Sequoia-Backed Chinese E-Commerce Company's Black-Hat SEO(digitalduediligenceadvisors.com)
digitalduediligenceadvisors.com
Sequoia-Backed Chinese E-Commerce Company's Black-Hat SEO
http://www.digitalduediligenceadvisors.com/seqouia-fails-to-spot-milanoos-black-hat-tactics/
15 comments
I think if folks here (or the public in general) knew how common this was, they'd be shocked and outraged. I can say with quite a bit of conviction, experience and data that this is incredibly common - even overwhelmingly so.
My conservative guess is that for 50-100K+ keyword searches where substantive commercial value exists in ranking well, 50%+ of the top 10 ranking pages have engaged in manipulative link practices. They're not usually this blatant (though plenty are), but penalization is rare and link spam is on the rise.
My sense is that rather than try to write algorithms to compensate, Google's webspam team has been focused on finding less manipulatable signals like social data (which is currently relatively clean), user+usage data (through Chrome, GG toolbar, GG analytics, etc) and more sophisticated citation analysis.
Still, it's hard to preach white hat SEO when black hat works so frequently and so well (and from outward appearances, Google rewards it).
My conservative guess is that for 50-100K+ keyword searches where substantive commercial value exists in ranking well, 50%+ of the top 10 ranking pages have engaged in manipulative link practices. They're not usually this blatant (though plenty are), but penalization is rare and link spam is on the rise.
My sense is that rather than try to write algorithms to compensate, Google's webspam team has been focused on finding less manipulatable signals like social data (which is currently relatively clean), user+usage data (through Chrome, GG toolbar, GG analytics, etc) and more sophisticated citation analysis.
Still, it's hard to preach white hat SEO when black hat works so frequently and so well (and from outward appearances, Google rewards it).
Actually, Google does care deeply about paid link spam. A very relevant example is the exposure of JCPenney a few months ago when the NYTimes investigated how they were getting so much traffic from Google (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html). Subsequently, Google penalized their rankings.
@fleitz - I agree that it's not "illegal" but unethical, probably. I disagree regarding "why would Sequoia care?". If they are earning a significant amount of their revenue and growth by relying on Google, then once they get caught their growth will slow and if due diligence in this arena wasn't done, Sequoia may have invested with an inflated valuation. Of course, if I were a VC, during due diligence something like "Google drives 75% of our inbound traffic + revenue" would set off all types of alarms and require further digging.
@fleitz - I agree that it's not "illegal" but unethical, probably. I disagree regarding "why would Sequoia care?". If they are earning a significant amount of their revenue and growth by relying on Google, then once they get caught their growth will slow and if due diligence in this arena wasn't done, Sequoia may have invested with an inflated valuation. Of course, if I were a VC, during due diligence something like "Google drives 75% of our inbound traffic + revenue" would set off all types of alarms and require further digging.
Historically, Google has made little effort to combat any type of spam which generated revenue.
When I used AdWords, I would say that 30% of the clicks where fraudulent and 90% of those came from Google "content" partners who where nothing more than link farm pages.
This has existed for the last 8+ years and Google has absolutely done nothing about it, except for odd case here and there.
They even went so far as setting up their own domain parking service (Google Domain Parking) to allow this type of behavior (and monetize it).
For the most part, Google only penalizes those who make Google look stupid... JCPenney.
When I used AdWords, I would say that 30% of the clicks where fraudulent and 90% of those came from Google "content" partners who where nothing more than link farm pages.
This has existed for the last 8+ years and Google has absolutely done nothing about it, except for odd case here and there.
They even went so far as setting up their own domain parking service (Google Domain Parking) to allow this type of behavior (and monetize it).
For the most part, Google only penalizes those who make Google look stupid... JCPenney.
It's "unethical" in Google's world where everybody[1] is trying to play by a fair set of rules. But taking a step back, it is really no more unethical than any other paid endorsement.
[1] Google excepts itself from time to time apparently, so I speculate that it also excepts others- probably for reasons that ultimately benefit G itself. So I'm alert to the idea that G's world may not be all that ethical in this particular department.
[1] Google excepts itself from time to time apparently, so I speculate that it also excepts others- probably for reasons that ultimately benefit G itself. So I'm alert to the idea that G's world may not be all that ethical in this particular department.
It's a Chinese company. Google backlash isn't dangerous, I'm guessing they are aiming more towards Baidu optimization than Google optmization. I'm pretty sure Baidu isn't that regarding of black hat SEO.
Wow, can't wait to see how this develops! Someone's about to lose their spot at the teat.
I know Matt Cutts checks up on Hacker News...
I know Matt Cutts checks up on Hacker News...
I wonder if Google has a harder time with spam that isn't in English.
Its pretty egregious.
I've heard folks say "C'mon, whats the harm the system is there to be gamed and they just play it better than others." Which I can't really argue with, I mean there isn't really a barrier to entry other than cash and willingness. And its a whole industry in its own right. But still it does leave one with a poor impression.
I've heard folks say "C'mon, whats the harm the system is there to be gamed and they just play it better than others." Which I can't really argue with, I mean there isn't really a barrier to entry other than cash and willingness. And its a whole industry in its own right. But still it does leave one with a poor impression.
If Google doesn't want this kind of behavior they can always change their algorithm. There's nothing illegal about most 'black hat' SEO tactics so why would Sequoia care?
Everyone takes the same risk that Google will change their algorithms, black hat SEO just ensures they'll stay at the top rather than artificially limiting the techniques they use to gain ranking to those that Matt Cutts approves of.
Google itself engages in 'black hat' SEO as defined by Matt Cutts which is why his team needed to change the algorithms and/or make them not apply to Google's own properties such as Google Local after the panda update.
I think this is possibly the best indication that black hat SEO works.
Everyone takes the same risk that Google will change their algorithms, black hat SEO just ensures they'll stay at the top rather than artificially limiting the techniques they use to gain ranking to those that Matt Cutts approves of.
Google itself engages in 'black hat' SEO as defined by Matt Cutts which is why his team needed to change the algorithms and/or make them not apply to Google's own properties such as Google Local after the panda update.
I think this is possibly the best indication that black hat SEO works.
The issue is that Google is (or at least appears to be) actively pursuing this type of black hat SEO and trying to remove it from its search results. That's an uncomfortably high risk margin, especially since it seems that this company's business is highly dependent on those search results.
(Certainly, I wouldn't want to invest in a company that relies so heavily on black hat SEO, whether my own or someone else's.)
(Certainly, I wouldn't want to invest in a company that relies so heavily on black hat SEO, whether my own or someone else's.)
I just see it as a business decision. From the outside, a black-hat SEO campaign just looks like a really successful SEO campaign. "Oh, you're ranking for 'cheap dresses' a couple years after you started. Awesome!"
I'm basically helping investors figure out if their investees' rankings are sustainable. Ideally, I'd see a site like Mint (ranking for "money management software" because that's what they're good at) or OKCupid (#1 for "online dating"), rather than Milanoo.
I'm basically helping investors figure out if their investees' rankings are sustainable. Ideally, I'd see a site like Mint (ranking for "money management software" because that's what they're good at) or OKCupid (#1 for "online dating"), rather than Milanoo.
This post makes it sound like it never happens, but I know that a competitor of my company that is VC funded has played around with doing exactly the same thing -- buying links. I'm not sure that VCs even know how to do due diligence on such a thing.
> I'm not sure that VCs even know how to do due diligence on such a thing.
There is a nice consulting gig for someone.
There is a nice consulting gig for someone.
White or black SEO? Where are the lines, nothing wrong about what they are doing. SEO is just what you can get away with. it is that tipping point, some push it to the limit and others don't.
Google doesn't like link-buying, and it's within their rights to weight or punish that however they'd like.
However, the term 'black hat SEO' should be reserved for dishonest/unethical practices – not just those that don't meet one company's preferences.
However, the term 'black hat SEO' should be reserved for dishonest/unethical practices – not just those that don't meet one company's preferences.
Happy to answer any questions from HNers on this.