pageoneresults - 1:28 pm on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0)
You know, something just isn't right with all of this. I've spent the last hour reading the JCP response, have looked at the actions taken by the SEO firm responsible and something just isn't right.
First of all, you don't go on a link buying spree like this for a brand like JCP. Unless of course you've discovered a flaw in Google's algo which I think is possible. Remember when Google made changes to put more focus on Brands? I wonder if one of those changes was the weighting of inbound links? It doesn't matter where they are, the weighting may be different?
Now, why did the SEO firm remove their client portfolio? Is it possible these same practices are at play with other clients? Unfortunately there was a cache version that multiple folks have copied and are now republishing. You can bet there are an army of SEOs/CEOs running various reports on those client sites. Maybe there will be a follow up to this story and it will focus on the SEO firm in question?
I think we all knew that the SEO firm was the first to get nixed. I'm waiting for them to come out with a statement to the effect of that which I wrote earlier. Poo is rolling downhill at the moment, where is it going to land?
Get ready for the lawsuits, they are surely in the works. I just wonder who is going to sue who. I feel the NYT have put themselves in a rather precarious situation. There is definitely brand damage occurring for JCP and a company that large is not going to let this slide.
So, tell me Google, why would those low quality links have an impact like this for JCP? It normally doesn't work that way for most others. Why was it different for JCP?