4 ms·
Btw Matt Cutts' statement "Google's algorithms had started to work; manual action also taken." is weird. (http://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/36502687868665856
by credo 16y ago
Btw Matt Cutts' statement "Google's algorithms had started to work; manual action also taken." is weird.
(http://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/36502687868665856 http://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/36502687868665856)
All evidence indicates that JC Penny was ranked #1 until the NYT provided Google with the evidence that it had collected.
Google then acted on the evidence. As a result of those actions, JC Penny's rank dropped from #1 to #71.
It is funny that he should say "Google's algorithms had started to work". Presumably, the algorithm doesn't depend on a New York Times reporter telling Google that they were being gamed :)
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoI didn't understand that comment either until I read his comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212336 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212336 Algorithmic changes went into play 1.5 weeks ago and had started to drop JCPenny, then the spam team gave them some cement shoes.
- jdp23 16y agoSounds like Google intervened manually as well as doing algorithmic changes. How long till they do the same with Demand Media?
- zone411 16y agoNo, you are wrong about the timeline and what happened when. It is explained pretty clearly in the NYT article: "True, JCPenney.com’s showing in Google searches had declined slightly by Feb. 8, as the algorithm change began to take effect. In "comforter sets," Penney went from No. 1 to No. 7. In "sweater dresses," from No. 1 to No. 10." That happened the day before Google took manual action. BTW, going from #1 to #7 and #10 is not just a "slight decline."