8 ms·

What to expect in SEO in the coming months [video]

117 points by fryed7 13y ago

halcyondaze 13y ago
Black hatters these days don't really even care about long-term rankings, they're more about exploiting the inadequacies in the algorithm in the first month or so of a site's live. Build it, rank it, bank cash, and burn it out. That's the modus operandi right now...I don't see this update changing much of that. It's going to be great for those of us building out quality sites though!
- austenallred 13y ago
  Exactly. If you really want to know what black-hatters do and how they get around Google's filters, here it is: 1. Buy a ton of domains 2. Put up picture-based landing pages on those domains. The user only really sees pictures. 3. Put up or spin content with relevant keywords, put it underneath the images. Google only sees a couple pictures (it doesn't know what they are) and a bunch of really relevant content. 4. Build a shiz-ton of links. This is where black hatters really make their money. I usually build about 125,000 links/day from completely legit sites, and to Google it pretty much looks like it's going viral. If you know where to get the links, know how to generate the content, and can make them seem human, Google has a really hard time finding you. 5. Link the landing pages to your money site using affiliate links. 6. Wait until your site gets manually reviewed and pulled down. So any somewhat decent black-hatter will have hundreds of sites in the works at any given time. The worry of taking a site down isn't a big one, even though if you take down one site a black-hatter's traffic could drop 3,000 visits/day. The sites I work on usually remain up for an average of 6 months at a time, and the only way for them to be caught is a manual review. Some only stay up for a couple weeks, but some stay up for years. There have been times when landing pages are getting a couple thousand visits a day but I haven't had time to go back through and redirect the traffic to the money site or update them from the generic landing page. Since all of the actions taken mimic closely enough what humans would do, it's really difficult to be caught by webspam teams.
  - necubi 13y ago
    While I appreciate you sharing this, I'm shocked that you would do it from your real account. Don't you feel any shame for your actions?
    - austenallred 13y ago
      Eh, a little bit. I'm not in the black-hat world anymore, and I'm pretty sick of people pretending like they're magicians or rocket scientists because they can rank something. Google has a system, you beat the system, that's it. In my mind it's really difficult to differentiate between what most people call "white-hat" SEO and what I used to do ("black-hat"). White hat SEO (which is basically posting links in forums, blog comments, etc.) is trying to manipulate Google's search engine manually, black-hat is automating it and doing it at scale.
      - Uchikoma 13y ago
        Amen.
      - marchra 13y ago
        Outstanding differentiation between manual blog post circlejerking and automation. They're really one and the same. Isn't Google Plus pretty much only used by SEOs?
      - a5seo 13y ago
        Eh, I disagree with your definition of "white hat SEO". White hat is about earning links. A arms length third party has to give you a link for it to count. That means it has a lot more to do with Public Relations than Page Rank. If you drop a link yourself in a forum or blog comment, that's fundamentally NOT white hat. That's just non-automated black hat. That's also been below Google's radar. This is the fundamental problem with SEO... People like you and me who are arguably 'experts' disagree about these definitions. Ignorant clients hear "forums links are white hat" and reasonably extrapolate that "automated forum links are just scalable white hat SEO." And then they get into trouble. I've seen it happen at some very well-funded startups. The marketing team looks like geniuses... for a while. Until they get nailed, then they claim they were tricked by a black hat SEO firm.
- damoncali 13y ago
  Black hatters these days don't really even care about long-term rankings Is that not because Google has successfully eliminated the long term viability of the tactics? Sitting on the sideline (sort of) it looks to be easier and easier to get rankings the "right" way and harder and harder to get them the "wrong" way.
  - dchuk 13y ago
    It's a little bit less clear cut than getting rankings the right way or wrong way. I personally know many churn and burn blackhatters, and the eventual demise of their domains is just part of their business model. Google has never been good at handling short term black hat spam (buy viagra is the colloquial example always). They are good at filtering sites out after they've been ranked for a while though. But when these blackhatters are making tens of thousands of dollars a day with their short term rankings, it's hard to convince them that they need to be focusing on the long term rankings avenue...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bmac27 13y ago
Nothing too interesting IMO except the increased advertorial crackdown, although I'm skeptical as to how much of that they'll be able to detect. (Ironically, I'm seeing more & more of these in A/B level tech blogs)
- ZanderEarth32 13y ago
  I'm guessing their ability to identify a paid advertorial is going to come down to educated guesses. With their failure to identify sites using other blatant spamming and black hat tactics, I don't have much faith that they will be able to get this right. Unfortunately, the result will be a lot of sites playing within the rules getting unfairly penalized, just like Panda and Penguin.
jgmmo 13y ago
Wow, supposed to be much more comprehensive then the first penguin update. This may be a game changer for some.
blackdogie 13y ago
Skip to the 3 minute mark. The problem with these spam signals, like comment SPAM, it's very hard to know if they are from the target of the links, or from some other person trying to damage your reputation online and hoping you get penalised. Google doesn't see the IPs / email addresses that submit these comments. So it's impossible to know if they are legitimate or not when it comes to who has created them.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- theseanstewart 13y ago
  This is my biggest problem with Penguin. No website controls who links to them. Google should do a better job at discounting/ignoring spammy links, rather than penalize a website with spammy links. It's essentially the same thing, though one is easier to come back from.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > No website controls who links to them This is clearly nonsense when some webmasters were buying thousands of links.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      OK, but we can probably say, "many websites have not prevented unsavory inbound links". How can these sites be helped? Do they need to "referer-bomb" (e.g. how some photo sites that didn't favor image embedding used to serve goatse to unrecognized referers) these links to a "don't count this link" document? Could Google propose a standard semantics for such a document?
nulluk 13y ago
If matt says it's more substantial than penguin 1.0 then its going to have a big ripple effect, the last penguin update effected more than 10%+ of SERPS. If your worried about this update then you haven't being doing "SEO" right.
- AznHisoka 13y ago
  There was a lot of collateral damage done to innocent sites during both Panda and Penguin. I think there's good reason for everybody who relies on Google traffic to worry a bit.
  - nulluk 13y ago
    I understand it's all algorithmic and there will be some truly innocent collateral damage involved but Google wouldn't be pushing this out if they didn't feel the overall quality of search would increase. Most of the collateral damage is going to be people straddling the grey hat line and rightly so in my own opinion.
    - AznHisoka 13y ago
      I don't disagree, but look at it from the perspective of the small business owner that gets 80% of their revenue from Google traffic. Even if they were one of the few unlucky ones, their livelihood is lost.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Look at it from the perspective of the small business owner who currently has next to no revenue from Google traffic, because their genuinely useful or relevant site is drowned out by spam.
        OGinparadise 13y ago
        That makes sense, if virtually every update didn't promote the likes of Amazon, eBay, and Google properties. Small businesses are toast and getting toaster by the update
swinnipeg 13y ago
Hacked sites are a dominant strategy is many markets right now. Perp will Hack N sites, cloak them so only the googlebot sees the hacks, and use those links to drive rankings of a site in a highly liquid market place (Pharma, gambling, payday, insurance). When google can't devalue hacked/cloaked links well, I expect much collateral damage with Penguin (since it has primarily been focused on low value links). It won't be a precision attack on webspam.
- nwh 13y ago
  Surely Google could crawl back with a "user" in a new IP range to detect and ban this sort of behaviour. I was under the impression that they did this to some degree anyway.
wyck 13y ago
Im glad to see the clustering is being looked into, there is nothing worse than searching for something and seeing 15 links in a row from the same domain ( like tripadvisor or other large content heavy sites).
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  Google knows about this and supposedly fixed that. But clustering reduces choices, increasing ad clicks and forcing companies to advertise (because they are not receiving that traffic.) (Downvote if you will but I doubt Google's intentions these days and their earnings are through the roof, even as PPC goes down.)
  - wyck 13y ago
    Google's value will always be search > PPC. Clustering reduces the diversity of the internet in general and this is a much larger negative for Google imo.
    - OGinparadise 13y ago
      and this is a much larger negative for Google imo. Eventually. Doesn't mean that Google isn't doing it believing they're controlling the negative effects or doing it "just a bit" this time and a bit more that quarter. Diversity on Google is largely gone on transactional search, big brands rule both the ads and organic search. This is responsible, IMO, for Google at almost $900/share but will eventually ruin Google. They got too greedy and people will eventually bypass them and go directly to the brands Google promoted for short term cash.
- instakill 13y ago
  I agree, with one exception: StackOverflow.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    At some point we could probably start searching stackexchange directly rather than relying on google to return stackexchange links. Their internal search is really quite good.
programminggeek 13y ago
I think the biggest problem that Google can't fix is that they treat links as a voting mechanism, and that voting mechanism has value. So, there is a big economic incentive to "buy votes" by buying links. As long as there is a financial incentive to ranking well in google and that the mechanism to rank better is to get links, people with money will buy links in the same way they buy influence in the media, politics, etc.
- brokentone 13y ago
  There will always be something to buy (Yelp: http://www.buyyelpreview.com/ http://www.buyyelpreview.com/ YouTube: http://www.ytview.com/ http://www.ytview.com/, via a quick Google search). Overall it links are a very successful metric (the pagerank algorithm changed the search game), but it's more about the sophistication of the engine to detect and demote abuses.
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  Google punishes people that buy links, just like our government punishes people that buy votes. That sets up an incentive to not do it. I would say, this problem is not in the "can't fix" category. Just like in real politics, Google must tread carefully. You can't arrest the president because someone bought votes on his behalf, just like Google can't nuke a site because it has purchased links.
  - BrianEatWorld 13y ago
    Extending that analogy though, the government can punish people buying votes, but that doesn't stop the billion dollar lobbying industry from shaping public policy. The incentive doesn't disappear, as there is a great deal to be gained by being bumped up search results. They raise the costs or circumventing the system, but that just means people look elsewhere. Its an arms race.
  - charliepinglass 13y ago
    Except Google does nuke sites all the time for buying links...
- 13y ago
tlogan 13y ago
This negative SEO is huge problem now and I'm concern about it. What some bloggers are now doing is buying links to destroy competition. They don't even need to "order" black hat. They just go to fivver and order some of "panda optimized" gigs for $5 (these gigs just hurt - they dont help). And whola.... competition is toasted... I hope this is going to be fixed somehow. EDIT: Also is this is just an "urban legend" or real problem?
- moultano 13y ago
  Do you have some examples?
  - tlogan 13y ago
    No - but I heard people talking about that. Is this even possible?
    - jaredmck 13y ago
      I've not seen convincing evidence that negative seo works, besides a few sites where they were already super open to being penalized upon any review, or small sites without much seo holding up their few rankings. It's not likely to return much if other competition exists and could cost a lot to bump one of your competitors for a month maybe two?
- nostromo 13y ago
  It's hard to know if it's a real problem because when people are caught, it's hard to know if they're lying about how a competitor did it to screw them over. Anyway, here's what someone should do: Buy a bunch of spam links on fivver for keyword "matt cutts" and point it to his domain www.mattcutts.com. (He's one of the few people on Earth with plausible deniability regarding Google manipulation.) If you successfully remove his domain from spot one on Google, this is potentially a real problem.
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    His name probably has immunity, just as most large brands do. Small/er sites are fried. Deep fried.
znowi 13y ago
I hope SEO can be expected to go extinct in the coming whatever and be replaced with "good content" approach. It is unfortunate that Google even addresses the shady SEO community boosting their might and glory.
- dchuk 13y ago
  Writing "good content" that you intentionally craft in a way to get optimal traffic from search engines is inherently search engine optimization, so no, SEO won't ever go away as long as there are still search engines. There is this movement lately to call it "content marketing" instead of just SEO, but really, content marketing is simply an SEO technique.
arbuge 13y ago
Not to be too dramatic about this, but I basically feel that the moment it became possible to negative SEO a competitor for ~$5 via services like fiverr et al is the moment that will be remembered as the end of Google as a dominant search engine, or at least the end of a Pagerank-centric algorithm for its search.
- joonix 13y ago
  What do you propose as an alternative system?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  You don't understand. Google has made huge sites immune to this, and small sites that suffer are labeled as "spam, low quality and shallow" sites by Matt Cutts & Co. Until recently Google was winning the propaganda war, now not so sure. On web forums people are openly talking about search manipulation to increase advertising via Adwords and ad clicks. http://searchengineland.com/google-matt-cutts-penguin-update-158980 http://searchengineland.com/google-matt-cutts-penguin-update...

117 points by fryed7 13y ago

Black hatters these days don't really even care about long-term rankings, they're more about exploiting the inadequacies in the algorithm in the first month or so of a site's live. Build it, rank it, bank cash, and burn it out. That's the modus operandi right now...I don't see this update changing much of that. It's going to be great for those of us building out quality sites though!

austenallred 13y ago
Exactly. If you really want to know what black-hatters do and how they get around Google's filters, here it is: 1. Buy a ton of domains 2. Put up picture-based landing pages on those domains. The user only really sees pictures. 3. Put up or spin content with relevant keywords, put it underneath the images. Google only sees a couple pictures (it doesn't know what they are) and a bunch of really relevant content. 4. Build a shiz-ton of links. This is where black hatters really make their money. I usually build about 125,000 links/day from completely legit sites, and to Google it pretty much looks like it's going viral. If you know where to get the links, know how to generate the content, and can make them seem human, Google has a really hard time finding you. 5. Link the landing pages to your money site using affiliate links. 6. Wait until your site gets manually reviewed and pulled down. So any somewhat decent black-hatter will have hundreds of sites in the works at any given time. The worry of taking a site down isn't a big one, even though if you take down one site a black-hatter's traffic could drop 3,000 visits/day. The sites I work on usually remain up for an average of 6 months at a time, and the only way for them to be caught is a manual review. Some only stay up for a couple weeks, but some stay up for years. There have been times when landing pages are getting a couple thousand visits a day but I haven't had time to go back through and redirect the traffic to the money site or update them from the generic landing page. Since all of the actions taken mimic closely enough what humans would do, it's really difficult to be caught by webspam teams.
- necubi 13y ago
  While I appreciate you sharing this, I'm shocked that you would do it from your real account. Don't you feel any shame for your actions?
  - austenallred 13y ago
    Eh, a little bit. I'm not in the black-hat world anymore, and I'm pretty sick of people pretending like they're magicians or rocket scientists because they can rank something. Google has a system, you beat the system, that's it. In my mind it's really difficult to differentiate between what most people call "white-hat" SEO and what I used to do ("black-hat"). White hat SEO (which is basically posting links in forums, blog comments, etc.) is trying to manipulate Google's search engine manually, black-hat is automating it and doing it at scale.
    - Uchikoma 13y ago
      Amen.
    - marchra 13y ago
      Outstanding differentiation between manual blog post circlejerking and automation. They're really one and the same. Isn't Google Plus pretty much only used by SEOs?
    - a5seo 13y ago
      Eh, I disagree with your definition of "white hat SEO". White hat is about earning links. A arms length third party has to give you a link for it to count. That means it has a lot more to do with Public Relations than Page Rank. If you drop a link yourself in a forum or blog comment, that's fundamentally NOT white hat. That's just non-automated black hat. That's also been below Google's radar. This is the fundamental problem with SEO... People like you and me who are arguably 'experts' disagree about these definitions. Ignorant clients hear "forums links are white hat" and reasonably extrapolate that "automated forum links are just scalable white hat SEO." And then they get into trouble. I've seen it happen at some very well-funded startups. The marketing team looks like geniuses... for a while. Until they get nailed, then they claim they were tricked by a black hat SEO firm.
damoncali 13y ago
Black hatters these days don't really even care about long-term rankings Is that not because Google has successfully eliminated the long term viability of the tactics? Sitting on the sideline (sort of) it looks to be easier and easier to get rankings the "right" way and harder and harder to get them the "wrong" way.
- dchuk 13y ago
  It's a little bit less clear cut than getting rankings the right way or wrong way. I personally know many churn and burn blackhatters, and the eventual demise of their domains is just part of their business model. Google has never been good at handling short term black hat spam (buy viagra is the colloquial example always). They are good at filtering sites out after they've been ranked for a while though. But when these blackhatters are making tens of thousands of dollars a day with their short term rankings, it's hard to convince them that they need to be focusing on the long term rankings avenue...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bmac27 13y ago

Nothing too interesting IMO except the increased advertorial crackdown, although I'm skeptical as to how much of that they'll be able to detect. (Ironically, I'm seeing more & more of these in A/B level tech blogs)

ZanderEarth32 13y ago
I'm guessing their ability to identify a paid advertorial is going to come down to educated guesses. With their failure to identify sites using other blatant spamming and black hat tactics, I don't have much faith that they will be able to get this right. Unfortunately, the result will be a lot of sites playing within the rules getting unfairly penalized, just like Panda and Penguin.

jgmmo 13y ago

Wow, supposed to be much more comprehensive then the first penguin update. This may be a game changer for some.

blackdogie 13y ago

Skip to the 3 minute mark. The problem with these spam signals, like comment SPAM, it's very hard to know if they are from the target of the links, or from some other person trying to damage your reputation online and hoping you get penalised. Google doesn't see the IPs / email addresses that submit these comments. So it's impossible to know if they are legitimate or not when it comes to who has created them.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
theseanstewart 13y ago
This is my biggest problem with Penguin. No website controls who links to them. Google should do a better job at discounting/ignoring spammy links, rather than penalize a website with spammy links. It's essentially the same thing, though one is easier to come back from.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > No website controls who links to them This is clearly nonsense when some webmasters were buying thousands of links.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    OK, but we can probably say, "many websites have not prevented unsavory inbound links". How can these sites be helped? Do they need to "referer-bomb" (e.g. how some photo sites that didn't favor image embedding used to serve goatse to unrecognized referers) these links to a "don't count this link" document? Could Google propose a standard semantics for such a document?

nulluk 13y ago

If matt says it's more substantial than penguin 1.0 then its going to have a big ripple effect, the last penguin update effected more than 10%+ of SERPS. If your worried about this update then you haven't being doing "SEO" right.

AznHisoka 13y ago
There was a lot of collateral damage done to innocent sites during both Panda and Penguin. I think there's good reason for everybody who relies on Google traffic to worry a bit.
- nulluk 13y ago
  I understand it's all algorithmic and there will be some truly innocent collateral damage involved but Google wouldn't be pushing this out if they didn't feel the overall quality of search would increase. Most of the collateral damage is going to be people straddling the grey hat line and rightly so in my own opinion.
  - AznHisoka 13y ago
    I don't disagree, but look at it from the perspective of the small business owner that gets 80% of their revenue from Google traffic. Even if they were one of the few unlucky ones, their livelihood is lost.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Look at it from the perspective of the small business owner who currently has next to no revenue from Google traffic, because their genuinely useful or relevant site is drowned out by spam.
      - OGinparadise 13y ago
        That makes sense, if virtually every update didn't promote the likes of Amazon, eBay, and Google properties. Small businesses are toast and getting toaster by the update

swinnipeg 13y ago

Hacked sites are a dominant strategy is many markets right now. Perp will Hack N sites, cloak them so only the googlebot sees the hacks, and use those links to drive rankings of a site in a highly liquid market place (Pharma, gambling, payday, insurance). When google can't devalue hacked/cloaked links well, I expect much collateral damage with Penguin (since it has primarily been focused on low value links). It won't be a precision attack on webspam.

nwh 13y ago
Surely Google could crawl back with a "user" in a new IP range to detect and ban this sort of behaviour. I was under the impression that they did this to some degree anyway.

wyck 13y ago

Im glad to see the clustering is being looked into, there is nothing worse than searching for something and seeing 15 links in a row from the same domain ( like tripadvisor or other large content heavy sites).

OGinparadise 13y ago
Google knows about this and supposedly fixed that. But clustering reduces choices, increasing ad clicks and forcing companies to advertise (because they are not receiving that traffic.) (Downvote if you will but I doubt Google's intentions these days and their earnings are through the roof, even as PPC goes down.)
- wyck 13y ago
  Google's value will always be search > PPC. Clustering reduces the diversity of the internet in general and this is a much larger negative for Google imo.
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    and this is a much larger negative for Google imo. Eventually. Doesn't mean that Google isn't doing it believing they're controlling the negative effects or doing it "just a bit" this time and a bit more that quarter. Diversity on Google is largely gone on transactional search, big brands rule both the ads and organic search. This is responsible, IMO, for Google at almost $900/share but will eventually ruin Google. They got too greedy and people will eventually bypass them and go directly to the brands Google promoted for short term cash.
instakill 13y ago
I agree, with one exception: StackOverflow.
- notatoad 13y ago
  At some point we could probably start searching stackexchange directly rather than relying on google to return stackexchange links. Their internal search is really quite good.

programminggeek 13y ago

I think the biggest problem that Google can't fix is that they treat links as a voting mechanism, and that voting mechanism has value. So, there is a big economic incentive to "buy votes" by buying links. As long as there is a financial incentive to ranking well in google and that the mechanism to rank better is to get links, people with money will buy links in the same way they buy influence in the media, politics, etc.

brokentone 13y ago
There will always be something to buy (Yelp: http://www.buyyelpreview.com/ http://www.buyyelpreview.com/ YouTube: http://www.ytview.com/ http://www.ytview.com/, via a quick Google search). Overall it links are a very successful metric (the pagerank algorithm changed the search game), but it's more about the sophistication of the engine to detect and demote abuses.
jcampbell1 13y ago
Google punishes people that buy links, just like our government punishes people that buy votes. That sets up an incentive to not do it. I would say, this problem is not in the "can't fix" category. Just like in real politics, Google must tread carefully. You can't arrest the president because someone bought votes on his behalf, just like Google can't nuke a site because it has purchased links.
- BrianEatWorld 13y ago
  Extending that analogy though, the government can punish people buying votes, but that doesn't stop the billion dollar lobbying industry from shaping public policy. The incentive doesn't disappear, as there is a great deal to be gained by being bumped up search results. They raise the costs or circumventing the system, but that just means people look elsewhere. Its an arms race.
- charliepinglass 13y ago
  Except Google does nuke sites all the time for buying links...
13y ago

tlogan 13y ago

This negative SEO is huge problem now and I'm concern about it. What some bloggers are now doing is buying links to destroy competition. They don't even need to "order" black hat. They just go to fivver and order some of "panda optimized" gigs for $5 (these gigs just hurt - they dont help). And whola.... competition is toasted... I hope this is going to be fixed somehow. EDIT: Also is this is just an "urban legend" or real problem?

moultano 13y ago
Do you have some examples?
- tlogan 13y ago
  No - but I heard people talking about that. Is this even possible?
  - jaredmck 13y ago
    I've not seen convincing evidence that negative seo works, besides a few sites where they were already super open to being penalized upon any review, or small sites without much seo holding up their few rankings. It's not likely to return much if other competition exists and could cost a lot to bump one of your competitors for a month maybe two?
nostromo 13y ago
It's hard to know if it's a real problem because when people are caught, it's hard to know if they're lying about how a competitor did it to screw them over. Anyway, here's what someone should do: Buy a bunch of spam links on fivver for keyword "matt cutts" and point it to his domain www.mattcutts.com. (He's one of the few people on Earth with plausible deniability regarding Google manipulation.) If you successfully remove his domain from spot one on Google, this is potentially a real problem.
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  His name probably has immunity, just as most large brands do. Small/er sites are fried. Deep fried.

znowi 13y ago

I hope SEO can be expected to go extinct in the coming whatever and be replaced with "good content" approach. It is unfortunate that Google even addresses the shady SEO community boosting their might and glory.

dchuk 13y ago
Writing "good content" that you intentionally craft in a way to get optimal traffic from search engines is inherently search engine optimization, so no, SEO won't ever go away as long as there are still search engines. There is this movement lately to call it "content marketing" instead of just SEO, but really, content marketing is simply an SEO technique.

arbuge 13y ago

Not to be too dramatic about this, but I basically feel that the moment it became possible to negative SEO a competitor for ~$5 via services like fiverr et al is the moment that will be remembered as the end of Google as a dominant search engine, or at least the end of a Pagerank-centric algorithm for its search.

joonix 13y ago
What do you propose as an alternative system?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
OGinparadise 13y ago
You don't understand. Google has made huge sites immune to this, and small sites that suffer are labeled as "spam, low quality and shallow" sites by Matt Cutts & Co. Until recently Google was winning the propaganda war, now not so sure. On web forums people are openly talking about search manipulation to increase advertising via Adwords and ad clicks. http://searchengineland.com/google-matt-cutts-penguin-update-158980 http://searchengineland.com/google-matt-cutts-penguin-update...