In light of the Interflora advertorials debacle where do you think bloggers stand with regard to product reviews?
-
I realise the main blame fell on the newspapers for what was essentially cash for links, but a separate part of the PR push was sending flowers to bloggers who then blogged about it.
I can see that this could be construed by Google to be a breach of their t&cs, but equally it could be a legitimate action by the blogger if they are giving an honest viewpoint.
Is the Google Chrome "satchel" ad being unintentionally misleading?
If it's all down to the intention that's a worryingly grey area to be stuck in, what do you think?
-
I thought it was a nice public slap on the wrist without severely damaging a brand that probably should be on page one. It got the message out loud and clear and I would imagine that the papers are going to be much more careful.
You're right with regard to the error, but it's not the first time that the Chrome marketing team may have made an error with how they went about their business. To someone with a traditional marketing background I'm sure it seemed very innocuous, which was largely the problem with interflora anyway I suppose.
-
Tompt
To me, it is rather interesting the way that the satchel ad and several link gaining "methodologies" similar to it have worked while others do not. The beauty of an algorithm is in its lack of ability to measure intent.
Marie makes a great point with Brand as anchor text vs. keyword, but in the case of a more known company, a brand could be a keyword. At what point does a company become too large or well-known or well-branded for such tactics to become schemes versus methods? Also, if interflora was Interflora Flowers or Interflora Flower Delivery, does it revert to method or remain scheme?
I thought the Search Engine Land piece wherein they question at what point a penalty is a mere "show" of penalizing, further elucidated the problems that Google faces while trying to in some way keep it clean or level or whatever. Matt McGee added: (My italics for emphasis)
**In this Interflora case, Google’s timing has been particularly benevolent: The penalty took effect about a week after Valentine’s Day, and has now begun to be lifted one week before the UK celebrates Mother’s Day. Those are two of the most popular flower-buying holidays of the year — second and third in the US, according to AboutFlowers.com, and likely similar in the UK. **
So, was Google being strict or lenient? If it had been Robert's on time flower delivery, would I have gotten back so fast? Would I have been penalized given I was much smaller?
Great questions, but at the end of the day what is troubling is this miss IMO by Google: With the satchels, The Cambridge Satchel Co. uses a common method to "get the word out" via Google Chrome. Google brags about the success they helped Cambridge Satchel achieve. So, did no one at Google notice the conflict of interest?
Best, good question and good answer by Marie,
Robert
-
I think we need to be realistic about how enforceable this is and why Interflora got caught.
It would be extremely difficult for an automatic review/algorithm to be able to detect a review/blog post that may have involved a giveaway or a payment (ie a paid guest post).
The only reason why this was flagged and made an example of was because, after conducting a manual review likely triggered by the advertorial/thousands of exact match anchor texts on crappy link-farms, the Googler reviewing determined that they looked unnatural.
And they looked unnatural because each blogger's review linked to the site with targeted anchor text.
It's explicitly in Google's TOS, yes, but I'm willing to bet the house in saying that there's no way this would have been detected if it wasn't for a manual review, which was also triggered by something else.
Not saying we should all be doing it, by any means. But we should be realistic about how Google is going to be able to detect these paid reviews/guest posts en masse.
-
If it's as explicit as "if I send you something I require a link back" I can see that it completely breaches guidelines, but if it's sent out without that requirement, for genuine review I think you're in much murkier territory.
Should they be denied the option of linking because they received the product?
I'm just interested in the discussion, I know there are plenty of product review bloggers out there (across the whole white\grey\black spectrum) who are now wondering where they stand. From what limited contact I've had with them, many of the more hobbiest bloggers had little or no idea about nofollow anyway.
Much of the PC games industry is fuelled by review copies, and there are some truly sinful strongarm tactics going on for positive reviews over and above any links. Is cracking down on stuff like this even enforcable?
-
The quality guidelines are pretty clear that it is not acceptable to give free product in exchange for a link that carries PageRank.
People are upset with the chrome satchel ad because it shows someone who creates a product (satchels) and then in the ad sends it to well known bloggers. But nowhere in that ad does it say that she sent it in exchange for a link. I think that the main idea of the ad showing her sending the product to a blogger was to get exposure for her product. To stay within the guidelines this would be in the form of a no-followed link. The ad goes on to show that Elle Magazine heard about the great product and asked if she could make one for them.
The whole point of the quality guidelines in regards to "link schemes" is that you should not be able to self manufacture links. The reasons why links work to boost a site's rankings is because they are a vote for the quality of the site. Bought votes don't mean that the site's quality is any better than another site.
Do I agree? No. I think that those bloggers wouldn't post a link if they didn't like the product. (Well, most of them.) So I think this should be acceptable. But what I think doesn't matter.
If you've already exchanged product for links I wouldn't get too worried about it unless those links make up a large portion of your link profile. But, I think that Google is trying to cut down on any forms of link building in which you create your own link, so personally I would not use this tactic.
EDIT: I just checked out the Cambridge Satchel backlink profile and they sure do have a lot of FOLLOWED links from blogs who reviewed their profile. Perhaps the reason why this is allowed is because the links are branded as opposed to a keyword?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
SEO for international bloggers
Hi I'm brand new to SEO stuff, and I'm trying to monetize my blog. I have a Q from you about optimizing my blog for an international audience. So I thought where is better to ask my question 🙂 My q is: Does the country that you are living in and publishing your post affect your SEO if you blog in English? For instance, if I live in turkey, but I publish my whole posts in English, will Google hesitate to show my content to an English audience? In other words, Does the publishing source country make it harder to contest with native English bloggers for google's page 1? Thanks in advance for your attention
Content Development | | Nilss4 -
How important is content production in the online store of gas coolers?
HiI am the manager of a store site in the field of online air conditioning store at a novinmarket.com address Not much content can be produced for the air conditioner Is it important to produce content on store sites as well?
Content Development | | sarairan0 -
Duplicate product description on the same page
Hello, I've got a really simple a basic question : is it an issue to put an excerpt of a text at the begining of a page, with a "jump to full text" link at the end of the excerpt ? So the first part of the text will be duplicated. A solution would be to hide a part of the text and reveal it with a "read more" button, but we don't want to do that, we want users to be able to read the full text just by scrolling + we want to put an excerpt "above-the-fold" content It's a product page. A second question : we've got duplicate content between our brand category pages, and the related product page, because the presentation text of the brand is shown on the product page + on the brand category page (it's presentations of distilleries, so it's a valuable content for the customer, we want to show it directly on the product page). Do you think it's a big issue ? Or maybe we can think : "ok, there is plenty of other text on those pages, so it won't matter" ?
Content Development | | Colage1 -
One story stands out for not getting indexed?
We have all our stories published today ( 20-Jun-2013 ) got indexed by google except this ( http://coed.com/2013/06/20/heres-a-video-of-kate-upton-topless-on-a-horse/ ). Do anyone out there have any clue about that? Thanks in advance
Content Development | | COEDMediaGroup0 -
Matt Cutts on Advertorials on May 29th
Just saw this video in which Matt Cutts talks about "Advertorials" on the net as apposed to "Editorials" (Content where one is paid, the other is not) Thought there was some interesting points in the video, but as obvious as it gets Google is cracking down on this HARD! You can see it and smell it 🙂 Google News joined the bandwagon as well Matt Says @ 45 Seconds "but it basically means that someone gave you some money rather than you writing about this actually because you thought it was interesting or because you wanted to" I pay writers to write for me, do they like what they are writing about? No. They do it because I pay them, but they write very well and provide great content that gets shared naturally and socially (soturally - I just made up a new word :)). Anyways yes I may place links in those articles that point to other sites, but nothing in the aspect of paid advertising. Just that it relates to the content. I'm just curious how far the rabbit hole goes on this one...
Content Development | | cbielich0 -
Spam reviews
We would like to see any tips or experience with filtering out spam reviews. We operate a website where consumers can post their reviews on / experience with certain companies. We do receive a fair share of fake reviews (the "to good be true reviews" about certain companies and also sometimes negative review about their competitors).We filter these as good as we can. For some companies, we receive a large number of reviews which individually seem to be ok (text-wise but also when checking IP addresses and e-mail addresses), but if you read all these reviews in sequence then there is something off, i.e. they seem to lack the linguistic variance that is normally present in consumer written reviews. We feel someone is trying to manipulate here but this someone is covering his tracks. Do you have experience in this regard or can you provide us with additional data points to look at?
Content Development | | NewBuilder0 -
Why does Magento Admin show 39,000 records (database only has 5000 products)
Can anyone please help me understand why my Magento admin shows over 39,000 records but i only have 5,000 products on my site? I am really struggling with trying to figure out how this happened. thanks
Content Development | | Prime850 -
Will using online forum reviews create duplicate content issue?
We are looking at having a text box of 'What customers say' on our product pages using reviews written about us online to remain factual and wanted to know if this will create duplicate content issues? Thanks in advance.
Content Development | | jannkuzel0