Stanford Search Spammers?

26 comments
Source Title:
Stanford Daily Sells Links to ANYONE
Story Text:

Aaron makes an interesting observation about Stanford Daily News. Apparently they'll sell PageRank to anyone heh...

I realize that many sites sell links to help pay for their costs, but you would think the college that owns the PageRank patent would be a bit courteous of their search buddies. You would be wrong!

#47 in a series of #100 recent glaring absurdities....

Comments

 

Know your friends, keep your enemies closer. :)

Tons of college newspaper selling links to folks who think .edu links are worth more.

 

Yea I have to think they've known about this one for a while. Wonder what they are thinking as the advertising section is getting bigger and bigger all the time creeping out of the footer and up the side navigation now. Hard to say if that thing passes greenbar at all, half those site have nothing to speak of.

SEOBook Aaron - That's very uncool.

I don't advertise on the Daily, but have known about it for a long time. Nevertheless Aaron, Whose side are YOU on?

Very uncool to go outing other people's websites. Revenge for what someone did to you? Think about the collateral damage to others who may not have done anything to you.

Pretty shitty, Aaron.

 

>Whose side are YOU on?

not yours!

>Very uncool to go outing other people's websites.

some sites are above radar. and it was already outed in SEW forums (at least twice so far). sure some people at Google look at that paper anyway.

>Pretty shitty, Aaron.

not much grace in that statement, IMHO

 

You'll have to add Danny Sullivan and lots0 and others to the list DFOG..

I think the point is that when the organization that owns the PageRank algorithm, starts selling pagerank the rules are somewhat suspended.

I didnt have a problem with Aaron, Danny or anyone in the SEW thread mentioning it, but then as DaveN said in that thread, it is now on the radar...

DaveN makes a good point.

The daily has been doing this forever. Old news.

Shame on Danny Sullivan for outing it.

Ok Aaron, I think you should make it clear on your blog that the daily was already outed by others and that you were merely reporting that. You don't want to pull a Stefanie Olsen, right?

I read the blog and it looked like you were outing them.

SEW forum has sucked from the beginning. They have some good moderators (except for a few who are total jokes that I won't mention). Outing the daily I guess should be expected from them or webpronews.

Yes, the Stanford holds the patent and that makes it newsworthy, but on the other hand there are people advertising there who are going to suffer for hauling it out into the sunlight. I'm on the side that says "screw Google" and would leave it be. Anything that helps Google hurts webmasters.

 

>>Anything that helps Google hurts webmasters.

I think we have a stake in keeping Google reasonably healthy/reliable don't we?

Outing

I'm definitely not in the report spam whenever possible crowd, but I also didn't really cringe when I saw this paper "outed". I would have bought a link there a looong time ago when I knew they were selling them, but when I visited and saw some of the crap (about 1/8 of what's there now) on there... i've never ran faster.

I mean, anyone placing a link there and thinking they're the stealth-seo is fucking out there. That site is spammy even for a spammy site. More links than content.

 

> Anything that helps Google hurts webmasters.

I totally disagree with that statement. if there were no search engines I don't know where or what I would be doing right now. On top of free traffic I also pocket a small bit of change due to their advertising programs.

I also have friends who make a living off of AdSense.

Tough day donfullofgrace?

I'm not a friend of the spam report, to say the least, but to suggest that Stanford News selling PageRank ain't news is silly. I'll go further and say that it is important news that needs spreading far and wide.

To paraphrase Chris Rock...when you are at the FTP client you ain't looking over your shoulder for spammers, you is looking for hypocrites.

NFFC needs to clean the grit from his glasses

>>>but to suggest that Stanford News selling PageRank ain't news is silly.

Here's what I said:
"The daily has been doing this forever. Old news... Yes, the Stanford holds the patent and that makes it newsworthy"

But the emphasis is that it is OLD NEWS. You guys sound every bit hilarious as the Captain in Bogart's Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked to learn that link selling is going on in here."

This is the most open secret in seo, old news. Nothing new. What originally shocked me (and inspired my post) was to see Aaron Wall apparently outing it, but it turned out he was repeating the news without an apparent attribution.

Then Aaron Wall states, "> Anything that helps Google hurts webmasters.

I totally disagree with that statement."

That's the biggest load of ass kissing I've seen in awhile. But then I'd watch my words, too if my nick was my website selling a book that teaches you how to rank better on Google (which is not what Google thinks is good for it's serps).

Good point but

>Here's what I said:

I know what you said. Now you will have to trust me on this, I'm not stupid [make the leap of faith] but I think our concept of news may differ.

News is not a few SEO's "knowing" something, try and picture Bevis and Butthead looking at a nipple, thats SEO news. Real news is something that stops "real" people in their tracks, makes them think. Sometimes that needs more than one take.

>That's the biggest load of ass kissing I've seen in awhile. But then I'd watch my words, too if my nick was my website selling a book that teaches you how to rank better on Google (which is not what Google thinks is good for it's serps).

So would I. Seems he may be made of sterner stuff than us though. Have a troll [sorry I meant trawl] through http://www.seobook.com/archives/cat_google.shtml and get back to us.

full of crap, really

>he was repeating the news without an apparent attribution.

now I do not want to call that comment off the mark, but when it says "Lots0 recently posted on them at the SEW forums."

not only was the name there, but there was a blue underline that pointed people toward SEW forums.

feel free to define:
pretty shitty
attribution
etc.

but perhaps you want to read something before you comment on it and judge people based upon what you thought it might have said?

Top 10 Stupid SEO Tricks

I think it was great news. Anyone advertising gambling or prescription drugs on Stanford must have huge balls - how much more over the Radar can you get? Links like this are so over the radar (even if aaron never blogged on it) that it's bound to get picked up on (and has been). How they've bastardized that section of stanford.edu is a joke and truely newsworthy.

I'd include it in any top 10 list for "stupid SEO tricks".

quote of the year sofar

try and picture Bevis and Butthead looking at a nipple, thats SEO news

Due to many years of practice i've managed to develop a proficiency in keeping beverages away from keyboards in the most extreme situations - that one was vicious! *lmao*

Not just Stanford

The site in question is stanford.org - not edu - yeah, the domain is owned by the Alumni association - but I wouldn't be surprised if the subdomain was donated, or leased at a modest fee to this company. They have a ton of college online newspaper sites - they have a CMS and they recruit students to add news to it, blog style - anyhow - The site is no more a product of Stanford University than a "Standford Girls Gone Wild" video would be.

They make a mint off selling links to noob webmasters - yeah it's spammy as hell - but IMHO it is bad manners to turn over other peoples' rocks. Glass houses, etc.

"I think it was great news."

Wow, you're the LAST person I expected to see applauding the outing of a link text buyers club. Now I've seen everything.

The hypocrisy in this thread is so thick you need a chain saw to get through it all. Underlying all the rock throwing is a smug atttitude that WE know how to properly buy links and stay under the radar.

:P

seems like a trend

Not the first time I have seen something that might be a bit below the radar get the big spotlight shown on it here at TW. Shame really.

 

There are other SE's who still like these links :)

Think I'm missing something

How are the Stanford links any different from the
internet.commerce links at SEW?

And when did buying text ads become spam anyway?

you are ;)

>How are the Stanford links any different from the
internet.commerce links at SEW?

perhaps the quality and content of the target sites? just maybe some of that is low quality content? thought you would be quick to spot that.

>And when did buying text ads become spam anyway?

lots of people who were too lazy to proactively build links marketed the concept of link building as being a spam technique ever since I started learning SEO a few years ago.

as search algorithms have advanced link renting has become a more accepted practice as in many fields links are a necessity.

 

And your answer is that buying text links are spam or are not spam? I couldn't tell from your post.

 

buying text links = placing ads. links are just a tool which can be used or abused.

most SEO techniques in and of themselves are not what search engines care about, it is more an issue of intent, which is ever so hard to judge.

Exactly seobook

So what's the problem with the Stanford links?

 

>So what's the problem with the Stanford links?

from above:

perhaps the quality and content of the target sites? just maybe some of that is low quality content? thought you would be quick to spot that.

think we agree on lots of things but are arguing semantics or talking in circles. hence I reused an earier post ;)

It's just interesting, I don't think it needs justification

Previously we've all been led to believe by some vociferous SEO types that links like this are baaaad. I was told Google would put me across its knee and spank me thoroughly if I bought or sold stuff like that.

I think a site so 'close' to Google doing this is worth a mention on that basis - old news or not - and irrespective of who mentions it. Getting anyone to defend a position on it is a bit irrelevant IMHO.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.