s of what could be considered a rough draft of ethics or, given the current presidential debate in America, the first Constitution of SEO Practices or something like that.Just a suggestion or two anyways... we can all agree, disagree, take sides and voice our opinions here but are we really changing anything?

Avatar
from JohnHGohde 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -11

@CozyKittensditto

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 6

JohnHG why do you even bother to comment?

Avatar
from TheMadHat 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 2

<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; background-color: #ffffff">101st!<div></div><div>I’m a spammer....out me and I’ll wreck havock. Listen, I think every point has been made here, is there actually a need to continue it? Go do some work and make some money or something.</div><div></div><div>If Rand wants to be holier than thou, then let him. It’s not like we don’t recognize it. Trashing someone for personal gain after you’ve portrayed yourself as "Mr Ethical"....well what does he expect?</div><div></div><div>GUILTY! GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!</div></div>

Avatar
from JohnHGohde 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -11

I will tell you tomorrow, Jill.

Avatar Moderator
from incrediblehelp 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Wow with the LinkScape issues and now this, Rand and SEOmoz are hitting some homeruns of late :(

Avatar
from onreact 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -5

I wrote a follow up on this: http://sphinn.com/story/82134

Avatar Moderator
from hugoguzman 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I’ve been so caught up with travel and meetings, so it looks like I’m super late to the party.I know I’m just a small fish in a big SEO pond, but I can tell you from personal experience that Rand has changed a lot since I first "met" (online) with him back in 2004 or so. I think that he is a classic case of "Ziggy Stardust" disease.He got too big in his own mind and lost touch with the sentiment and sensibility of the community he was born out of, and as a result, he has taken some major hits to his personal reputation and his brand’s reputation.It’s never too late, though, and I believe that there’s always a chance at redemption. Rand just needs to get back in tune with the webmaster community and stop listening to whoever he’s been listening to in recent months/years.

Avatar
from neyne 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 0

when is linkscape supposed to update? maybe rand is comparing fresh link discovery abilities with google webmaster tools ? :))))

Avatar
from streko 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@jill dude, johnHG comments cause he loves the lamesauce and cannot resist to sip on it daily. step away from the lamesauce john, you need to put it down, it seems to be becoming a problem for you.

Avatar
from arteworks 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -10

When all else fails, make personal attacks ("why do you even bother to comment", "lamesauce").  Such professionalism.@jeremy - There would be no need for a "hand edit" if nothing was amiss. If nothing is amiss, there is nothing to fear, unless you believe the folks at Google have no mind of their own.I think most folks are upset due to fear - fear that they will be the next ones "outed".  Look if you are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to worry about.  If you are worried that you are not doing "seo" in the spirit of Google’s guidelines, then by all means be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Regardless of anything Rand or anybody else writes, you will eventually be found out and you will pay the price.  Don’t blame Rand - blame yourselves for knowingly violating the spirit of Google’s guidelines.  And Rand or anyone else is free to point out what they believe to be a flaw in the algorithm which serves to detriment the user experience.

Avatar
from streko 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@arteworks damn son, you just pwned me.

Avatar
from DarkMatter 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 3

If you are worried that you are not doing "seo" in the spirit of Google’s guidelines, then by all means be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Regardless of anything Rand or anybody else writes, you will eventually be found out and you will pay the price. nonsense. the only reason google urges people to report sites is because they have a very hard time detecting them algorithmically (except for extreme cases). if you’re careful, you won’t get caught. and if you are a large brand within your space you can break Google’s rules all you want.if every webmaster reports sites that they think should not be ranking, Google will get so overwhelmed with nonsense reports they will be even less effective at knocking out real spam sites. I think Rand’s article falls into this category. These people haven’t broken any rules, the only "mistake" they made was outranking ’Moz.

Avatar
from Jeremy 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 2

"There would be no need for a "hand edit" if nothing was amiss."You know as well as I do that Google’s policies are so vauge that anyone could make an argument against almost any site at anytime that something was amiss. All it takes for the site to get hand job is one or two people at Google agreeing.  Directory links...must be some kind of link scheme designed to manipulate Google’s results...I’m not upset or afraid, I just think Rand’s post was in very poor taste for a number of reasons all explained within this thread. Let’s be clear - Rand didn’t point out any flaw in the algorithm...unless the algorithm is supposed to rank sites based on what Rand thinks. Rand pointed out that a company that he doesn’t think deserves a high postion in the results for a certain has one....and it just so happens that the company he used as an example happens to be in the same industry as his and until recently he was competing for that same term.I’m sure there are a lot of Rand’s Pro Subscribers he could publically out for the same things...I’m not holding my breath waiting for that post.

Avatar Moderator
from hugoguzman 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I observe all of Google’s guidelines and yet still don’t like this "outing" ethic. How do you explain that, arteworks?I guess it was my ubringing...I was schooled to abhor snitches.

Avatar Moderator
from toddmintz 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 2

I guess I’m most disapointed that Rand hasn’t answered either this thread or Aaron’s thread...even if his answer wouldn’t have been well-received, he and SEOmoz would be much better off engaging the community.  I don’t think I would be Comment #113 (a Sphinn record?) had Rand entered the discussion.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Outing competitors is lazyman’s SEO.<div></div><div>End of story.</div>

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 10

<div>@arteworks said: </div><div></div>If you are worried that you are not doing "seo" in the spirit of Google’s guidelines, then by all means be afraid.  Be very afraid.  <div></div><div>Would that include footer links on non-relevant pages with the keyword anchor text "search engine optimization" and "search engine optimization SEO" in light font? </div><div></div><div></div><div>Or anchor text links in noscript tags pointing to your site from other sites? (Client sites, perhaps?) </div><div></div><div>Just wondering.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I don’t recall seeing those as good SEO techniques in Google’s guidelines last time I checked. But maybe I missed it.</div><div></div><div></div><div>And yes, I decided to be lazy today.</div>

Avatar
from jimbeetle 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Ouch!!!

Avatar
from FionnD 2098 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Rand Fiskin is a truly nice genuine guy. It seems there are some sour grapes about his success.  I have seen a few snipes at him that did  not seem very fair.  I am staying out of the link disucssion, there are not many SEO’s out there who have not done soemthing totally deliberate to gain a link.  Even  so called white hat linking if done to gain traction in google is technically against Google’s guidelines so we should all get off our high horses. I wondered what would happen when Rand brought in the VC’s last year and how it would affect his integrity with the new owners "the VC’s" running the show.  Its hard to grow and  become successufl without money and the people who have it dont alway care about your integrity only their ROI.   

Avatar
from Sugarrae 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 7

>>>It seems there are some sour grapes about his success.  I have seen a few snipes at him that did  not seem very fair. Bullshit. There isn’t a single person here who can point out a time I’ve ever said a bad word about Rand, and I still haven’t despite disagreeing with what he did and probably calling the most harsh light to the post itself. You can defend his post all you like, but no blaming it on "those sour grapes who dislike Rand" here, as it’s nothing more than an untrue assumption in regards to me.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 2

I think most here all agree that Rand is a nice guy. That’s not the issue, however.

Avatar
from eBrandz 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I read comments in this thread, the post by Aaron and the original post by Rand (Lost two hours).I would have to agree with Aaron on this one. I really liked comments by Jill and Sugarrae (The title  of this thread can be a good jingle ;) ).And I personally think we SEOs give a lot of credit to Google’s algorithm (than it actually deserves). I just hope this does not become a latest link bait trend among SEOs (outing other companies by publicly criticizing Google and dissecting those companies SEO strategy).

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2098 Days ago #
Votes: 1

About 3 pages up, Skittzo said:<div></div>Sweet action, I found this thread before the inevitable "This is good for the community but I probably should have done things a little different. Please realize my intentions were as pure as the driven snow and my personal history of making high profile ’mistakes’ like this to gain attention had nothing to do with this" comment from Rand...<div></div><div>If anyone is still keeping tabs on the original post at SEOmoz, Scott is taking care of this for Rand, evidently. He’s doing a nice job of it too!</div>

Avatar
from arteworks 2097 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@ jeremy -  I’ll give you that, you are right an argument can probably be made for many tactics.  Point taken.  @ hugo - I don’t purport to explain anything about you@ jill - you are absolutely correct.  i’m sure you found out of 34,000+ links pointing to our company’s site a dozen or so old links (3 - 5 years +) of the nature you described.  i would certainly not advise such tactics now.  i would not imagine that any such links remaining would provide any influence whatsoever on anybody’s search rankings.  but yes, those are the types of things that i would certainly advise any client against today.  thank you for mentioning it.

Avatar
from mvandemar 2097 Days ago #
Votes: 7

@ jill - you are absolutely correct. i’m sure you found out of 34,000+ links pointing to our company’s site a dozen or so old links (3 - 5 years +) of the nature you described.Um, bullshit. This isn’t outing, this is calling you on blatant bs. Last year this client site did not link back to you with hidden text from it’s footer:http://tinyurl.com/5934x8 (extra text to avoid formatting)This year it does. That means it’s a recent tactic. I didn’t dig for that, first one I found. Do you not understand that it’s Rand’s dishonest nature causing the issue for him now, and you probably shouldn’t be trying to lie on a public forum about things that are essentially one giant public record...? For real now.Just be glad that this is buried in a hard to load page over 120 comments deep, and not on a featured post on SEOmoz where G employees would be much, much more likely to see it and feel the need to act.

Avatar
from NatashaRobinson 2097 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Thanks Jill & Michael - I was thinking "If you are worried that you are not doing "seo" in the spirit of Google’s guidelines, then by all means be afraid."... sounded a little too self-righteous - Thanks for putting the smackdown!

Avatar
from arteworks 2097 Days ago #
Votes: -7

that is a hosting client who has an internal cms which they manage internally.  we do not provide any content for that page and never have.  sheesh.  clint strait and i went to the same high school, there are lots of people in this town i know.  would you like to email clint and ask him about it?  never mind i just did and copied you on the email mike so that you know i really sent it.  don’t know what else you want me to do.i can guarantee you we do not currently waste our time on such things.  we spend our time making videos and blogging which we have found to be very good sources of link bait.  i’ll admit right now that i personally have done the things jill mentioned in the past - i thought i already admitted that.  but do i or my company do it currently?  nope.  so we can go through the last 13 years of web work i have done and look at all of the mistakes i have made and analyze them on this thread and that is fine with me.  i am not ashamed of anything, i have always done the best i could given the knowledge i had at the time.  i have never claimed to be perfect.  we don’t do it anymore and haven’t for years.  period. what i have been trying to say on this thread is that such practices currently are bound to not work in the long run, detract from the user experience on the web, and i don’t think there is any problem with rand mentioning them.  heck, i hope G discounts any such links, because if they don’t our whole current strategy of creating quality, rich content to attract links is a humongous waste of time, both for us and our clients.haven’t we all had to learn seo through trial and error?  experience is what makes us better at what we do.  and as an experienced seo, i would not currently make recommendations for this sort of strategy.

Avatar
from streko 2097 Days ago #
Votes: 4

hey arteworks - you also sippin lamesauce? i mean, it kinda seems like you are.

Avatar
from arteworks 2097 Days ago #
Votes: -3

honesty is the best policy streko, even if being honest hurts me a little.  or a lot.  maybe that is lame.  i thought maybe it would be appreciated.  we’re all in this together, learning, getting better, trying to improve the web.  we live and we learn.  hey if this is going to turn into a thread about mistakes i have made in my life, i’ve got a lot more interesting ones i could share with you and which would make much better reading. ;)

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 2097 Days ago #
Votes: 4

That’s great, Matt. I would suggest you contact all those clients of yours then and request that they remove all those footer links. Don’t forget about the one that’s invisible with noscript.<div></div><div>Hopefully it won’t effect your rankings, but according to Linkscape which I have been testing, it appears that removing them may very well cause some rankings drop.</div><div></div><div>But since you don’t want those links and hope Google will discount them, you should be okay with them being removed.</div><div>Right?</div>

Avatar
from streko 2097 Days ago #
Votes: 3

@arteworks changing your comment 3 times, is the lamesauce. welcome. take your see with JohnH

Avatar Administrator
from dannysullivan 2097 Days ago #
Votes: -5

At 130 comments, I’m declaring this thread has run its course. Comments closed.

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: