Comments on: New York Times Spamming Google Results

By: K D Mains

K D Mains — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:16:56 +0000

King of content indeed

I just remembered a fifth “SPAM”

A can/tin of um

By: K D Mains

K D Mains — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:11:06 +0000

No 2 for sex

I reckon I could conquer that if I felt inclined to do so!

And the reason for that is because I am the sexiest seo and seo writer in the world

ampsa spama or a spammer

None of the above

I think spam is either one of four defined things

1. Unsolicted email
2. unsolicted snail mail
3. posters on forums who do not participate after they post
4. misleading content

By: Pramod

Pramod — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:24:21 +0000

While at one hand, it can be termed as a Good SEO, the fact is NYT is simply capitalising on the legacy archival content that they have stored so well. And it is simply beacause of the sheer depth of content that media and news sites are propping up at every result. But one question raised in this forum is really relevant….what do small timers do? NYT can survive because of its size…what about other small media companies who have great content but not much money like NYT.

By: John Andrews

John Andrews — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:17:13 +0000

I would not call this “spamming” and I would call it good SEO. They have archives like no one else. They are using them to draw traffic. Google says it wants to organize the world’s information, so it seems the NYT is complying and making it available. Good SEO. Last I checked it was Google’s job to organize the information, and Google was raking in billions for their efforts.

I totally agree with the comment on About.com. But again, Google’s the one showing all those About pages as “most relevant”.

By: seo

seo — Thu, 17 May 2007 05:41:04 +0000

Any bets nytimes.com doesn’t get banned? Wonder how long before your butt would be out of the index for a similar play if you weren’t fortune 500?

By: Motorcycle Guy

Motorcycle Guy — Tue, 15 May 2007 01:11:40 +0000

That guy must be a genius at SEO. If there were one domain I would exclude from my own google results it would be about.com. I hate when I don’t pay attention to the domain and accidentally go to about, half the time it is completely useless content, but I see it about 40% of the time I make a search.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 10 May 2007 00:34:31 +0000

I don’t think this is malicious that they had their search pages indexed. However, now that you pointed out the problem, I would hope NYT would remedy the situation and not exploit it.

By: Gerard McGarry

Gerard McGarry — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:20:15 +0000

Am I the only person who’s slightly worried about massive content providers ranking so highly for such basic search terms? Everywhere we look these days, YouTube, Wikipedia and all the rest are dominating the SERPs, leaving little room for everyone else.

And with every clueless moron in the blogosphere insisting on linking to mainstream press sites, that only increases their PageRank and competitive position.

Very worrisome for the smaller search marketer!

By: Ryan Lash

Ryan Lash — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:57:15 +0000

Maybe Mr. Simmonds is actually Kaiser Soze.

PFFFT…and like that the NYTimes were gone from the SERPs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-21%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=sex&btnG=Search

By: John

John — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:48:20 +0000

Marshall Simmonds is the head SEO for the NYTimes: http://searchenginestrategies.com/sew/winter06/simmonds.html

I actually attended his big in-house SEO session at SES NY a few weeks ago. He didn’t share this strategy with the audience…