<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Overstock Gets Penalized by Google</title>
		<description>Discuss Overstock Gets Penalized by Google</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 00:14:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/141/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>S.Jameson says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-409</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This issue raises as many questions as it answers. Hundreds of so-called directories are little more than well dressed link farms and many SEO companies think nothing of submitting a client's website to anyone that will provide a link. They use fake blogs, paid "sponsorships", or link swaps that are "favors". At what point does Google start to frown? Is there any protection at all for the business owner? The worst part is coming in to a job after the damage has already been done and trying to clean up the mess. The paid link program OS used is pretty easy to spot, but many black hat techniques are not as easy to catch or correct. And too many of those can be used without proper authorization. If the new strategy is SEO "tattle-tale" then what is to stop those same unscrupulous individuals from submitting their competitors to every link farm or spam site themselves, then falsely "outing" that competitor later? I hope Google finds a way to manage this mess before we all end up playing Web-Wars. This whole situation reminds me of Public Relations debacle in the 80's. At one point there was so much unscrupulous "spinning" going on that the whole industry suffered. Many people today still have a distrust of PR people and it seems as though SEO consultants are about to be painted with the same brush. Although Google is the market leader, SEO is bigger than any one search engine and there is a real danger to business owners who are at the mercy of unethical SEO practices. An unethical SEO consultant can sink a business with its shady (and often "proprietary") practices and walk away unscathed. Six months later it is the business owner that pays the price and yet they have no legal recourse. What we really need is some sort of legal and ethical accountability and a regulatory body to enact standardization and enforce it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>S.Jameson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-409</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>BC says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The mommy blogs are notorious for link builders to hit up. They pretty much blog about saving money, so what better way then to just get something for free, or for cash... They are total spam.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>BC</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robyn says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-392</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Dave, Thanks for your comment. I suppose you are right about Google not commenting on specific cases...and as you said this is just more drama to get us through to next week. I was more reacting to how this was reported outside of Search News Central than anything else. IMO, there's no particularly new lesson to take from this. Spam is sort of like the famed standard for obscenity - "I know it when I see it." When I look at the anchor text, I see it, when I look at the broader issue of discount programs, charities, etc. I don't. I didn't necessarily see that point sufficiently argued anywhere. It would be interesting to read a post about competitor outing that describes what SEOs consider the "tipping point" for outing. At what point is your competitor acting so egregiously that you out them?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-392</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-391</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Robyn - I do admit that many of the links I found were also near comical, and that this alone isn't generally grounds for such a move. Thus, I can safely say that the 'other' issues are what likely played into the final decision. And yes, it would be nice if they'd come out and make a statement, but given the fact that SEOs with agendas lead both the JCP and this Overstock one, I can see why they don't want to 'comment on specific cases' publicly. It sets a bad precedence and I can appreciate that. I wouldn't massively over-haul your link building apporaches because of it. Just play safe and NEVER offer to exchange, renumerate, buy or sell links citing PageRank as the valuation. If you weren't doing any of those, you should be fine IMO.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 05:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-391</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robyn says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-390</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hmm...my impression in following this story today, and based on your updates Dave, is that the real problem Google saw is a little deeper (and a lot more obscure). Take that PDF for example, is Google going to go after other companies that are linked to as part of the discount program? Then today is not your lucky day, Howard Diet!! I think the issue if this is really the issue is the anchor text spam. Which is REALLY egregious. Like, comically so. As well as manipulative, and arguably deserving of punishment from Google. But otherwise I don't see how such a program is any different from Yahoo! Directory or BOTW. As Barry Schwartz mentioned over at Search Engine Roundtable, this is a tip that top SEOs have been advocating for a few years, along with event sponsorships, etc. I don't know that there's a single link-building guide that lacks something similar to this. Guest posting is not fundamentally different from a charity sponsorship or discount deal either. I give you my time (time = money), write an article, I get a link. Voila. It would be nice to have the actual reason for the penalty clarified. I don't think Google should let Overstock.com slide with a misleading explanation for the penalty if indeed the reason for the penalty was more complicated. Hopefully this is just a sign that Google is going to get a lot better at anchor text spam detection.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-390</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mark says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-389</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No doubt this story and the previous JC Penny debacle will have many SEO re-thinking their link building strategies through fear of facing a hefty left hand from Google. Surely Google are going about this the wrong way? Google are reliant on the webmaster of all sites obeying Googles terms, in return said sites will rank well. If webmasters decide to cross the line it appears Google have to manually devalue these sites. Now for singular sites this isn't a problem, but Google needs to create a system that takes care of business for them. Time to update your algos Google.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-389</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>steveplunkett says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-388</link>
			<description><![CDATA[love this... Dave, Alan.. u know who the SEO was/is.. karma..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>steveplunkett</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-388</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ken Lyons says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-387</link>
			<description><![CDATA[SEO Tattle Tailing: it's latest SEO "strategy!" Trouble is, I'm trying to figure out where to include it in my process. Should I rat out my competitors before or after doing keyword research? So many questions....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ken Lyons</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-387</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ken Jansen says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-386</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This may sound a little naive, but is the assumption that somehow a grad student was motivated in some fashion by OS to write a paper with links to OS? OS gets very little downside, if they don't get 'caught' they get an edu link, if they do get 'caught' they get a ton of free publicity. Wow.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ken Jansen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-386</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-381</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alan - I am not so sure I'd call them 'scuzzy' because I reserve that for the hack n link crowd. But most certainly this wasn't the most intelligently crafted link profile, that's for sure. And yes, from what I do know, it seems there was more going on that just this. I am sure we'll hear more details in the days to follow. @Derek - I can tell you that this was brought about from the WMW thread. This was not between Google and the WSJ. Google was contacted BY them. And in many ways, this is a blow for the little guy. When a SMB gets whacked, they get WHACKED. It's heart warming (for them) to see a larger brand face the same type of situation. All in all? Just more drama to get us through to next week once this is all said and done IMO.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110224141/Latest/overstock-gets-penalized-by-google.html#comment-381</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
