Big Corporations that get away with Spamming

14 comments

DaveN raises an interesting point and one that has long had smaller players feeling resentful towards search engines.

When Bigs Corps Spam, It's OK

Think this isn't true? Sure it is, i've seen examples over the years as many here at Threadwatch have im sure. I can understand that Google (as prime example) cannot afford to ban large corporations for a number of reasons:

  • Big $$$'s for Adwords etc
  • Cant afford the PR scandal
  • Cant afford users not being able to find the corp's site

So is this fair?

Of course it's not, but then very little in life is fair and im not generally of the whiney nature heh.. however, bringing Search engines to task over the seriously lop-sided execution of indexing penalties has some interest.

Why exactly is it ok for Elance to use hidden text and not me? - As dave points out, if he did it, he'd be likely to get banned.

Examples of LARGE Corps that Spam

It's been a long establised tradition in the webmaster/seo circles to not shop the little guys, but large corps have been deemed fair game. In that spirit, go right ahead and give examples of how search engines allow large corporations get away with spamming while the independent site builders are penalized.

I'll start with Elance.

only large corporations or sites please

Comments

Well,

We've probably had a good enough couple of examples, so lets leave it at that then shall we?

I'd argue that if the little guys did seo for these big guys then the big guys know about this stuff.

But to avoid contention here - lets' move on. It's an interesting situation though - what's good for one is not good for all...

Yeah, you're being hypocritical, Nick

I'm surprised at you. And yes, I did read your post.

that's one hell of a clever algo then

>>don't ask yourself if they used a specific technique not "allowed" but look at how users will see that listing

or are you saying there's much, much, more human intervention than normally admitted to?

Come on now...

This is going to F up some folks lively hood. Some of these large Corps. sites are SEO'd by what could be deemed "little guys"

Relax!

It seems like some of you guys are defining spam now that the most white, white hats would not even consider being spam - not to speak of the engines. Relax. Not everything you see from big corps that rank well is spam :)

I think the real problem here is that there is a huge difference between the way search engines define spam editorially and the way they communicate it. In my experience they only care about user experience: If users are happy they really don't care how any site got it's rank. But the way they communicate it, it looks like they hate certain techniques. Don't get fooled - thats not how it works.

So, when you see some major corp that ranks well don't ask yourself if they used a specific technique not "allowed" but look at how users will see that listing. If users for example search for anything MS-related they will not be offended by MS actually being at the top - even if they "spammed" to get there - and the engines won't do anything about it. Why should they?

I can see why not though

From the perspective of a search engine though, if I ban MS and then Joe "muppet" User does a search and they are not there, the natural train of thought would be one of:

(insert name of you favourite engine here) is shite, they dont even list Microsoft

...and that cant happen, or would not happen on my shift.

JCPenny?

Here's an interesting one JCPenny - not hidden, but not there for the user for sure heh...

Im watching ukgimp

And i wont leave it unattended either.

Im just interested in following dave's train of thought on the injustice of the Search system :)

They could at least cloak so

Try [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=Leadership Coaching and Business Consulting]this search[/url]

which you can find in this process.

Elance hidden home page link to
http:// images elance com/images/training.html (intentionally broken)
which links to the #1 result

Naughty naughty

They could at least cloak so we don't have to see the crappy white on white links but for some stupid phrases it definately works for them

Yer.. sad but true

i did get reminded that Yahoo did ban phillips, but the microsoft gateway pages never got touched, about.com spiderbites never got touched... ggrrrr it makes you so mad .. ;) shell.dk etc tec

DaveN

Microsoft

You are going to need to watch this one Nick. We all know your views on outing people and this one has the potential to get dirty

Anyway M$

webpronews link

You did actually read my post right jill?

Quote:
It's been a long establised tradition in the webmaster/seo circles to not shop the little guys, but large corps have been deemed fair game. In that spirit, go right ahead and give examples of how search engines allow large corporations get away with spamming while the independent site builders are penalized.

Im talking about Microsofts - not small web devs.

Hmm...

Thought you didn't believe in "outing" spammers, Nick?

FWIW, I've never heard of a site with hidden text actually getting banned, and I see them all the time in the SERPs. Big sites, little sites, whatever. Usually they rank okay despite the hidden stuff, not because of it.