NY Times Article on JC Penney Paid Links

[tedster]

The New York Times has quite an article about white hat and black hat SEO - entitled "The Dirty Little Secrets of Search."

It seems that all through the holiday season, Penney's website was at the top for all kinds of retail searches, including single keywords like "dresses". Given the amount of competition for all these keywords. something smelled funny to the Times. So they brought in an SEO consultant firm, and they found a large number of backlinks, strewn around thousands of nearly abandoned websites. It sounds like many of these were on abandoned sites - and possibly were parasite hosted, though that is not clear from the article.

Last week, The Times sent Google the evidence it had collected about the links to JCPenney.com. Google promptly set up an interview with Matt Cutts... "I can confirm that this violates our guidelines," said Mr. Cutts during an hourlong interview on Wednesday, after looking at a list of paid links to JCPenney.com...

On Wednesday evening, Google began what it calls a "manual action" against Penney, essentially demotions specifically aimed at the company. At 7 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, J. C. Penney was still the No. 1 result for "Samsonite carry on luggage." Two hours later, it was at No. 71.

[nytimes.com...]

A Penney's spokesperson denied that they had authorized those links - and they fired their search consulting firm.

[indyank]

This issue gets more "interesting" with JCpenny's strong denial ([searchmarketingwisdom.com ]) and a denial to JCP's accusations(find below) by the one that claims it was not "hired" by NYT - [bluefountainmedia.com...]

The New York Times failed miserably in neglecting to disclose that it hired a competitor to the search firm working with us and used that competitor firm as the primary source, as well as in its description of our business...

[Maurice]

yes the big newspapers are not innocent players take the way GMG reports on the BBC their coverage is colored by the fact that they own radio stations and gain from the hobbling of the BBC as does Rupert Murdoch

Fouundem apparently have friends high up in the UK media which is how they get so much coverage.

[pageoneresults]

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?

[mhansen]

Get ready for the lawsuits, they are surely in the works.

JCP did nothing wrong legally, nor did their SEO company. They exploited a weakness in the search engine, the same way people cut into lines, while waiting in traffic jams. The only people upset are those of us who DO follow the defacto-unwritten-internet-ranking laws, written by, and policed by Google.

IMO, we are much more likely to see US Gov't regulation of search results, before we see any lawsuits go through. There have been no laws broken... only because they haven't been written yet!

This is such a slippery topic... and the minute anyone puts Google up on the pedestal of policing the internet (which this article does) we invite regulation by the Gov't. (Think Steroids and Baseball)

I can see Matt Cutts sitting in front of an fact-finding committee of Senators already... being grilled for 8 hours on CSPAN.. on why Google did not take the proper steps to assure a large company like JCP could not harm thousands of little guys who are struggling in the economy. On why JCP was only lightly punished, but 4 years ago... BMW was completely obliterated (there's your lawsuit potential) out of the serps. Why were the two treated differently and one discriminated against over the other?

Hundred of thousands of webmasters jumping on the bandwagon to get their story of being delisted heard! Why Me and not JCP?

Within 3 months... we start seeing Trantolo and Trantolo and their army of TV Class Action Atty's showing up... (In your deepest voice) "Have you been pushed down in the search results by Google?, We can Help!"

Can of Worms, Meet Your Opener!

[Shaddows]

Potential Law Suits

1) JCP sue NYT
Case for: JCP (or their Agents) did nothing wrong, legally speaking. NYT have caused reputation damage by implying they did.
Case against: NYT reported facts.

2) JCP sue SEO
Case for: Actions caused reputation damage
Against: Contract surely excludes consequential damage
(Possible angle on gross negligence though)

3)JCP sue Google
Case for:
Google has caused material loss to its business by deliberate intervention
Against: [Can you imagine if this worked?]

SEO sue NYT:
For: Implications of unethical behaviour appears defamatory. Material loss of business due to lost clients. Use of competitor as source of information
Against: Reporting facts (although postion weakened as 'facts' were sourced from competitor)

I would be suprised if any of this went anywhere, legally speaking. No one has a realistic chance of winning (IMHO, IANAL).

Can you imagine if someone sued Google? That would really be a can of worms! What about a class action suit for all the people NOT top during JCP's dominance?

[tedster]

I think it's interesting to note that there are two SEO firms involved here - SearchDex who apparently worked with JC Penney for the past 9 years, and Blue Fountain Media (BFM) who employs the SEO consultant that the NY Times used. SearchDex is certainly being raked over the coals right now.

Thanks to micklearn [webmasterworld.com] for noticing that Gabriel Shaoolian, the owner of Blue Fountain Media (BFM) has a blog on the NYT site [boss.blogs.nytimes.com].

While it's no surprise that the Times would turn to an established relationship of theirs for the SEO analysis, it seems less than up front not to mention the blogging connection.

[crobb305]

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.

I see sites in a very competitive niche ranking very well off of low-quality links from abandoned blogs. Too much weight has been put on contextual links, which is probably one of the reason Google is now having to fight content farms. Junk content and abandoned blogs are used to put junk sites in the top 10. I am shocked when I look at the backlinks of some of these sites. Nevertheless, I have a gut feeling that JCPenney is the victim of a vindictive take down. The use of the media makes this easy to do. That's why local news always has an investigative reporter who "gets things done." This is becoming a regular occurrence with NYT writing a story that Google responds to. Google should just ignore them, because these kind of reactions are just enticing the journalists.

[indyank]

I can see Matt Cutts sitting in front of an fact-finding committee of Senators already... being grilled for 8 hours on CSPAN.. on why Google did not take the proper steps to assure a large company like JCP could not harm thousands of little guys who are struggling in the economy

But is there any law that requires google to ensure the most ideal world? When even god cannot ensure the most ideal world, how can a govt. expect a company to ensure it in the SERPS? And there is no law that says that those operating search engines should ensure no harm arises to anyone due to their faulty algorithms.

Taking another example, viruses attack computers running windows OS.Does that mean govt. should grill microsoft for not ensuring an OS that cannot be hacked in any way?

If you extend this to articles in the press, sometimes I do feel like people are expecting google to acts as gods!

[crobb305]

Can you imagine if someone sued Google? That would really be a can of worms!

This has already happened back in 2006 when Kinderstart filed a lawsuit against Google for ranking/PageRank demotion. Google won.

[edited by: crobb305 at 3:50 pm (utc) on Feb 15, 2011]

[tedster]

I see sites in a very competitive niche ranking very well off of low-quality links from abandoned blogs.

I would like to emphasize again that these links seem to have been paid for and intentionally allowed by the site owners. So this isn't a case of parasite hosting on truly abandoned websites. That's an important distinction. Paid link do not break any law - but hacking into a server does.

[crobb305]

I would like to emphasize again that these links seem to have been paid for and intentionally allowed by the site owners.

I understand. I was just pointing out that low-quality links work very well, just a reply to a previous comment.

[TheMadScientist]

LOL at all the lawsuit talks...

Yeah, they could be filed, but winning is a whole different story, and AFAIK WRT Google it's been determined on multiple occasions their rankings are theirs and they can do as they like with them, the same as you or I could move a site from the top of the page o' links to the bottom, or even remove it... Unless there's a contract in place saying 'this site has to be at the top' Google can include, not include, penalize, not penalize, show or not show results at their discretion, the same as everyone single one of us who owns a website.

It's hilarious reading here sometimes, and yeah, yeah, yeah, but they're Google the rules have to be different for them than anyone else, (IOW 'blah blah blah') because people who make the argument for someone suing Google over rankings don't seem to stop and think IF that were to happen, then someone could as easily sue you for not putting their site at the top of the links page, because they would have precedence for the suit, and of course then anyone not on the top or '1st' could sue you on the same grounds.

It's really laughable IMO to think someone could or would try to sue Google over rankings which are unpaid for and are not guaranteed to anyone... Really... Come on, please... They're free rankings and no ranking or even inclusion is guaranteed to anyone.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 4:00 pm (utc) on Feb 15, 2011]

[wheel]

It's really laughable IMO to think someone could or would try to sue Google over rankings which are unpaid for and are not guaranteed to anyone...

Yeah, but I think it was actually done successfully at one point in the past. Didn't some SEO person get penalized, then sue Google succesfully? Bob somebody or other?

[TheMadScientist]

Uh, Kinderstart didn't seem to have much luck a few years ago:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Search for Kinderstart v Google to see the 'Case Dismissed' News

SearchKing?
[lawmeme.research.yale.edu...]
Nope, no go there either.

Not sure what SEO Bob you're referring to... Can't find any info on it, but somehow I think if someone had sued Google over rankings and won the case we would have all heard about it, but I guess anything is possible...

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 4:09 pm (utc) on Feb 15, 2011]

[wheel]

OK, I think it was searchking I was thinking of. Maybe they didn't win, they just got back in the index.

[crobb305]

Bob somebody or other? .... OK, I think it was searchking I was thinking of

couldn't help but laugh. lol

I was trying to remember also, I think it was SearchKing. I mentioned Kinderstart, but I knew it wasn't the only suit that Google won.

[TheMadScientist]

couldn't help but laugh.

x 2

Search results are an opinion (discretionary) only afiak, and if something like 'I don't rank well enough' won, where does it end? Bing, Yahoo!, Alta Vista, your site for displaying searches from Google or Bing, your site for not putting a certain site at the top? Really, it's laughable when you start really thinking through where things go when search results cease being an opinion or discretionary and are an entitlement.

[netmeg]

Poo. This will all be forgotten in a month, if not less. Except maybe by Google. Google going after the SEO firm's clients? Not likely. They didn't even bother to follow up after the three warnings they previously issued JCP. It's a tempest in a teapot, and the only people who will take a hit will be Google (and a mild one at that) NOBODY CARES except us. JCP's competitors aren't even gonna speak out, because they're all doing it too.

[Planet13]

Actually, maybe google can sue JCP for trying to manipulate google's ranking algorithm?

I think that would probably have as much merit as JCP or the SEO suing google (or as much merit as those whose SERP positions in google dropped because of either penalties or were displace by JCP).

[pageoneresults]

I didn't say anything about suing Google, you can't do that these days, they'll bury you. Google have become untouchable in that aspect.

No, I'm referring to potential litigation between SEO firms and/or JCP and their SEO firm and possibly the NYT for who knows what. ;)

[crobb305]

I'm trying to figure out who is at fault here. We all know SEO is acceptable and recognized by Google et al. They even offer tips, videos, and SEO Report Cards. It's easy to blame JCP, but is it possible that they hired an SEO who claimed to have good intentions (after all, their "code of ethics" seems to indicate that, and they had a code of ethics back in 2007 according to the archives)? It seems that JCP is more likely to have a case against the SEO firm for deviating from their own "code of ethics". I don't mean to perpetuate the "law suit" discussion, but I am still trying to understand how all this happened, and if it is possible for JCP to have entered into this naively, fully expecting ethical conduct/outcome. Then there is the issue of a setup/take-down that has been proposed. NYT could be facilitating that in a slanderous manner. Just thinking outloud here.

[np2003]

What this teaches us is the Google algo is still pretty easy to exploit, just make sure you don't run BLACKHAT techniques on your money making domains, just run them full steam ahead on throw away domains.

Also shows how easy it is to report and penalize a site. I was looking over at BHW forums and it seems some companies are now offering services to get your competitors BLACKLISTED.

[scottsonline]

Legal issues would only arise if google penalized someone on the first "shot" that isn't much of an advertiser but let jcp break the rules 2-3 times and really took no great action until after the reporter called.

I'm pretty sure if it were intentional or not that type of favoritism would raise eyebrows with regulators and lawyers and would really tarnish their image.


I think Matt said too much. Could hurt them later on. The public didn't need to know that jcp tripped filters but nothing obvious was done until the nyt came knocking. Makes those spam reports seem pointless..find a good reporter instead.

[londrum]

one thing that is quite amusing is that JC Penny will probably now get hundreds and hundreds of perfectly legit links through the article. everyone will be linking to them to discuss what happened in the NYT. presumably all those links will eventually count towards their backlink profile -- even though they dont have anything to do with the subject matter of the site.

how does a link to JC Penny regarding this article help you in deciding whether their product is worth buying? it doesnt.

what are google going to do, ignore all of those as well? i dont think so. that just shows you the limitations of relying on backlinks to weight sites.

[econtent]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. A lot of great discussions. Just can't believe that the NYT did a story on this. Is this "links gate" or something? Is the NYT the links police now?

I agree, the story gave JCP some good PR (makes them look tech smart to consumers who don't understand any of this). But to people who do understand, it makes the NYT look like tattle tale sissies who are behind the times. I wonder if its crossed their minds that their own advertisers might have "dirty little" SEO secrets of their own?

And if Google needs newspapers to tell them what's going on in search, then what the heck.

Personally, I think the NYT should have better things to write about like how much unemployment recipients are spending each month at beauty salons and Best Buy.

But it sure is entertaining.

[Planet13]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. A lot of great discussions. Just can't believe that the NYT did a story on this. Is this "links gate" or something? Is the NYT the links police now?

They did it because the New York Times, like any business, is in the job of making money. They thought it would either help attract new readers, or retain current readers.

The more readers, the higher the advertising rates they can charge.

The higher the advertising rates, the more money they make.

I seriously doubt anyone at the NYT actually gives a toss about the inner workings of google's Algo.

[ponyboy96]

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

[pontifex]

and add forbes to the basket .. +1:

[techcrunch.com...]

;-)

[rowtc2]

Here is a reply from Matt regarding Forbes webmaster central [google.com]

[Reno]

"the New York Times, like any business, is in the job of making money."

"Forbes received and posted a notice from Google 'encouraging' Forbes to remove the links “that could be intended to manipulate PageRank."

I am at a loss to understand why Forbes would submit to this coercion from another company which, as Planet13 suggests, is itself in the business of making money. Google sells links on a daily basis and Forbes should be able to do the same.

Once again, large & small enterprises must submit to the confines of PageRank, or else suffer the pangs of removal from the world's largest search service. It will be a day of celebration when some huge corporation tells them to go f* themselves, and says it publicly. On that day we may see the tables start to turn.

......................