Boing Boing » seo

RIAA you suck at SEO

Cory Doctorow — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:42:01 +0000

The RIAA says Google doesn't list the sites it likes highly enough on search result pages. Masnick on TechDirt nails 'em to the wall: "For everyone else in the world, if they're not satisfied with how the sites they favor rank in Google, they learn a little something about search engine optimization. But, noooooooo, not the RIAA. They think that it is a requirement that Google be tailored to them directly."

Find the unfortunate typo in this Livestrong "nutrition" article

Xeni Jardin — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 03:50:35 +0000

There are three things very wrong in this article at Livestrong.com, which my friend Meredith Yayanos pointed me to just now via Twitter. One, "nutrition" and "Velveeta" used in the same sentence at a website associated with cancer prevention and treatment. Two, the message in the yellow band—probably something they want to downplay right now, but no-one has gotten around to updating on the site. And the third is the real kicker, but you'll have to read the copy closely to find it.

The Livestrong dot-com site is basically a content farm populated with Turked-out SEO-bait by Demand Media; the dot-org is where the cancer advocacy organization does its thing.

Making sure Pizza Hut is "accurately and effectively represented online"

David Pescovitz — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:50:42 +0000

Hello Mr. Pescovitz,
My name is Alli Berry and I am working with Pizza Hut, making sure that they are accurately and effectively represented online.
I noticed that your article “Pizza Hut Perfume” at http://boingboing.net/2012/12/06/pizza-hut-perfume.html discusses the exclusive Pizza Hut perfume but does not contain a link to the Pizza Hut website. Therefore, I wanted to reach out to you in hopes that you will consider linking to it for the convenience of your readers.
The Pizza Hut home page can be found here: http://www.pizzahut.com
I hope this is helpful and you will consider updating your page accordingly. If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact me at the information below.
Thank you,
Alli
Alli Berry
Performics
On behalf of Pizza Hut
_____________________________
Site Summary:
http://www.pizzahut.com
Pizza Hut delivers more pizza, pasta and wings than any other restaurant. As the world’s largest pizza franchise and a subsidiary of Yum! Brands Inc., Pizza Hut operates nearly 10,000 restaurants in more than 90 countries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
The information in this email and any attachments may contain proprietary and confidential information that is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. When addressed to our clients or vendors, any information contained in this e-mail or any attachments is subject to the terms and conditions in any governing contract. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the e-mail.

Done.

SEO company rep says it's illegal to link to his clients' websites

Cory Doctorow — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:30:19 +0000

An SEO company called Guardlex sent a bizarre legal demand to the Big Pink Cookie blog saying that they represented a client that BPC had linked to, and that this link had damaged its googlejuice, and that this was illegal and that BPC had to cease and desist or face the consequences. The letter was from Jacob Getman, who works in the "Anti Piracy Department" -- implying that linking to a website constitutes "piracy" in the topsy-turvy world of SEO scumbags.

It has come to our attention that your website (or website hosted by your company) contains links to the [name removed] company website (URL removed) which results in material financial loses to the company we represent.
This material financial loss is due to search engine penalties resulting from the links originating under your control...
It is our understanding; the links in question have not been authorized for use by our client, its agents, or the law.
Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed above.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by [removed] company, its agents, or the law.
I further declare under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of the trademark holder and that the information in this letter is accurate.

I'm sad to say that this appears to be the kind of legalcomic dipshittery that will come to define the coming century.

Dear Guardlex, You’re Doing it Wrong…

(Image: Dunce, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from scjn's photostream)

Large collection of default spam-comments from a slimy SEO tool

Cory Doctorow — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:10:46 +0000

I get a ton of spam sent to my personal WordPress site, which is evidently sent using some kind of toolkit for would-be SEO scumbags. The spams use the SEO-target's URL as the sender's web-page, and consist of a bland, usually mildly positive, usually ungrammatical comment.

This morning, I woke up to find that someone who was new to the tool (or unclear on the concept) had left a spam with all of the default comment messages in it, dumping the full database of anodyne comments intended to fool both the spam-filter and the human operator into thinking that the sender had read the post and was replying to it. The comments are necessarily generic, as they are meant to apply to literally any WordPress post on any site, ever. I wonder if the poor grammar and odd phrasing is deliberate, intended to make human moderators less suspicious and to lead them to think that some earnest foreigner is trying desperately to compliment them across the language barrier.

The comments also tend to invite replies, with mild complaints about RSS errors and layout problems. They mention spouses, cousins and friends. All in all, they're a curious collection of spammers' hypotheses about what will appeal to the vanity and goodwill of people who run legitimate WP sites.

I do like the way you have framed this issue and it does supply us a lot of fodder for consideration. On the other hand, because of everything that I have seen, I simply just trust when other opinions stack on that folks continue to be on issue and don't get started upon a tirade regarding some other news du jour. Still, thank you for this fantastic piece and though I do not necessarily concur with the idea in totality, I regard your point of view.
Almost all of the things you mention happens to be astonishingly accurate and it makes me wonder why I had not looked at this with this light before. This particular piece truly did switch the light on for me as far as this specific topic goes. Nevertheless there is actually one particular factor I am not too comfortable with so while I attempt to reconcile that with the actual core theme of your point, permit me see just what the rest of your subscribers have to say.Very well done.
The core of your writing whilst appearing agreeable initially, did not settle very well with me after some time. Someplace within the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer but just for a short while. I however have a problem with your leaps in assumptions and you would do nicely to help fill in those breaks. In the event that you actually can accomplish that, I will undoubtedly be impressed.

WordPress Spam Dump