Be sure to read this “too hot to handle” guest post by Gabriella Sannino, Owner/Operator, partner, Marketing Consultant, Head of Business Development and senior SEO Copywriting strategist at Level343. Follow her on Twitter @SEOCopy and @Level343.
Google algorithms, paid links, shady SEO services – these things used to make the online pages of such places as Search Engine Land, Search Engine Roundtable and, more recently Search News Central. In other words, not mainstream, national news for the most part. Why? Because nobody really cared except us SEO professionals and maybe some site owners.
Over the last year, however, SEO (or some forms of it) have hit the main stream in waves, thanks to the New York Times. Go, go, NYT…
November 2010, the New York Times released a long article by David Segal about Vitaly Borker, bad man of the Internet. Owner of Decormyeyes, Mr. Borker threatened a customer with sexual harassment, sent menacing emails and sent her a photograph of her apartment building.
I can see why this is worth reporting in a national newspaper as a warning to other individuals who might be buying online. I can see the reason why NYT published the story about Google altering its algorithms. Especially when they could correctly report that, “The change was prompted by an article in The New York Times on Sunday about Vitaly Borker, a Brooklyn-based online seller of eyeglasses.”
I can even see why they reported about his subsequent arrest. The man seems to be a maniac. However, he was smart enough to find a loophole in Google’s algorithm and exploit it through – of all things – customer complaints. Here, the NYT plays the hero, saves the damsel in distress and does away with the bad guy. It was good news; it faded from the front page and disappeared.
Now, I’m not sure if they just got a huge boost of traffic from the post or what, but somehow they seem to have decided they’re Google’s new SEO bulldog.
In February of this year, Segal came back with an expose about the “dirty little secrets” of search. It seems somebody just happened to notice that JCPenney was beating out other major players in search for a lot of terms. Segal writes, “But Google’s (emphasis is mine) stated goal is to sift through every corner of the Internet and find the most important, relevant Web sites.”
He talks about black hat optimization, calling it a “dark art”. He warns that “trafficking” in these dark arts “risks the wrath of Google”. He describes a black hat link builder who was interviewed for the story, making the link builder sound like someone out a spy movie. In all this crap disguised as investigative reporting, Segal asks, just once, if maybe Google might have willingly gamed their own system to help one of its largest advertisers.
The Wall Street Journal grabs on to someone outing Overstock in a Webmaster World Forum and reports it. The difference between the WSJ article and the NYT articles is the big “S” word: sensationalism. WSJ reporter, Amir Efrati, keeps to the facts. David Segal of NYT makes SEO, especially black hat SEO, sound like a threat to national security.
Now, for the most part, I’ve just growled, shrugged and gone on. I mean, we don’t deal in paid links, we’re considered a “white hat” SEO company, and this stuff doesn’t affect our clients. – And then the NYT pops up again with a search for Mother’s Day flowers.
Get Off the High Horse
Really? Again, the NYT shoves a bunch of links in Google’s face. Somebody, somehow, had enough time to get a list of 6,000 back links for sites like Teleflora, FTD, 1800Flowers and ProFlowers. Some unnamed Internet marketing experts said these companies are using strategies that violate Google’s guidelines.
Like a good little bulldog, the NYT brings a package of supposed goodies to Google. Google looks the package over and says, “Well, no – these links don’t have a significant impact.” In other words, this isn’t a package of goodies; it’s a package of crap.
That should have been enough to drop it, right? Google says there’s no story. However, Segal rewords the Google quote to say, well yeah, these companies are trying to game the system, but, since Google’s gotten better, the “Internet subterfuge” failed – and then proceeds to go further into all this great, helpful-to-the-world information. All in a national newspaper, mind you.
Failure to Report
What the NYT is failing to talk about, and failing to write about, is that people in every industry will exploit a given loop hole. What they aren’t sharing is the fact that Google’s algorithms have loopholes. They aren’t talking about the fact that the search engine algorithms are imperfect.
Is Google trying to up their search quality? Yes. Have they succeeded? Ummm… no. So when is the NYT going to start reporting about that? Hmmm?
Take, for instance, the fallout of the Panda update. I’m not talking about the sites that lost major traffic. I’m talking the actual search results. Take, for instance, a post written over at Web Pro News, which points out that “quality results” are relative. Read the article, and then tell me how eHow can be more authoritative than say, the National Cancer Institute on a search for “level 4 brain cancer”?
Or how about source attribution? What does it say about the search results when you can’t even rank number one for your own content? So, we’re supposed to be good little girls and boys, pushing out this hand crafted, original, interesting content? In the meantime, Google’s promoting content scrapper sites; you know, the ones that steal your fresh, interesting content and make it their own?
When did you, the New York Times, or you, the idiot who decided due diligence outings were the ‘in thing’, get officially designated as Google’s little dog? Not even a cool dog, like German Shepherds, but annoying, mangy little ankle biters.
All this outing and so-called in depth reporting does is give the search marketing industry a bad reputation. Of course, when you have a leash around your neck as pretty as the one Google gives you, who cares that you’re somebody’s little animal… right?
Gail Gardner
Latest posts by Gail Gardner (see all)
- Mastering Google Analytics FREE eCourses + Google Analytics 360? [Infographic] - September 9, 2021
- How an Accessible Website Can Accelerate Business Growth - September 7, 2021
- 3 Surprising Ways Technology is Taking Over Healthcare [Infographics] - August 31, 2021
Thanks for this informative article. I like this article which is described all SEO trends. This is very beneficial.
Brittany Wolfe would love you to read ..15 SEO Trends that will Hype up your Business in 2019
I can read why the NYT is doing this. This is part of a new “black hat SEO” trend. I am an SEO and I understand. I use only white hat SEO.
pretty impressive for SEO indeed.
hey, i;m a junior seo and this article helped alot about understanding how stuff work.. it’s impressive to see how a big newspaper like NYT tries to help the population by writing articles like that..
thanks for taking the time..
Sensationalist news paper…. If there isn’t a story, they will make a story of it.
But then again, what is a news paper without an opinion? Nobody will read a news paper full of boring facts.
But the WSJ does it better. Lay out the facts and then put on some opinion sauce.
Danny would love you to read ..Remington RM1015P 10-Inch 8 Amp Electric Pole chain Saw
Well, there will always be people trying to find loopholes to beat the algorithm. It is like malware and spyware vs your computer’s own antimalware/antispyware software. I think the quality has sort of improved but there are still some sites up there that don’t deserve to be in the #1 page
Jim would love you to read ..Top Weber Spirit Gas Grills
I can see why the NYT are doing this and certainly the more sensational stories make for good reading. I also work in SEO and there was a huge buzz over the JCPenney thing and it was passed about as a lesson to all those black hat SEOs that they will gte caught eventually by hook or by crook. The thing everyone seems to be missing though is that it took am article by the NYT for Google to latch onto it – my question is why didn’t they notice earlier?
Gabriella,
I hope the NYT catches your post, and, if nothing else, might offer you an opportunity to contribute. I think you wrote clearly enough about the danger of sensationalism over deeper education on an elusive topic, the real core of what “good” SEO is about, and about appropriate practices that actually are successful without tricking any system.
You always speak from passion, which I appreciate—especially when the “dry” topic of SEO comes up. I’ve been to enough conferences and heard enough talks on “branding through Social Media” and “going viral” that it’s refreshing to hear you take the stance that good SEO/SERP comes from good crafting of clear messaging…but I think that kind of talk would go over the heads of many in the room at a typical Web 2.0 conference or even most of the new-style marketing conferences that are popping up. Somewhere buried in these (often expensive) events is the term: “social media strategy”, a new buzzword and popular mantra for the marketing crowd. The cornucopia of ways to reach people is displayed, but the nuts and bolts of actually getting the message to reach targets is typically glossed over. “Going viral” is mere sensationalism, with little real possibility of happening for the average content generator without the entire package of connections/connectors/networking tools in place. As you point out, SEO as a real practice has been around for a while, but doesn’t get into the conversation much. Let me add that design (service design and good user experience practices) also gets pushed down the list as an afterthought, or an, “Oh, yeah, we gotta have that to, and it has to be good!”—while another generic WordPress Template and stock photography is pressed into the click-and-play services of the energetic and dangerously under-informed marketing guy.
Having said that, I stand firmly in the middle; I’m glad to see SEO bubble up as a topic in the NYT’s radar, now they need to talk to you to get the whole story to see where art meets craft meets science + experience.
Dean Meyers would love you to read ..5 Tips to Social Media Service with an emoticon Smile
Dean, I miss talking to you… but after reading this comment, I forgive you lol – And yes, I hope NYT approaches me – or anyone for that matter – that is passionate about search, marketing and working online. We all know if there’s a way to game the system people will do it. Business, politics, e-commerce – it doesn’t matter; it’s not pretty.
The ones that won’t game the system are the people that care, not only about their clients, but about the SEO/SEM/SMM, etc industry. People who get excited about what they do and discuss strategies based on their data, then create a custom approach. They are the true craftsmen. SEOs know “tricking” is temporary, regardless of whether Google busts you or not. We get excited when our clients succeed; we want to partner and enjoy their results.
Besides, if you’re a douche bag in real life, you’ll be a douche bag online. I was just hoping the New York Times would level the playing field and, in turn, give us the good, bad, and yes, the ugly.
Hi Gabriella,
To mangle a well-known motto, controversy is the breakfast of champions. While you get some agreement as to the so-called shallowness of the reporting in question, I rather think the focus from mainstream media is a boon to the profession.
You can already see the good from it, if you take @Alan Bleiweiss’ comment as an indicator. With an article like your’s, which sparks a conversation (that should be had), the bar gets raised to do due diligence in educating the would-be clients of the profession.
Often, encountering SEO professionals leaves a lingering feel of “what-you-talkin’-about”? The mainstream business world sees what you do as magic, smoke-and-mirrors, and something out of their realm of understanding — even though they are bright, smart individuals.
I say bring on some more shallow, narrow thinking, half-baked reporting. Between proper education and responses like your’s we can make the world a better place. 🙂
It is one of the way to income money,the newspapers and channels doing these types of stupid things,but we have to focus on our work,SEO has a great future and wide scope.
Oi vey, what a headache! Is the NYT so starved for a story that they’ll spin SEO into some sensationalist cloak-and-dagger ops. Talk about totally lame.
I hadn’t heard about the eyeglasses guy; I’ll have to check up on that story. Purely for all the examples given about what’s going on here is why I never check out the news. The really big stuff I end up hearing about anyway; all the rest? I can usually do without.
But still, I thought better of NYT until this.
Delena
Delena Silverfox would love you to read ..Cigarrest Coupon Code
The whole point is that none of the common people have any idea as to what goes on in search algorithms, and hence they avert to SEO’s who too have got no idea, but claim to have. In this absolute play, many a time confidential identity is revealed which leads to cases as such reported by the NYT.
James Foster would love you to read ..Best Bathroom Remodelling Plans
That’s how newspapers make money and survive……by sensationalizing and trying to put some interest into otherwise bland crap. And, therein lies the reason I don’t read newspapers.
Google claims too much about the authenticity of their algorithm, but the fact is that there are many loopholes in it. If you check backlinks for any site in Google it returns many irrelevant links. There are problems even in Google places/maps.
I think there is ample ground here for the NYT to constantly be looking into google.
In my humble opinion manipulated search results for terms like ‘obamacare’ or keywords for any other hotly contested issue can have a serious effect on elections.
think about it, the kool-aid drinkers from both sides are not going to bother researching the issue via google, but the independant swing voter might. since Google has a spotted history (at best) when it comes to impartiality I would like to see major media outlets keep a watchful eye.
If you dont think Google is just as powerful as most mainstream media outlets you are naive.
beth would love you to read ..The Rise Of American Ball Jointed Dolls BJD
I think it is a good thing when an aggressive media takes a close look at power and I am glad to see the national news taking an interest in Google as i think that company is a lot more corrupted then people realize.;
From the article though it sounds like the NYT is cutting corners which is a shame as this will allow Google to wiggle off the hook when cornered.
The New York Times story has some merits. Let’s face it, most of the general public has no idea how Google indexes sites or how these sites get on Google in the first place, and these articles play a role in shining some light into the murky realm of SEO. I do agree with you they did sensationalize this, but what did you expect – a dry dispassionate dissertation of linkbuilding, robots.txt and Google’s evolving search algorithms? The NyTimes are a newspaper, they need to add controversy (nefarious blackhat hackers, insane New York sunglasses guy) to make the story interesting to a public that couldn’t care less about a dry technical subject like SEO.
“All this outing and so-called in depth reporting does is give the search marketing industry a bad reputation”
That is ABSOLUTELY not true. I now have clients who would have otherwise been clueless, say to ME that thanks to all these articles they’re reading in mainstream media, that they trust me more than ever for my firm stance against such link building tactics. Because they understand that Google’s far from perfect, and it’s my responsibility to do all I can to ensure they avoid such tactics, lest they get caught up in it.
Before the NYT, WSJ and other high profile media got on the bandwagon, it was infinitely more challenging for me to deal with clients who didn’t fully understand the potential problems.
My life is vastly better because of it.
So please – don’t make such blanket judgment statements about what “they” are doing to “harm” our profession.
Gabrielle,
You wrote an article decrying how one-sided their reporting was, and how harmful it was. Labeled it bad.
Didn’t once in your own article see anything balancing that position. Nothing offering the hint that you even bothered to seek out other views countering your own position.
So what’s different between what they did and what you did? That’s where I was going with my comment. That you spun your own article, using your own attention getting headline in the exact same way. And where I then offered you consider alternative views before you yourself make blanket attack claims, because doing so just makes our industry look like a bunch of complainers and haters.
There are so many things that could not be trusted especially using the internet. That is why you need to be a little cautious. This article is worthy to be read from top to bottom. 🙂
We, SEOs, can be thankful the NYT brought these situations to attention. Maybe the fear of being publicly ousted and loss of goodwill with the public (or better yet, fear or a reputation crisis), will deter such big brands from stooping to black hat tactics.
Nice coverage of the situation, Gabriella! Oh, and P.S., love hanging with you in the forums when we get to cross paths! 🙂
Dana Lookadoo would love you to read ..SMX Photos- Conference- Networking & Epic Dinners
You really have to sympathize with the NYT. The bankers have all been crucified. Bin Laden’s been buried at sea. They are really struggling to find villains to keep their subscription rate from plummeting.
Perhaps they secretly feel very badly about having to write about topics they don’t understand. 🙂
LOL Glen thanks for a good laugh 🙂
I love this post Gabriella. So interesting.
I’d read about the sunglasses guy, but didn’t know he’d been exploiting google.
I’m glad that Seo is going mainstream though. So cool
I’ve been hanging out with SEO’ers since late 2005. I realized if I want to be successful online I better learn how to do this stuff. I joined several SEO communities and I have to tell you I found some of the nicest & coolest people I know today! Optimizers, are regular people some are brilliant and some are so über brilliant they know how to cut corners. Back then Google wasn’t aware of these “shortcuts” needless to say once they got wind of them of course the loophole would close. Point I’m trying to make is SEO in my world has been mainstream for over 6 years now, and when I notice major publications like the NYT writing crap rather than “reporting” rings a huge red flag basically dangerous. Not just to the SEO industry but “mainstream” readers and potential users. Look it’s one thing to report a well researched article but to write ignorant statements and conclusions just sets the industry back a few years. There are some amazing people doing SEO helping their clients, and putting their needs first. Why don’t we hear about them? I guess not sensational enough aye? lol Again, thanks Brandon appreciate your kind words!
This is part of the new “black ops SEO” trend – if you are unable to rank your site, no matter what you do, then you contact the NYT and get them to do a sensational article nobbling your competitor, in order to get them removed from the SERPs.
Soon we shall see retaliation, as those who benefit from Black Ops SEO get targeted by their victims, and on we go…
LOL kill or be killed. Survival of the fittest. That’s the spirit, maybe… I’d like to think there is good in people. But who am I kidding right?
In the end, Google is not God, or a moral authority. Algorithms have flaws, they’re not perfect. It’s not a matter of who has the better content, it’s a matter of what the algorithm says based on a set of rules. Just like it’s not morally wrong to commit a crime, or steal, but u’ll pay the consequences. That’s life, and that’s how it works. You can either complain about it or find a loophole around it 🙂
Henway would love you to read ..Medifast QA
“… it’s not morally wrong to commit a crime, or steal…”
Really? I have to assume you mis-typed here, Henway. 😉
“… it’s not morally wrong to commit a crime, or steal…”
Really? I have to assume you mis-typed here, Henway. 😉
And while I’m at it, yes… thank you, Gail!
Doc thanks for responding to that… 😉 I don’t think I could have been as diplomatic about it. Moving right along & the beat goes on!
Spot on, Gabs… you’re saying what many of us feel – thank you!
“mangy little ankle biters” sums up my reaction to the NYT piece, and Segal in particular, as well.
LOL Well someone had to say it Doc. We have been discussing it in the trenches & I’m sick & tired of the world acting like we are the devil’s spawn. Thanks to Gail actually for having the courage to allow us this space to post!
“especially black hat SEO, sound like a threat to national security.”
it is… if the right people got together and decided to blow off our lucrative careers and sow some chaos.. the internet as YOU know it, would be DARK.
but.. we like our reputations, full benefits and we like our money