搜尋引擎優化作業出包 JCPenney網站被降級

二月 14, 2011

前幾個月內,有人發現Google的搜尋出現了怪異的現象,輸入「dresses」、「bedding」、「area rugs」這些關鍵字,JCPenney這家公司網站都在第一位,並且不只這些關鍵字,連「skinny jeans」、「home decor」、「comforter sets」、「furniture」、以及一大堆的關鍵字,JCPenney網站都是位居Google第一名,到底怎麼回事呢? JCPenney的搜尋引擎優化作業這麼厲害嗎? 到底發生什麼事情了?

JCPenney是一家總部位於美國德州的百貨連鎖商店,在美國有上千家的商店,算是家戶喻曉的知名百貨公司,但是以上所有的關鍵字都能夠位於第一位,還是有些奇怪,這個網站bluefountainmedia就揭發了其中的秘密,並且在NYTimes上文章"The Dirty Little Secrets of Search“披露了JCPenney的黑帽行為。

當然JCPenney沒有承認是他們的主意,發言人Darcie Brossart說這是SEO顧問的問題,“J. C. Penney did not authorize, and we were not involved with or aware of, the posting of the links that you sent to us, as it is against our natural search policies … We are working to have the links taken down.” 他說JCPenney並沒有授權去進行這些連結作業,並且這些是違反我們的搜尋策略,我們正進行要將這些連結取下。

這個就是 SEO顧問或是SEO公司的悲哀吧,為了使命必達而使出了黑帽作業,結果東窗事發後,JCPenney把責任推得一乾二淨,但是不管是否把責任推出去,JCPenney最後還是得承受最後的責任,就是被Google降級,這一降級以後,不知會損失多少的自然流量?

到底JCPenney網站是使用了什麼手法呢? 讓她們的網站在許多關鍵字都能脫穎而出呢? 當然就是黑帽的連結跟doorway網站了,使用http://www.opensiteexplorer.org的付費版本,就可以看出許多錨點文字的來源,其中可以看到有2015個頁面指向casual dresses、evening dresses、little black dress、cocktail dress這些關鍵字,並且這些網站都不是正常的網站,而是看似廢棄的網站,只有一堆連結,當NYTtimes向Google告知這些事情以後,Google已經針對這些現象加以修正。

而JCPenney的SEO公司SearchDex真的是倒楣透頂了,不知對他們來講是福是禍? 如果他們沒有做得太過火了,如果他們的客戶不要這麼有名的話,也許他們目前還享受著成功的果實呢!

所以從這個故事中,我們可以知道兩件事:  第一件事情是作弊是有效的,但是作弊是可能會被抓出來的。

這件事情傷了JCPenney,也傷了 Google。也許這件事情發生以後,Matt Cutts的Spam Team會更加盯住不合法的搜尋引擎優化作業。

想要在符合搜尋引擎優化合法的作業,又要在數千萬頁的網頁中脫穎而出,真的不是一件簡單的事情啊。

[2011/02/16後記]

為了平衡報導,我們也刊出了JCPenney的聲明,大意就是NYTimes的報導有誤導之嫌,JCPenney並不知情他們所僱用之公司行為,他們認為該事件是競爭對手的中傷行為,他們對於Google的降級感到失望,他們將儘可能的去彌補來恢復自然搜尋排名。

The characterization of JCPenney in the New York Times article is misleading and unwarranted. In particular, JCPenney was in no way involved in the posting of the links discussed in the article. We did not authorize them and we were not aware that they had been posted.  To be clear, we do not tolerate violations of our policies regarding natural search, which reflect Google’s guidelines.

We are one of the nation’s largest retailers, serving half of America’s families. Our website jcp.com was one of the first and largest of its kind and we are committed to best practices in marketing and selling online. Once we learned of these unauthorized web links, we began an immediate investigation into how and by whom those links were posted. We have also terminated our relationship with our natural search marketing firm.

The New York Times failed miserably in neglecting to disclose that it hired a competitor to the search firm working with us and used that competitor firm as the primary source, as well as in its description of our business:

The reason JCPenney outperformed the competition during the holiday season is attributable to having the right merchandise, great price points, a compelling holiday marketing campaign and the best department store customer service.  It’s as simple as that.  It is naïve for the New York Times to suggest that these low-quality web links drove our business.

JCPenney is one of the top 20 brand marketers in the country.  Because JCPenney was one of the first retailers to maximize search engine optimization, we have had a very robust natural and paid search program in place for years.  Couple this with the fact that we are one of America’s largest retailers, and it is clear why JCPenney had held some to the top search rankings in dozens of key word searches for years – long before these unauthorized links appeared.

Our natural search program has never included paid web links, like those described in the article.  It is against our policy, and the fact is, we don’t need to them to build our Google rankings.  We have millions of links from our web partnerships and programs that already gave us link popularity.  These included links from our 1.4 million Facebook fans, who clicked from Facebook to jcp.com; social media and fashion bloggers; our holiday partnerships with Yahoo!, Microsoft, Time Warner, Hearst.  Our links on these sites during the holidays had editorially relevant content and pointed to our product pages.  These links and ones like them are what drove our relevancy rankings on Google, not the unauthorized, low quality links that the New York Times reported on.

We have seen no spike in jcp.com sales from natural search at any time, including during the holiday period in question.

We have no record of ever having received a violation notification from Google before last week when the unauthorized links came to our attention.  If we had, we would have worked quickly to remedy the situation, as we are doing now. Obviously, we are disappointed that Google has reduced our rankings.  Nonetheless, we will continue to work through the appropriate channels to regain our high natural search positions.

JCPenney is one of the most financially sound retailers in the country, so to insinuate that the closing of five underperforming stores, and the discontinuation of some legacy operations that don’t drive meaningful growth for our Company was somehow connected to this issue, is contrary to the facts and a disservice to New York Times readers.

4 留言

於 搜尋引擎優化作業出包 JCPenney網站被降級.
  1. |

    2月初的新聞:
    Experian Hitwise最新報告顯示,Bing搜尋引擎市佔率大幅成長;Hitwise並偵測所謂的搜尋成功率,發現Bing的搜尋成功率為81.54%,大幅超越Google的65.58%。
    再加上這次SPAM的事件,無疑對Google是一重大打擊呀…

  2. NETNEWS
    |

    微軟與雅虎在搜尋引擎上的努力終於開花結果,在市調研究機構Experian Hitwise最新的搜尋市場調查報告指出,Bing搜尋服務在1月的市佔率較去年12月增加6%,總計為27.4%。

    市場研究機構ComScore於去年12月所做的搜尋調查顯示,有69.4%的搜尋結果來自於Google,而有24.4%的搜尋服務是由Bing所提供,這項數據與Experian Hitwise調查報告中的數據非常接近。

    除此之外,Experian Hitwise還表示在搜尋成功率上,Bing及雅虎在1月份可達81%,而Google僅有65%左右。也就是說,當使用者獲得搜尋結果後,從搜尋結果連結至網頁的比例,Bing明顯高過Google。

    當然這些統計數字並非維持不變,不過從這些數字中確實可看到Bing與Google間的消長關係。目前看起來Bing很可能成為Google的潛在威脅,雖然雙方的差距還有30%左右。

敬請留言

你的回應對我們是很重要的. 你的電子郵件將不會被公開.

請等待 ...
*
Loading Facebook Comments ...