Syndic8 on the hot seat for gaming search engines |
Loading ...While this situation bears some similarities to the recent Wordpress troubles (see: What the hell does asbestos have to do with Wordpress?), it should be noted that the Syndic8 crew weren’t intentionally hiding any links or employing any hidden -9000 text tricks. Instead, they were creating keyword-laden third level domains and switching the DNS to point directly to spam-infested articles. The links to these sites were clearly shown at the bottom of each page. However, Google rightly saw this as intentional manipulation and evicted sydic8.com for this activity.
I sure hope there isn’t any SE brushback from linking to syndic8 or being linked on syndic8. There didn’t seem to be from the Wordpress fubar, but these kinds of things make me nervous.
Waxy.org titled this story: Syndic8’s Search Engine Spam and writes:
Do people really think this is a legitimate form of advertising revenue? Jeff Barr and Bill Kearney, the two Syndic8 leads, are both smart guys and they seem to support the practice. But why? Gaming search engines makes the web less useful for everyone. As Leonard put it, “It’s a simple question, right? Is what you’re doing making the world a better place or not?”
The bolding in that last sentence is mine. I’ve said for years to almost anybody that would listen that you should build sites for people first and foremost, not machines. And yes, this is coming from a programmer.
Phony “sites” like those third level domains Syndic8 was linking up are at best marginally useful to people and at worst complete and utter garbage that ruins relevant search results the rest of us. These weren’t/aren’t marked up as advertorials and even the text in the browser is hard to read (too small). On top of that, who wrote the material? Where’s the authorship or credit so some sort of independent verification of bias can be determined? People finding there way to “sites” like this aren’t being helped by search engines. This type of activity totally defeats the purpose of what search engines are designed to do: help people find what they are looking for. If I were a search engine vendor, I’d want to do everything in my power to properly categorize this to the slushpile where yes, it could still be found (one man’s garbage is another’s treasure), but not unless specifically called out.
I really don’t think Jeff Barr thought much beyond: hey, this will help cover my growing bandwidth issues. Same goes for Matt Mullenweg and his recent SE scheme. I don’t think either of these guys were expecting this to create a huge income source.
I’ve met Jeff Barr in person and he is a very nice, personable fellow. Nice or not, though — and I think Jeff would agree with this — he made a collosal business blunder here. It’s easy for the rest of us out here to be an armchair quarterbacks and I’m not trying to just pile onto a good guy with this one, but it bears repeating to webmasters reading this: do not try to game the search engines!
Read the Google guidelines and follow them. Do not let any advertising deal or scheme rope you, fellow webmasters, into something that smells fishy. When in doubt, make a blog post and ask what others think about the deal and if it would be kosher. Heck, I got taken a little bit to task over just making a freaking checkbox default checked (which is still under consideration for change, BTW), so you can bet people out there will offer opinions proactively — instead of reactively — to any questions one might have about the ethics of a given activity.
Unlike Matt from Wordpress, though again it deserves noting, Jeff wasn’t trying to backdoor this advertising activity or use hidden -9000 text activity. That would have made this offense much greater, IMO, but it’s still bad.
Smart guys like Mullenweg and Barr duped by sleazy advertising techniques, who would have thought?
The bottom line is both these guys got paid; they took the money. Once you bring money into the equation with activity like this, intentions and motives are questioned. And with blogging the sword slashes both ways. If one does something shaky then the expectation should be bloggers will be on it like pirahnas on an open sore. Wrong or right, that’s the way it is.
I do hope that Google will give Syndic8 another chance. They seemed to have forgiven Matt Mullenweg for his transgressions (at least in part), but you can bet that he/Wordpress is on a really short leash (and should be).
This morning Jeff Barr is doing penance with: I was really stupid, and greedy too:
What have I learned so far? First, be careful about slippery slopes. Once you take on a particular form of advertising, the next one doesn’t seem all that bad, but before you know it you are doing things that you wouldn’t otherwise do. Second, consider alternatives to the ad-supported business model. Lots of people seemed to think that I could have raised funds in this way. Perhaps, perhaps not. It is clear that trying to create something that’s large and self-sustaining requires more attention to the business end than I was capable of giving it. Third, respond, and respond fast when you make a mistake.
You might note that I didn’t do the rel=’nofollow’ on Jeff’s blog and I’m not removing any links made to syndic8 in past entries here at MakeYouGoHmm. This is because I believe he just made a really dumb mistake and we all are entitled to mistakes in business, life and otherwise. I believe Google will give Jeff another chance.
If he — or Mullenweg/Wordpress — ever do anything like this again then I say they should be ostracized, but not for a first offense. The mulligan for Barr and Mullenweg has now been used.
Maybe us bloggers — and I count myself fully in this statement — should be a little more forgiving of first offenses. What do you think?
Related Posts- What the hell does asbestos have to do with Wordpress?
- The FTC and somebody please give me something positive to write about Sony
- O’Reilly should hire an Ad Compliance Officer
- Mullenweg on Comment spam
- *New Syndic8 blogging energy from Jeff Barr
- Interview #1: Jeff Barr from Syndic8.com [podcast]
Thanks for your feedback, and using my name copiously, but I think the situations are pretty different. With WordPress we had an experiment that ran for two months and was slated to end, regardless of Andy’s article, within a few weeks.
Comment by Matt — May 12, 2005 @ 11:39 pm PST
Matt - Thank you for stopping by and taking a minute to leave your thoughts.
Maybe you can help me as I’m not sure by your comments whether you are trying to defend your actions, trying to be cavalier about it, doing the hurt puppy thing, or are honestly misunderstanding the obvious comparison? Please re-read the first sentence again. -9000 hidden text browser fakeouts aren’t any kind of legitimate “experiment” for two minutes, much less two months and even if you didn’t know better when you did that (which I find hard to swallow) then you must know better now (I hope so, anyway); I agree the situations are pretty different and yours was worse IMO, not better.
You have been forgiven by many, but that doesn’t mean it’s forgotten and won’t be fodder for comparison and scrutiny for many days to come by not just Andy or myself but many, many folks. If you do something good (Wordpress) and are in the spotlight people praise you for it but do the opposite and … well, you know what happens there. Just like being ‘dooced’ will be relevant to anybody being fired from their job for blogging, your -9000 text magic and SE whoring will rightly be held up as “do not ever do this” examples. How to separate your name from that activity? I don’t have an answer there, sorry. Time will help, I suppose, as people tend to put a more positive spin on their memories of ugly incidents over time. Don’t know you personally but I’ve heard good things. I was 21 once too and remember making some really bad decisions back then. We’re all human, mon. Suck it up.
I’m sorry I missed when you came out to Seattle a little while back. Was the Dafodil parade out here which is a pretty big local thing. This advertising “experiment” stuff completely aside, I wanted to thank you in person for the work you’ve done with Wordpress. People can and do appreciate that and can/do separate that from the other stuff. In fact, if you ever want some good, free positive press I’d be happy to put you on the radio show the we’ve been doing this weekly for five years now. And no, it will not be a “let’s bash Matt” session, we could talk in detail about Wordpress. Drop me a line via Skype or phone if you are interested (see about section on the home page). The show broadcasts every Friday at 2pm PST / 5pm EST and today is going to be our 238th live broadcast.
Oh, and that RSS bug for version 1.5.1 blows. Any chance you guys can spit out 1.5.2 in a hurry so more people don’t get bitten by that? (Yes, of course it can be patched, but that change should be made before too many people download, don’t you think?) I mean, well, the RSS feeds are pretty important, don’t you think?
Thanks again for taking time to comment and stopping by.
Comment by TDavid — May 13, 2005 @ 8:06 am PST
[…] mples and discover new open source projects which can be leveraged in their applications. Syndic8 on the hot seat for gaming search engines Google Makes An Acquisition: […]
Pingback by Affiliate Marketing Gab » Blog Archive » What Caught My Eye This Week? Ending May 13th — May 13, 2005 @ 10:04 pm PST
“I’ve met Jeff Barr in person and he is a very nice, personable fellow. Nice or not, though — and I think Jeff would agree with this — he made a collosal business blunder here. It’s easy for the rest of us out here to be an armchair quarterbacks and I’m not trying to just pile onto a good guy with this one, but it bears repeating to webmasters reading this: do not try to game the search engines!”
“Read the Google guidelines and follow them. Do not let any advertising deal or scheme rope you, fellow webmasters, into something that smells fishy. When in doubt, make a blog post and ask what others think about the deal and if it would be kosher. Heck, I got taken a little bit to task over just making a freaking checkbox default checked (which is still under consideration for change, BTW), so you can bet people out there will offer opinions proactively — instead of reactively — to any questions one might have about the ethics of a given activity.”
That is what you said… OK, here is what I have to say.
In my opinion I do not believe Jeff Barr of syndic8.com had any intenion of “gaming the search engines”.
I believe he made a business decision he thought would make him more money from advetising and that decision turned out NOT to be a good one. I’m confident that Jeff had no idea that this decision could get him banned from Google.
Please read Jeff’s post in his blog entitled:
I Was Really Stupid, and Greedy Too
URL: http://www.syndic8.com/~jeff/blog/index.php?p=214
I haven’t studied what he did specifically, so I can’t comment as to whether what he did was right or wrong. I would like to respond to the avalanche of negative feelings sent his way and the varying opinions stated that seem to feel that any kind of search engine optimiztion, or the selling of advertising are evil practices and that offenders should be hung out to dry.
Google’s “guidelines” “TOS” “Rules”, whatever you call them, are vague and next to impossible to follow except in a very broad sense.
My interpretation is: you better not do bad evil things or you’ll regret it.
It’s not specific in any sense… not black or white - right or wrong. It’s intentionally vague and authoritative.
Google likes it this way because it makes everyone walk on their tip toes carefully and leaves their terms of service wide open to interpretation ( OR MISINTERPRETATION !!! )
“Better safe than sorry” many cautious and fearful webmasters say… better not put ANY links on a page, because some links are bad… better not try to make money on my site because making money and greed is bad…
Since when is showing ads and hoping they get clicked an evil thing??? Google does it – on every page of their site!
If you think about it – Google goes out to the net and borrows content – words, images, news stories, whatever – puts them on it’s web pages without permission and then slaps a bunch of advertisements on their pages so they can make billions of dollars.
Don’t get the wrong idea here – I am being sarcastic. I believe Google has every right to do that.
Now, don’t we have the right to do that as well, or only allow the right to Google.
Whatever happened to the original spirit of the net? People exploring, expressing, creating and interacting with others in a whole new way.
Suddenly the web is overpopulated with sour grapes, jealous losers, tattle tales and complaining whiners.
Am I complaining :’> Er, sorry!
For some twisted reason it has become fun for some bottom dwellers to be the evil lurker in a forum and make people feel bad. Fun for some people to write blogs criticizing others and calling out for a lynching without even a trial. Negativce vibes emmanate all over the net.
I have learned to stay away from discussions in forums and such, because it never fails, there is always someone quick to jump in and spread the negativity. Serve up hostility. They enjoy it.
Why does it make people feel so good to make other people feel so bad?
That should be in the “guidelines” someone. BE NICE TO OTHERS.
Back to what is good conduct in the eyes of almighty Google…
Google does not make public their “rules and regulations” other than to paint a broad picture that anything bad isn’t good so don’t do it.
If you at all think about WHY you are doing something, it probably is evil.
That’s what I get from the TOS at Google.
I’m not saying that what syndic8 did was good, right or proper. I didn’t see it with my own eyes and from my point of view the DNS redirection part with subdomains was obviously not smart.
They could have made more ad money in a more legitimate way I am sure, BUT since when do webmasters have to ask their visiting public what is OK and what is not OK to do on the websites???
Do we have to ask permission if it is OK before we make decisions like what kind of ads to place on our sites, or whether we should do so at all?
Just because someone makes money or as people put it “they took the money”, doesn’t make it bad… Google takes the moeny like crazy… are they bad?
If great web sites like syndic8 are to remain valuable resources, it is reasonable to expect that they will be a “business” and do things to “make a profit”. Not underhanded unethical things, but hey – occasionally they may run an ad that offends us or doesn’t seem like it belongs… so what?
Is placing an ad for HOT CHOCOLATE when it is not a hot chocolate themed web site acceptable???
Other times it may be making “business decisions” for things like ad placement… placing ads where they make more money from people clicking more often. That isn’t gaming is it…
Running a popular web site is a business and somebody has to pay the bills - unless they make the site suck so bad it isn’t fun to visit - why complain about how they make money???
It’s OK to make money on the web, right???
I can hear a few of you saying… “it’s not OK to make money IF…” IF is subjective. As long as it is legal, let’s not be so quick to judge. If you don’t like what a site is doing – don’t visit that site.
Please don’t think I condone spam or evil practices in any manner - I do NOT! But instead of starting a web backlash and running off tattling to Google, why not reach out to the web site and let them know you’re disappointed in something before you go and crucify them.
I just don’t get it when people are so eager and HAPPY to stomp on other people and point the finger at them and say things like they are EVIL for wanting to make money.
I say – worry more about what you are doing and pay less attention to the way you want other people to live their lives and run their businesses.
OK. Did I piss anyone off out there??? NO??? GOOD!!!
Comment by Michael — May 16, 2005 @ 8:41 pm PST
[…] about the ethics of a given activity.” Please read the full text Posted by Tdavid at the URL: http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20050512/1850/ OK, here is what I have to say. In my opinion I do not believe Jeff Barr of syndic8.com had any intenion […]
Pingback by CSS 4 » syndic8.com Spam Backlish sends evil doers into feeding frenzy! — May 16, 2005 @ 8:49 pm PST
Michael - Thanks for taking time to reply in depth. I conducted an hour long interview with Jeff on Friday and got his side of the story down. I should be publishing this later this week (hopefully). He was on a spotty cell phone connection and we’re cleaning up the audio as best we can.
Comment by TDavid — May 16, 2005 @ 9:10 pm PST
[…] e). Readers might remember me talking about Jeff’s recent challenges in this thread: Syndic8 on the hot seat for gaming search engines I contacted Jeff privately to hear his side of the […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Interview #1: Jeff Barr from Syndic8.com [podcast] — May 25, 2005 @ 2:15 pm PST
[…] Phil Ringnalda noticed something odd with some advertisements running on various O’reilly sites and blogged about it. It reminded Phil of the Wordpress search enging gaming debacle but this more reminds me — and a few of Phil’s commenters — of the syndic8 advertiser playing the PR game mess. I interviewed Jeff Barr about the Syndic8 ad situation in great detail for those who want to delve deeper into why sites are seduced into advertising deals that they might not fully understand or agree with. It happens to smaller sites and bigger sites and really all types of sites. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » O’Reilly should hire an Ad Compliance Officer — August 24, 2005 @ 4:52 pm PST