3 ms·
I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have
by darksaga 15y ago
I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to burying sites like hers for using keyword stuffing and other questionable SEO techniques.
Likewise, I'm surprised Mr. Padrick never contacted Google to have these pages removed either.
Had either Google or Mr. Padrick done their due diligence, I hardly think this case would have gotten as far as it did.
- drinkzima 15y agoGoogle doesn't editorialize. What do you mean allowed?
- MartinCron 15y agoObserving gratuitous link-stuffing and content farming as such isn't editorializing.
- zem 15y agoit's not a questionn of editorialisation; it's whether one person using bad-faith seo tactics can manipulate front-page results like cox did.
- chc 15y agoIt's not entirely clear to me that what she was doing was SEO. I mean, if repetition and overuse of style tags is all that's necessary to be accused of keyword stuffing, we'd have to acknowledge the Time Cube guy as the father of modern SEO. And anyway, it doesn't require a lot of Google love to rank for the query "Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group." That's about as long-tail as it gets.