tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing
to front page
to date archives
to category archives
national service
© Tim Ireland 2004-2006
Design by Wibbler
RSS | RSD | Atom
« David Cameron: the money or the foot | Main | Now we're talking »
February 10, 2006Adam Sherwin: not-very-good journalist for The Times
The Times - Shady tactics in battle for internet hits: The top result of a Google search for "liar" is now Tony Blair's biography on the official Downing Street website. This happened after anti-war "Google-bombers" set up hundreds of sites establishing a link. They exploited Google's policy of looking at not just the content of a page but also on how often a site is linked to others and with what words.
I think if Adam Sherwin actually bothered to do some research on this, he would have found that the websites involved are all genuine, personal websites... and that the 'liar' links involved are based on the genuine, personal opinion(s) held by the people who run these sites.
Grouping this meme with the BMW story (which involves gateway pages) makes no sense whatsoever... unless you're a witless point-scoring hack with no personal web space of your own and/or no real understanding of search engine optimisation.
Posted by Manic on February 10, 2006 8:28 AM in the category Search Engine Optimisation
Pings (Trackback)
For trackbacks, this is the URL:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/cgi-bin/mt-tbbh_20x07.pl/920
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Adam Sherwin: not-very-good journalist for The Times:
» Liar from Rolled-up Trousers
Type in liar on Google and see what happens. For more info see Bloggerheads. [Read More]
Tracked on February 10, 2006 10:31 PM
Comments
Anyone who is still referring to the internet as the "information superhighway" is in dire need of a sacking. It really isn't a great way to convince people that you know what you're talking about.
Also, someone should tell Mr. Sherwin that the word 'keywords' is not a technical word, and requires no quotation marks; nor do the words dummy, hijacked or optimisation.
Having said that, what kind of editor could let such shoddy copy through? Hats off to the Murdoch press!!!
Posted by: Chris Coltrane at February 10, 2006 1:38 PM
Um, at what point, in the entire article, would the liar thing be hurt by this new big daddy thing? That's for duplicate sites, and it's internal site optimisation that it's looking at, not external links to, they're integral to how pageranks works, right?
The man's a fool. Can I have his job? I can write better and I know how to do that "research" thing. Or at least ask the right people.
Posted by: MatGB at February 14, 2006 1:56 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)