Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by usaphp 4565 days ago
> ...by attempting to manipulate the SERPs through getting webmasters to link to several lyrics pages in exchange for a tweet.

How is that different from paying bloggers to write a product review with a link to a product? Why is not that considered a "manipulation of SERPs" - you exchange (money/tweet) for a link.
2 comments
itsprofitbaron 4565 days ago
It's not different. As mentioned earlier, paying for links is against one of Google's Webmaster Guidelines[1] and your example specifically falls under the Link Scheme[2] category which is affecting Rap Genius.

Those types of links reviews for a link, are considered advertorials which Interflora were "famously" penalised[3] for and something Google specifically identifies within their Link Scheme examples[2]

[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769

[2] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356

[3] http://searchengineland.com/google-says-no-comment-on-why-in...

link
phillmv 4565 days ago
Wait.

I was about to ask if the lesson to draw here was to make it look organic.

But mostly serious question here: how does TechCrunch have any Google rank then? How do most tech publications, for that matter? PR hits are extremely common; they're the name of the game when it comes to cheap content.

It's okay if it looks like it's mutual self interest, and not if it overtly competes with Google's advertising platform?

link
itsprofitbaron 4565 days ago
how does TechCrunch have any Google rank then? How do most tech publications, for that matter?

TechCrunch does not post advertorials, they post content for free and they actually posted on their site to reaffirm this fact[1].

Sure there may be some PR firms etc who might get paid to get that content on to TechCrunch or another tech publications but TechCrunch writers are not directly compensated for doing so.

As a result the content they write from a startup launch to a new feature etc is considered "natural" by the search engines as they're choosing to write about it.

Moreover, those publications get the majority of their search engine traffic through being in Google News ala. posting about "Twitter" and getting inserted into the "Twitter" SERPs within the "News" section. Additionally they also leverage internal linking to boost their SERPs potential e.g. whenever they talk about Zulily (they're in #9 for me in Incognito mode although they might be higher/ on Page 2 for you) instead of linking to the site they'll reference the "Tag URL"[2] as well as referencing Crunchbase[3] (although CrunchBase isn't really 'internal' as its an external site). Likewise, Google loves "fresh content" so they will naturally be inserted with little/no links within the top 7ish results for something generic (although this does not always happen) such as "credit card numbers" when they do a post about "credit card numbers" and will naturally lose search engine positioning for that term over time.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/08/we-are-worth-at-least-3k/

[2] http://techcrunch.com/tag/zulily/

[3] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/zulily

link
RBerenguel 4565 days ago
It's not different, and Google will penalise as needed (if the site is unrelated to the reviewed object, for instance, also the FTC can sue if there is no proper disclaimer)
link