
Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics  - zone411
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html
======
zone411
The article mentions a complaint by a competitor, but there was also a thread
about Overstock here: <http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4252178.htm>.

~~~
a5seo
There's a mention of a utdallas.edu page in the WMW comments, which is now
dead, but the cached version is here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.utdallas.edu%2F~vxa081000%2FLife.html)

Just a quick glance says that is definitely not an earned page of links. I'd
love to know if Overstock gave Mr. Arora just a discount, straight up cash to
post, or what. And how did they reach out? Did they email every student at
utdallas.edu and offer them an incentive in exchange for posting a page on
their personal site?

It actually makes me feel a bit better to see this is actually pretty black
hat, and not (at least in my reading) quite as debatably paid-links as the
Journal's story made it sound.

~~~
sjs382
A client's competitor had some strange .edu links. Did some research and they
are sold all over, including Fiverr. Here's an example:
[http://www.fiverr.com/users/originalseo/gigs/20-edu-and-
gov-...](http://www.fiverr.com/users/originalseo/gigs/20-edu-and-gov-profile-
backlinks-to-boost-your-ranks-limited-time-offer?ref=glst-g-ttl)

P.S.: Don't buy links.

~~~
fleitz
Mainly because if you're paying, you're paying too much. What you want to be
doing is creating highly relevant content in PDF/word docs w/ links and then
uploading them to forums. Can't nofollow a PDF/doc link :)

~~~
a5seo
I've noticed that Matt Cutts always dances around the question of whether
links in PDF's count.

~~~
fleitz
My opinion is that they do count. Intuitively, a URL is a URL and whether it's
from an HTML document or a Word doc it's the same thing. You'd have to put in
a bunch of extra code to make it not work like that. It's a $9 test, get a
random domain fhg56784ei3dg.com with a random keyword, do absolutely nothing
with the domain, throw a link in a PDF and see if your site gets indexed :)

~~~
ultrasaurus
I intend to test this eventually, but I think the test has to be a little more
complex since you want to measure if it shares google-juice, not just that
Google reads the URLs.

Ideally I'll registering two random number domain names, both with random text
around a unique word, then mention one in a keyword rich PDF and see which
domain pops up first in the Google search.

~~~
fleitz
It's not just about google juice. You can boost pages within your own site
with internal links. Also, people search for an absolutely stupid amount of
stuff on torrent sites. Try putting your PDFs on torrent sites for a little
extra traffic. If you seed it on the right trackers all the torrent sites pick
it up for you for free.

As well sometimes the torrents themselves rank really well. Keyword stuff your
torrent files :) Remember to set the utm_source on your PDF links.

------
WillyF
Is breaking Google's rules now a PR/link building tactic? WSJ didn't link to
Overstock.com in their article, but if they did, then Overstock would have
built a really strong, legitimate backlink as a result of their illicit
practices.

I also think the article plays down what Overstock.com did. I'd love to hear
what Matt Cutts has to say about it, but offering a discount to students and
encouraging them and their universities to link to said discount page doesn't
sound like it should violate Google's policies. Judging from some of the links
posted in other comments, it looks like Overstock.com was being far more
manipulative than that.

I'd also question whether this is actually a penalization? Or did Google just
devalue the links that weren't kosher? I see those as two different things.

~~~
slouch
Google has said in the past that they defuse links and ignore any pagerank
they would pass if they determine their are paid or for the sole purpose of
passing pagerank. So, yes, there is a difference between penalties and
devaluing links.

edit: here's some of that discussion <http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/text-
links-and-pagerank/>

~~~
a5seo
You be the judge... should links like these be devalued or penalized?

<http://support.coastal.edu/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=304>

------
juddlyon
News flash: every highly competitive search vertical is full of this and has
been for years.

~~~
tomjen3
So it would seem possible to make a business out of entering these verticals
and then reporting all the competitors for violations, leaving you left.

Obviously this assumes that most competitors do something like this, but if so
that could be a nice way to make money.

~~~
a5seo
Heh... 3 years ago, I registered several domains around offering exactly this
service.

------
Zakuzaa
<http://www.abac.edu/goldcard/Discount%2520listing.pdf>

Scroll to the bottom.

~~~
middus
404

Can you tell us what was there before?

------
jdap
So why isn't Google better at search? Seriously. They're like tax legislators,
constantly surprised that people game the system. Only they have less excuse,
because there's no transparency in Google's 'laws,' and no coherent way to
distinguish 'white hat' and 'black hat.'

