Have Search Marketers Sunk To A New Low, Jill's thoughts on fake stories for link bait Options

[Jill]

Not sure if you guys have been following the crazy story of Lyndoman who wrote a fake news story and submitted it as link bait, but here's my take on it:

Have Search Marketers Sunk to a New Low?

There are background links in that post as well, for those who haven't heard the story yet.

[incrediblehelp]

Completely crappy way to get links. I created a post on the topic on my blog. All this would do for clients is create a reputation nightmare.

[Jarret]

While I somewhat agree that this puts a bad view on SEM and the like, I have to give the guy credit at the same time.

People can speculate on his motives as to why he created the story. And if he did create the story to gain links or to stir up some controversy, he definitely achieved. Unfortunately the post has already been removed so I am not sure on exactly all that was said as I didn't want to really dig that deep into it anyways.

But it all comes down to people believing what they want. People have the choice to display what they want on their sites or in their business. If they don't research the consequences then they are just looking for trouble. I think that people don't fully realize that even though the Internet allows for some form of anonymity, there can still be dire consequences for what you decide to put on your site.

[projectphp]

No we DO NOT have to speculate: he told us what it was!

Terrible. Story.

[ozaark]

eh, someone posted something misleading/untrue on the internet?! NOOOOOOOO

It's definitely a shady technique and definitely demotes the trustworthiness of even such reputable networks as ::cough:: FOX, but personally I don't think too much into the DIGG effect other than a tool for people to spread 85% mildly entertaining randomness and maybe (stretching it here) 15% actual useful stuff - give or take if you like cats.

I hate that it's spam but I don't hate that he made it so that social media users could infect themselves.. Is that bad? I don't know - definitely agree things should be more standardized.

[Randy]

Personally I think it says a lot about both the marketer and the client since both apparently had a major hand in producing the original fake article. After all, if one believes Lyndon, it was the client who formatted the article and added graphics to bolster the fake story's premise. These actions certainly make them a willing party in the fraud.

Who knows if it'll hurt Lyndoman's business. It should, but probably won't since there are lots of people out there who want to gain notice by any means necessary, regardless of ethics. But I'd have to guess that it'll probably hurt the reputation of money.co.uk a good bit. And with good reason. They are cuplable, and being a news outlet should be held to higher journalistic standards.

I would imagine by now they're just wishing it would all go away. Because the longer the discussion goes on, the more it hurts their reputation.

Here's a better question for you SEO's out there.

Would anybody take on this client now if they came to you looking to perform some damage control because of this or similar incidents? I don't SEO for others anymore, but if I did and if they came to me with the tale I'd turn them down flat and laugh at them for getting exactly what they deserved. A reputation for being an very unreliable news source. Hell, me being me I'd probably publish the details of their frantic attempts to control the damage done by their own stupidity! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

As an aside, for any who attempt to view Jill's link above in IE7, you'll want to switch to another browser like Firefox. The template being used in the SMENE blog apparently has issues in IE. Jill, you may want to look into having someone create some IE specific css rules, which can then be triggered with conditional statements in the html template. As it is right now IE7 users won't see your thoughts at all. Just parts of some of the comments.

[Jill]

Offtopic

Aack...thanks, Randy. How did we not notice that. Will get back to the developers on that!

Added: Fixed, thanks to the smart wizardry of our own jehochman! (Idiot me had put an exclamation point at the end of a few comment tags, where one doesn't belong!)

[Randy]

Offtopic

Looking rosy in my IE7 now Jill. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbup1.gif)

[torka]

Offtopic

That's what you get for using IE, Randy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel_not.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

[Randy]

Offtopic

Yeah, me and 80% of the rest of the world. More if you take the geeks & nerds out of the equation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

[Jill]

Now that the SEMNE blog is fixed, any other comments on the actual blog posts?

The issue is still really troubling to me, especially because so many people seem to think it's no big deal. I'm like (IMG:style_emoticons/default/panic.gif)

[ozaark]

Now that the SEMNE blog is fixed, any other comments on the actual blog posts?

The issue is still really troubling to me, especially because so many people seem to think it's no big deal. I'm like (IMG:style_emoticons/default/panic.gif)

I can't really get on the page of it being a big deal.. for me it's a giant not-funny-news-style rickroll but only with useless information that's really only lowering the value of where it was placed. Now if more people started using this technique and don't see the harm in that it only lowers the quality of the website then yes there is definitely a problem.

For the most part I think everyone gets that it was a lame tact that hurts the brand as a whole and would have been more appropriate as some sort of 'April Fools' joke - but then again it likely wouldn't have been so widely spread.

It demoted the brand.. investors and people of that suit are likely to be more critical on the tact than whatever they benefit from it. Hurting your brand outweighs a bit extra search traffic by far IMO.

[OldWelshGuy]

For me the guy deserves to lose brownie points in google for having unreliable content on his site. Money.co uk is one of his client sites, and he could well incurr the wrath of a amnaula hit by google as being a site that has tried to game google by using innacurate posts on what WAS a reputable site. It could easily backfire, and i for one wouldn't be surprised to see Google apply such a 'non trust' penalty.

Some people are proud, so where does it end? Is it to lie and gain by hurting others?

Currently in the Uk we have some important bills going through the legislative system concerning human animal embryonic work, and also reducing the maximum time for abortion. this is a highly imotive subject, so how can I eploit this topical subject?

1. I could write an informative article that stays within the bounds of decency yet asks and answers the questions many people are asking.

2. I could set up a fake ethical 'view the foetus to be aborted' website make up loads of harrowing tales, start a forum thread going, start a petition for parliament etc while ALL of it is me and my team using fake names to generat e publicity. While totally exploiting the situation while causing upset

Now don't get me wrong, if you are a pro life website, then of course it would be legitimate to start a debate on eithics, then I would expect (and want) to see video etc of a foetus at the 20 week stage , in order to make my call. BUT and it really is a huge but, in this format it is meant to be informative, and the information, albeit biased, is honest and true.

I think you can see where I am coming from, and to post fake information on a finance site, when many people are struggling financially, and to make it so it will cause pain and suffering to innocent people, ALL for the sake of some backlinks?

Well sorry to say but their clients deserve to lose their Google trust factor, and the company in question deserve to pay!

Shall I get off the fence now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Nueromancer]

Not sure if you guys have been following the crazy story of Lyndoman who wrote a fake news story and submitted it as link bait, but here's my take on it:

Have Search Marketers Sunk to a New Low?

There are background links in that post as well, for those who haven't heard the story yet.

But newspapers make stuff up all the time the SUN made up a story about liverpool fans picking pockets and worse the sun claimed

"Some fans picked pockets of victims"
"Some fans urinated on the brave cops"
"Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life"

http://www.anfieldroad.com/dont-buy-the-sun/

[Jill]

But newspapers make stuff up all the time the SUN made up a story about liverpool fans picking pockets and worse the sun claimed

Does that make it right?

Does it mean we should do it too?

My answers are no and no.