Fake Linkbaiting Tactics Punishable by Google
Posted: May 27th, 2008
Link bait is defined in our lexicon as “a method of accumulating a large number of inbound links… through unique sensational editorial content or tools… submitted to social media sites in hopes of building inbound links from other sites.” Its ability to generate a substantial amount of relevant links has caught the attention of many.
Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasing number of black-hat linkbaiting tactics being employed lately. Most notable is a fake story about a 13 year old who stole his father’s credit card to purchase two “escorts” earlier this month. This sensationally false story made the front page of Digg, gathered thousands of links, and was even picked up by various traditional news agencies.
Google’s own Matt Cutts has issued a warning in response to such cases of fraudulent linkbaiting tactics, saying that Google may penalize sites that have “a fake story without any disclosure that the story is [a] hoax.”
Seeing as Matt Cutts is commenting on the issue, linkbaiting via made-up stories and exaggerated claims is/will be seen as a form of spam. So next time you’re approaching shady link bait tactics, note well that Google is aware of such tactics, and that your website may get punished for them.
don’t mess with google
Nice post. Black hat linking is quite harsh, I have had some like “My mother is dieing, click here”, and junk like that, in which I know is false because I know the person who put the site up! It disgusts me how sick people can get just to make a couple bucks.
It’s amazing the different tactics people will employ to increase their inbound links. If you don’t have good content to pull people to your site and for them to talk about your site (so you can build links), then these linkbaiting tactics are pretentiously fake and I can understand why google would crack down on them.
@Pierce:
Thanks, the type of junk you mentioned is definitely crossing the line, and it’s a real shame that some people will stoop to that level.
@Marie:
It’s a never-ending battle between Google and black hats!
Matt Cutts’ say on this fake news item is very straightforward and informative in regard to gaining a better understanding of how Google looks at any black hat tactics, and there is a lengthy list of comments following his blog posting on this incident, within which said comments are any number of opinions both agreeing and disagreeing with whether the writer of the fake news article did something wrong or not.
The article itself, apparently after the fact, so to speak, includes now a disclaimer that it is a piece of parody and not intended to be taken as something that really happened. However, upon reading the article itself, it seems (seemed) to yours truly that it is (was) a pretty good joke. The way it is written makes it seem all the more like the parody it now claims to be. Pretty funny stuff.
Anyway, though, not being any type of SEO or SEM expert in the least, I still wonder whether or not the original article was intended as a black hat tactic to get links back to the writers site of choice or not. Did the writer set this article up via Digg to be linkbait, or did this just somehow happen by being picked up by Digg, perhaps posted by a third entity? Just a thought . . . .
Thanks for the comment, Iago.
I agree that there’s a difference between an article meant as a joke and one that was conceived for black hat purposes, and that this needs to be addressed. Google can easily label April 1st articles/posts as hoaxes, but for the parodies beyond this joking season, it would be best to mention that that your article is just a parody.
There will always be individuals who abuse the system to make a fast buck - to the detriment of their credibility and reputation with their peers.