For the record, I regret now my suggestion of a policy of internal publishing to improve quality controls. Apparently comics are tasty.
Segues are for chumps, so let’s dive in to some unproductive discussion of the greater implications of SEO practices. This is going be be pretty technical, folks, so if you’re not interested in natural search quality or links scams you’d better mosey on over to your local MyTwitFaceTube.
The launchpad for our journey today is this NY Times article. It’s focus is the wrath that JC Penney incurred from Google over a recent, very successful link scam campaign that scored the department store some absurdly high rankings in natural search. It’s a good article that exposes a comprehensive summary of the problem at hand, namely that of businesses using what they know of Google’s search system to artificially inflate their relevance as it is expressed by the world’s largest search engine.
What struck me as interesting was an interview with an engineer who designs these "black-hat" campaigns, specifically his justification for his work while maintaining respect for the search engine he makes a living lying to. His position is basically that commercial searches are so overwhelmingly broken by his competitors attempts to game the search results that if he didn’t participate, his clients’ relevance in natural search would be artificially deflated, and that isn’t right either.
There has to be a way to combat this mentality of “we have to be assholes because everyone else is being assholes”. In this context it is especially difficult, given the degree of separation between the business owner and their intended audience, the search engine user. Not ranking high enough generally robs you of any meaningful interaction. Perhaps an appeal to the customer can be made with a paid ad, more likely to be seen. “These guys below are cheaters. We may be on page 36 of your search results, but we still have what you need.”
Seem crude, but at least it’s honest. It’s not like it’s more expensive given what the lying and cheating consultants are paid.
Ja.