Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.93.74.227

Forum Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Miserable failure

why not just buy ads?

     
4:57 pm on Jan 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 15, 2000
posts:77
votes: 0


Anybody see Danny Sullivans article on the latest google bomb at clickz?

Pretty interesting perspective:


Users are hurt, because there are indeed "legitimate" sites for this query. They get kicked down in the results.

Mr Sullivan goes on to say that candidate Dick Gephardt site has a ligitimate reason for being on the top of these results because that's pretty much his campaign slogan. He's right I think.

An amazon asoc already is but I bet his CTR stinks.

[edited by: skibum at 7:25 am (utc) on Jan. 16, 2004]
[edit reason] removed political commentary [/edit]

5:20 pm on Jan 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 22, 2002
posts:1001
votes: 0


As far I know, Googlehacks only work on very untargeted keywords (who's really going to optimise for or search for "miserable failure"?). So I fail to see how it hurts the average John Doe on the web.
3:04 pm on Jan 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 26, 2003
posts:748
votes: 0


I prefer Bush in the number one spot

bingymom,

Please keep the political commentary out--it's against the TOS.

MQ

7:14 am on Jan 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts:633
votes: 0


Anybody see Danny Sullivans article on the latest google bomb at clickz?

It was on either CNN or MSNBC about two weeks ago (if my memory serves me correctly).

4:34 pm on Jan 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 15, 2000
posts:77
votes: 0


Please keep the political commentary out--it's against the TOS.

My apologies mquarles, I'll keep that in mind and re read the TOS


It was on either CNN or MSNBC about two weeks ago (if my memory serves me correctly).

Indeed, the story has been covered in the press quite a lot but Danny Sullivan wrote the article from an SEM perspective and I don't think he writes for either of those. oh well...

10:09 pm on Jan 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts:633
votes: 0


Indeed, the story has been covered in the press quite a lot but Danny Sullivan wrote the article from an SEM perspective and I don't think he writes for either of those. oh well...

They did, however, mention the incoming link text

8:53 pm on Jan 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:515
votes: 0


Mr Sullivan goes on to say that candidate Dick Gephardt site has a ligitimate reason for being on the top of these results because that's pretty much his campaign slogan.

Doesn't saying that they have a legitimate reason subtly put forth the notion that the G hack was NOT legitimate? If this is what Mr Sullivan means, I find that very dubious. Is Mr Sullivan going to sole arbiter of what constitutes legitimate political action?

But to get back to the main topic. Why not buy ads? Well, why doesn't Gephardt buy ads? After all, if his message is relevant (i.e. his CTR is OK), he should be able to get top spot. And needless to say, Adwords are a hell of a lot cheaper than a TV ads.

Gephardt could turn an unfortunate slogan choice (from his perspective of getting beaten in SERPs), into a traffic boost: after all, a lot of people are searching for "miserable failure" not because they want to reach his site - they would just search his name - but because they want to witness the hack.

Besides, wouldn't most people that want to get information about him simply search for his name?