Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
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]
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...
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?