Calendar
Network
Feeds
janecopland
These sites are fundamentally a bad idea, but I understand the motivation at the same time. Who hasn't had a terrible experience and wanted to post it somewhere? We have the power to do so: we walk out of a shitty restaurant and write it up on Twitter, at the very least. Most of us have blogs. The general population doesn't, and if they do, those blogs likely rank for nothing (if they've even been indexed.)
I lived with a flatmate from hell for a year and I know I could own the SERPs for her name. I am aware, however, that I shouldn't do it, and I won't. But I'd be lying if I said I'd never found the idea appealing.
I went to middle school in New Zealand with #42, Gala Darling. Back then, she had a slightly different name ;)
Since it seems that this is her preferred name now, I'm not sure she'd want her old name plastered everywhere, but her first name was Amy.
Sphunn for: "The anonymous Google insider adds, “the algorithm has become very insecure and is listening to Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back” on infinite repeat. The engineers can’t get it to stop and it refuses to rank our pages. One engineer said it sounds like the data center is crying, and they don’t feel safe going into the computer room anymore.”
@infatex The site was ranking page 1 or 2, (I forget) for "web 2.0" up until today. The page does not rank anymore for "web 2.0 awards" either: a short version of the awards ranks, but the page in question (seomoz.org/web2.0) has been kicked out of the index.
The page had a PR 7 until today. We're not sure why it's been penalised, but we're looking into it. It's actually pretty fascinating and we'll undoubtedly post about it when we figure it out.
Secondly, I actually find this quite exciting. Since I can confirm that this is definitely a penalty, can anyone take a guess as to what set it off? Have we accidentally linked to something we shouldn't have? Whatever the explanation, it'll be great to work it out.
@everett Yep, all the supplementary information is still there. Zeigeist, short-version, everything. It's just that one page that's gone.
The URL /web2.0 has been around for a long time and we update the content each year for the awards. Could this changing of content (including a ton or new links) cause suspicion?
@patrickaltoft I don't see it
We've had confirmation as to what happened; expect a post on SEOmoz about it shortly :)
To quite Lisa Ditlefsen on the post's comments:
"I’m a mother in full time work, heading a department, I haven’t got time to read every blogpost under the sun. I’m not patting my self on the head, I’m simply standing up for something I believe in, and someone I believe in!"
Thus, I don't think a week's delay is a particularly long time.
You people all live in the same town and never see each other unless you're traveling to the United States! Actually, I do the same when I meet people from Seattle in places like Sydney... Very strange.
@Dorian. Rand didn't request that Rebecca change the title; she did it of her own accord, and was also the sole author of the post... just in reference to the mention of "them" and "they."
@onreact Christ, that's the best analogy for anything I've seen in a while. Still giggling :) I'm going to use that liberally.
Rob, did you really shut down Uncle Hank's group? She's going to tan your hide for that next week, little brother.
I hate it that in the side bar, this reads "How to get more followers on Twitter..." like it's just ANOTHER one of THOSE posts.
@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 ;)
I put a sidebar link on my swimming blog; shall include a better one in text when I think of something to write about said sports fest. Relevance is nice!
But Christ people: what the hell are you doing on this thread? Let's go back to debating the real ethical problem over on the linkbait post ;)
No matter which side of the argument you come down on, you'll surely all recognise that this isn't nearly as big of a scam as Dick Masterson, who managed to convince the Dr. Phil show and most of America that he was... well, real. Was there a (checks comment count) seventy-comment thread about Dax/ick? And if so, why not?
I'd argue that it was an incredibly successful display of marketing that began online, made it offline and relied on a falsehood. I'm just throwing this out there, trying not to express an opinion about the ethics of either: Is there a big difference between the two and if not, why are we bemoaning Lyndon's case as a new low?
@maverick12210 Ah, it's not 404ing for me... might want to ask the author about it? He commented second on this thread.
He'll nofollow all links to you out of spite if you keep being a butt, Julie ;)
Christ, Michael. I thought that comment was some creepy stalker until you added an avatar. Now I know it's just from some idiotic Australian :P
I had pretty bad interpersonal skills long before I had a mobile phone ;)
Story: Holy Mother of Linkbait
Someone recommended that conference speakers avoid alcohol? Now that WOULD be the end of the industry. Was that person Jason Calacanis? ;)
Story: Online Negative Reputation Case Studies - That's Never Been Easier