If you take any interest in Sphinn and the debates that rage therein, you properly noticed last week's uproar over linkbait specialist Lyndon Antcliff's fake story that ended up being mentioned on Fox News. We've dabbled in a fair few linkbait projects over the years and since the Sphinn discussion was still alive just two days ago, I don't think it's too late to mention it again.
Those of you who were optimising your websites and not reading the 92-comment long thread at Sphinn (I did contribute, twice) might have missed the article in question. Titled "13 Year Old Steals Dad's Credit Card to Buy Hookers," it was a complete work of fiction. I read the article when someone in the office saw it atop a social news site, most likely Reddit.
As someone who spends a good amount of her time writing, I could tell that the writer composed the article with a smile on his or her face, but it didn't strike me as completely incredible. This either says sad things about my gullibility or society in general. Whilst the last paragraph of the piece borders on totally ridiculous, I have seen weirder news stories that are true. Or that I thought were true. Stay with me here please.
But this particular story was not true. There were no teenagers and no prostitutes. Fox News ended up reporting a complete falsehood, which is not like them at all. The story is, to the majority of the population, forgotten as one of those dumb things you saw on the Internet or on the TV. However, Lyndon decided to blog about the fabrication and wow, did he annoy some people.
The debate that resulted surrounded the idea that we SEOs have a bad enough reputation already and we don't need the crime of "making up stories" added to our collective CV. It isn't often that something like this divides the SEO and social media marketing community, and I don't think it's often that we see words like "ethics" thrown around quite as freely. The question here is, is it ethical to gain thousands of links and hundreds of thousands of page views out of something completely fictitious?
I happen to disagree with a number of my friends and people I respect on this one. I don't think the composition and promotion of the story was a big deal at all. It really doesn't fuss me much that I read a story that turns out to be made up. Whilst I don't agree that it was obviously fake (having no author cited didn't strike me as totally unusual), I feel that it doesn't differ much from link building campaigns where one acquires links to an insurance site by paying someone who runs a site about consumer electronics. The link from the consumer electronics site makes the insurance site rank better without the insurance site having done anything to deserve it. Lyndon's piece about an imaginary boy and his imaginary night out is an attempt to make money.co.uk rank better without it having done anything to deserve it. We all do the former. We just weren't imaginative enough to do the latter.
Now, if you come down on the side of things where you feel all links should be editorial votes for money.co.uk or the insurance site, then it's not ethical. However, not many of us are that idealistic. I also don't find this as groundbreaking or shocking as some commenters at Sphinn did, because people have been lying on the Internet for... ah... ever. A story we once wrote on Drivl became a cited source in a Wikipedia entry about the topic at hand. The story was a complete fabrication, composed by Scott. We didn't add the link to Wikipedia (although it taught us how reliable Wikipedia's links can be). Scott's fictional Drivl pieces often read as though they could be true, but we were always of the opinion that they didn't sound particularly credible. It seems that we underestimated some people's ability to be duped.
Secondly, we expressed no outrage when a well-known member of the SEO community appeared on a mind-blowingly popular daytime television programme as a made-up character. "Dick Masterson" didn't do it just for fun, although I bet it was a blast. He did it to attract people to his website and to sell his product. Have a look at the YouTube video of "Dick"'s appearance on Dr. Phil. To me, it looks totally fake, but I already know who's really behind those Aviator sunglasses. If you didn't know, you'd probably believe it was real.
Why weren't we shocked when this happened? I expect it was because no one pointed out who Dick really was and potentially let the public know they'd been had. The fear that SEO and online marketing is going to get a worse reputation that it already has baffles me a bit because I meet very few people who even know what SEO is. I think we put too much credit in the opinions of obnoxious Diggers who slam stories once they know they were written or submitted by online marketers. They don't speak for the general population.
Do we have a "responsibility" not to make stuff up? And if we do, who is this responsibility for? To my mind, the shady SEO who promises top-five placement for your company's name and its best five-word key phrase doesn't speak for all of us, and neither does a person who invented a story to get links. As sad as it is that any one person's actions reflect on their entire industry, I don't lump Sarah in with any of the shady lawyers I've heard about.
If this responsibility is to the public, I'd argue that the public do have a responsibility to take what they read online with a high degree of skepticism. I certainly do, and I have done long before I knew what linkbait was or how search engines worked.
One could argue that Rand's and my imaginary Google OneBox results were deceptive in that a massive number of people went to Google, apparently to figure out if they were real. Whilst we never claimed they were real, and most people's trip to Google was probably borne out of curiosity, we nonetheless brought a bit of deception into both the post and its promotion.
I did find the reaction to this a bit hysterical. If this is all it takes to ruin SEO and SMM's reputations, we were probably out of luck before Lyndon even put finger to keyboard.
Should we make up lies and promote them as truths? To that, you want to say, "No, of course we shouldn't." But let's put everything else we do in language like that: should we hide unflattering results for clients based upon how much they pay us? Should we work to have a client rank better than its competitor, even if we know the competitor is better at what they do?
Please don't get high and mighty about this, SEOs. I may not have been quite as blatant in making something like this up myself, but everyone who's engaged in linkbait has embellished stories to make them more appealing. I also agree that the onus is on outfits like Fox News to check their stories before they run them, especially those stories without citations and authors.
And if you take one thing away from the debate, let it be this: If you get away with something on this scale, for God's sake don't tell anyone.
By: Jane Copland
A True Story
Social Media
The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
You're kidding right?
Since that phrase came right after, "...composed by an author with a smile on her face," I'm thinking she is.
Exactly Sean! I think the onus should be on Fox news to report things correctly. Unfortunately, the onus isn't on Fox news to report things correctly - it's to get in front of more eyeballs and sell more advertising.
Because of this, the onus needs to be on the reader to ensure that you NEVER trust this kind of story. I mean who cares if it's actually true or not? This kind of thing gets reported incorrectly all the time by both reputable and dis-reputable news sources. As a reader you need to take anything like this with a pinch of salt whether you're reading it offline or online.
I agree that all the people being outraged by this need to step back and realise that it happens all the time. Ciaran makes some great points and links to some great things in the sphinn comments - you should all go and read them. Also - I'm not sure keeping it to your self is always a good idea either, word on the street is that Lyndon is busy at the moment.....
Exactly - and if he had kept it to himself the discussion would never have taken place. Sharing techniques (however controversial - there are lots of blackhats out there explaining much more 'unethical' methods than this) is what helps SEO develop.
Good point, to both you and Tom. I suppose my comment should be edited to say, "if you don't want to incur the wrath of the community, keep it to yourself." I hope Lyndon does get more work out of it.
True, so true. But you know it really doesn't make any difference if the story was true or not - except to the people in the story. It's just voyeuristic entertainment to the rest of us.
Any good story teller will always start out by swearing that "this really happened."
Of course it is different when you are supposed to actually be a news anchor.
I think that Lyndon did a great job. We arent the moral police - we do a job - if we advise our clients that a fake story will get them links that are other wise so hard grab in todays link buying penalties scenario, then why is it un ethical ?
The onus is on the client first - to decide whether to run with the idea or not.
Then the onus is on the reporting bodies to verify the story.
Then the onus is on the general public for actually deciding whthere to believe what they read or not.
To blame SEO, linkbaiters, and SEM is like shooting the messenger.
Yes... I shouldn't have included that, but "that's not like you" has become somewhat of a catch-phrase and I couldn't help myself...
I think this view is a bit short sighted. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with him doing the story, I think that we're all entitled to write what we want. One can make the claim that writing a fake news article should be couched in all sorts of disclaimers, and while I agree with that point on principle, I think that if Lyndon wanted to do this for his own amusement, then more power to him.
I do, however, have a problem with where the story was published. This type of story has no merit being on money.co.uk. Its tenuous claim to financial news appears to be that the kid stole credit cards.
Really?
Had I been duped (clearly, I cannot be duped by such plebian topics ;) ) by this article and ended up subscribing to money.co.uk for their "odd but true" news stories, I'd surely be upset. At the same time, as someone who DID undersand that this was a joke, I would be upset to find out that this off-beat humor was not standard at the money.co.uk. Lose-lose
While I don't believe that this one instance tarnished the opinion of SEO, the praise that Lyndon has been receiving for said article surely will. I don't believe it will be long before we see more examples of this behavior from the industry. Sure, probably just some of those on the fringe at first, but it's not hard to believe that more "mainstream" SEOs will attempt similar tactics. It's this end result that worries me and some of us in the SEO community.
... which really had nothing to do with Lyndon at all. He writes the stories, but it's up to the site owners whether or not they buy and publish them. If the Sphinn thread should have been directed at someone, I'd have thought it should have been directed at whoever says yes or no to content at money.co.uk.
Short sighted? I disagree. Disinterested in hysteria? Definitely.
how about orson welles broadcasting "war of the worlds" as a series of "news bulletins" on CBS Radio? it made welles famous..
if money.co.uk doesn't want their brand associated with "believable fiction", then that's a decision they have to make.
"come to money.co.uk, where what we tell you may or may not be bullshit!"
not much of a tag line IMHO, but i suspect they engaged lyndon for different purposes. it got all of us talking about their site, right?
I don't believe it will be long before we see more examples of this behavior from the industry.
You think that Lyndon is the first? And that it doesnt already happen? IMHO - it happened - Lyndon was the only one that highlighted that he does it and showed how well it could work.
My brother once did an absurdly satirical "short intro" for a supposed Japanese sitcom entitled "Tokyo Breakfast". As preposterous as it was, when it was first released people thought is was actually airing in Japan. Just goes to show you that there are some people that will believe almost anything they read in print or see in video.
This kind of stuff happens all the time. I guarantee you that the Fox guys new it was a hoax, but they loved the story and went with it because it makes for good tv. You'd never see them run with a story like that on their serious news broadcasts because they vet stuff to the bone.
This was purely entertainment.
Warning: Watch Tokyo Breakfast at your own risk. If you're easily offended by extreme stereotypes - don't.
Matt, we really don't know each other but, I hope you'll realise that I like you & respect what you do to try and help our community & the wider world of webmaster.
However, if you're going to (passive agressively) besmirch Jane, could I (as someone who admires her and the rest of the Moz) ask that you be absolutely explicit in what it is that appears to have disappointed you?
Is is the thought that, on occassion, she, and the rest of the team may have taken on work from clients they knew were not the very best in their field?
Or the suggestion that Fox may in some way be responsible for the crud they use to fill the minutes between ad breaks?
Over on Sphinn I said that I wouldn't comment on this issue but, again, a (frankly, rather snide) comment that brings another's morals/ethics/whatever into question means I can't stop myself.
Lyndon made something up, it could have been sign-posted more obviously, the client decided to publish, it's no different to Ray-Ban's never hide campain, and no-one died.
If of course I've misread the tone of your comment, I apologise. Unfortunately I don't think I have.
I've just missed the Man Utd goal because I was writing this and really hope that I don't have to waste any more of my life on this (dead before it hit the water) topic.
I missed the Chelsea goal in reading through all the comments on Sphinn! :(
Jeeze boys, sorry to interrupt your football game!
;)
I'm reading during half time... What a great example of our species we are.
Ciaran, I added a follow-up comment. Sorry that you missed your Man Utd goal, but I hope there will be replays. :)
Thanks Matt - after Utd won on penalties (yay!) they replayed all the goals.
I like it "on occassion" note :)
I wonder how often SEOs actually work for clients who are the very best in their field? To my mind there is no such a thing as absolutely ethical SEO because that's something that no one needs and hence it can't exist...
Not to mention that "very best in their field" is totally subjective.
I'm agreeing with Gab on this.
It is amazing how many people seem to be latching on to the "Fox News" angle and how Fox is at least partially (or even mostly) to blame.
It would be interesting to see how people would react to Lyndon if he had duped CNN or the New York Times - both of whom are known for their own bias and blunders (Jayson Blair anyone?).
I for one - don't care either way (Fox and CNN are both the same to me).
I treat all news sources as simply businesses who hire people to present content that they feel their audience wants to see/read - all with the aim to either sell advertising or to sell the content itself.
That's all it is. Journalists don't have any innate respectability or authority simply because of their job title.
We tend to treat the profession of journalism in a manner similar to the way we treat the priesthood (or even higher) - as if they should be held to a higher standard of ethics.
And I've never understood this. Why would you automatically believe someone more just because of what they do to pay the bills?
If you feel the news might impact you in some way - then approach it with a critical mind, verify sources, get all the different sides.
Otherwise just file it away for the next time you have to engage in small talk about current affairs.
A year or so ago Shoemoney did a podcast with Rand and they were discussing blogger disclosures or ethics or something.
If memory serves, Rand basically took the point of view that if a blogger was discussing a business or service and the blogger had something to gain from discussing the business (whether it be a pay for post, or an affiliate program or even a shared joint venture) - that the blogger should disclose it.
Otherwise the blogger might endanger whatever credibility he/she had.
Jeremy (shoemoney) took the approach that the blogger wasn't under any such obligation because he immediately assumes that if a blogger is discussing something then they automatically have something to gain from it.
Essentially, Rand tends to give people the benefit of the doubt and Jeremy tends to approach things with an eye of suspicion.
I'm not saying one approach is more right than the other. But I find myself on the Shoemoney side of this issue more often than not.
Vingold,
Maybe journalists SHOULDN'T necessarily be held to a higher level of "innate respectability or authority simply because of their job title" but if media outlets don't check their sources enough times, I'm going to stop watching or listening to the content they promote as legitimate news or commentary. Which happened a long time ago with Fox. CNN and MSNBC are the same way wrt particular commentators or hosts, but at least the general news they report is more or less accurate and unbiased.
I believe that Dan Rather lost his job for a similar hoax, but one that was much more serious in content, showing that CBS still has the balls to put journalism at a higher level.
What Lyndoman was doing was NOT journalism, it was a spoof ON journalists. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Separates the wheat of real news outlets from the chaff. I'd throw The Sun in that chaff as well, unsurprisingly.
Google is free to do with it what it wishes, as it is THEIR INDEX; personally, I don't think it is behavior that should be rewarded with higher rankings, but I don't necessarily think it should draw a penalty either.
The main reason I don't understand this post is because I am a fish.
<ATTENTION!>
I am not really a fish and I do understand this post
</ATTENTION!>
fish may not understand, but <sheep rel="follow-blindly">
You are a damn genius emeck...
Matt Cutts, hire this guy, he is going to introduce new tags for you... rel sheep, rel goat, rel douche bag, rel silly, rel lazy and so on....
The truth of the matter is I don't actually exist and am part of the imagination of a 12 year old girl from Topeka, Kansas. Who has a fixation with Cary Grant films.
" Andy Kaufman in the wrestling match. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."
I feel like feedthebot might have written this comment ;)
nope he wrote this one ... is he still messing about with mountains?
I believe so, but he's going to be at SMX Advanced in a few weeks.
yeah. Pity I cant bloody afford the spend. Gah. Need to wait for SMX London.
edit for obovious gaff.
apologies jane ;) Now your comment wont make sense. lol.
SMX London is sooner!
For those people who believe everything they read or hear, I fell sorry for them. When someone gets fooled or tricked by something like this I only think it is the audience's fault. We are in a world where we can get information anywhere, anytime, and anyhow. But with these information possibilities there comes a lot of false information. You just need to be intelligent and be very skeptical to outrageous information.
For example, at BYU this last semester many fliers were passed around on campus advertising an implosion of some local dormitory buildings on the following Thurdsday April 1st (first clue). It was telling people to come and watch this spectacle and that there would be popcorn and hot dogs provided for the viewers (second clue). As you would guess this was an April's fools joke, but it worked because people are idiots. On that day many people showed up and waited and waited for absolutely nothing.
The interesting part of this story came a week later when someone who had attended the implosion joke, wrote in the daily forum in the university daily newspaper. In the forum he wrote about how he wanted an apology from the pranksters because he had rescheduled a date, missed out on studying, and got a speeding ticket after leaving the site because he was so furious. What an idiot. Now why would the pranksters be responsible for all of that?
This is why I don't think what Lyndon did was unethical at all. When it comes down to it he is smart and people are dumb. He took advantage of their ignorance and hats of to that.
This isn't anything new. What about the 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast that caused mass hysteria when people believed it to be true. Even those that missed the start of the program where it was explained that it was fiction should have been able to figure it out. Anything you read, hear or see needs to be analyzed and you have to make your own conclusions. Sadly most of the public is very gullible. Being on Fox News doesn't make it necessarily credible for me but the NY Times would. When 9-11 happened my first thought that it was a hoax. Flipping channels quickly eliminated that as a possibility - it was unfortunately credible as all sources were reporting it. I don't think this reflects on SEO specifically, it is more a commentary on the intelligence of the audience.
Uh... about the whole Fox thing? I mentioned it in there twice. It was hardly the topic of the entire post.
I agree, Jane, you did NOT make Fox the point of your post; you were trying to push the argument into a debate about where ethics do and should stand in the SEO industry.
I am sorry for helping to get everyone off that track, but my point was that SEO and even online media in general have such a small mindshare among the general public that the ramifications for semi-respected TV and print media outlets like Fox and The Sun were perhaps more serious.
Good topic, Jane. I am sure it will intrigue a wealth of comments and meditation on our part.
Immediately, I don't think anything was done wrong on the surface. Yes, it was untrue, but does all fiction warrant a 'warning' label? It was a form of entertainment such as commercials, works of fiction, visual art, etc.
It seems the story was meant to captivate attention and it certainly did. The level of interest was ameliorated by the supposition that the story was indeed true.
I think a level of kudos is deserved because Lyndon used his wit (whether we may think it was employed void of ethics or not) to manipulate the social media platform.
However, I do think you raise a valid point when mentioning the indirect repurcussions felt by the SEO community. Lyndon may have successfully 'led' people to his site via his bogus story, but he also may have besmirched the image of SEOs and his own integrity in the process.
I think the presence of 'responsibility' is something to be addressed by all on their own terms. I personally would invite accolades and insults towards my own person, but would never want to incite people's distaste for others in my social circles or industry.
On a note of personal interest - when will the dark ages subside, and the period of Drivl's renaissance dawn?
Yeah, that client has kind of put things on perpetual hold. I always think about starting to contribute to it again, but we're all so busy that it's hard to find time.
Doesn't every professional involved with any sort of textwriting do this? The 'upgraded version of the truth' is simply more interesting to the masses than the real truth..
Very interesting article that brings up a lot of different issue. Maybe if Fox news did a better job researching the issues they reported on before just commenting on a subject beforehand they would not have these discrepenceys? Very nicely written blog I liked the information you provided with your article good work!
ok, hands up - I saw the story and believed it.
I really don't see the harm in it. It is if anything just a brilliant hoax, like so many before it too. If anything Kudos for pulling one over on the public, not to mention Fox ;)
Well, that's what the news usually tell us: events that happened . Why would you not believe what's on the news? of course, everything can be biased, but if we start to doubt about every single news a media is bringing us, we'll spend most of our times doing researches...
'truth' is a fickle thing indeed. I agree that people should apply some critical filtering to what they read; however, I also feel that there is a significant difference between a spoof and a deception, which may be predicated on the intent of the writer. Just because many people take what they read at face value shouldn't give anyone the right to abuse that implicit trust.
I don't think that is a huge issue in this case, as nobody was really hurt here.
However, it's amazing what people will believe also; writers of spoof articles can't really be held responsible when the public goes into a panic over an article revealing that everyone under the age of 20 is actually made of porridge and will spontaneously combust if their clothing has more than five buttons.
Thumbs up for both a very well-made point and the most out-there example of a spoof I've ever heard!
All you need to know:
The fear that SEO and online marketing is going to get a worse reputation that it already has baffles me a bit because I meet very few people who even know what SEO is.
and
If you get away with something on this scale, for God's sake don't tell anyone.
I like it! The CliffNotes version, and really, my entire point.
Cliffnotes for moz posts? What's next comments of 'first!'? Still, a neat summary vingold ;-)
They day I get my first, "FIRST!" is the day I know I've Made It.
If you'll help me to constrain Sean so he can't make the first post, I might be able to make your day :D
thats easy. hack his site for a few days - and while hes busy trying to figure out why it keeps redirecting to this lovely picture of Fondue Calcannis you can slip in and get a few first comments.
Beat ya to it!!!!
https://www.seomoz.org/blog/yo-smx-where-my-devs-at#jtc52928
Penalties for fake stories? Seriously? What if you right a story based on a source and then its comes out that source made it up. Technically you would have published lies.
Google should be showing the searcher the most relevant items related to the query. It should be up to the user to determine the validity of those results. It seems that Google now wants to weigh in on the right and wrong of and issue.
This is upseting.
Jane, fascinating post. I was one of the folks "optimizing websites" who missed this sphinn dust-up.
The most striking result of this incident is Fox getting punk'd / whatever you want to call it. Because as much as we as online marketers would like to believe that the internet is where it's at, TV still dominates in terms of market penetration. When a major media network promotes this story, I think it's far scarier than Lyndon writing the post in the first place.
I think tom_c said it up above somewhere in the comments--it should be up to media to verify their sources and more importantly for readers and viewers to turn on their BS radars. Yours, Jane, is clearly set high enough, but I fear that is not the case for the rest of the world.
My primary question in all this, is how long will it be before I start receiving Lyndon's story in email forwards, with the slight change that instead of a 13 year old boy in Britain, it's a 12 year old girl in Topeka, lamenting the sad loss of morals in the U.S. and demanding I contact my congressman immediately to stand in support of some non-existent bill relating to hookers, credit cards, and people not old enough to vote...
Then again, I'm probably just bitter because I had to have another Snopes intervention with a family member this morning...
It's not like the phrase that's not like you to get someone in trouble Jane :)
Yeah people didn't get it :( I suppose you had to be there.
I just don't know how Google expect to police this! By consulting this guy, maybe.
This reminds me of the good old Radio Era years when families would huddle around the radio's for a night of entertainment. Every so often a show would be so creepily real it would cause mass hysteria. Whether this story is real or not is irrelevant. Whether the story was created as link bait or not is irrelevant.
For any one to get upset or scream from and SEO perspective really needs to relax. I could go on for hours giving examples of website with false information that are deemed correct. Look at professional wrestling and boxing for example, when was the last time you saw one of these sites post at the bottom a disclaimer the information above may be fictional. What about Wikipedia and the masses who blindly follow the information on that site. Sure they have a "disclaimer" page, but I doubt any one even looks at it. Hell I just had to go and look to see if they had one and I use the site all the time. Or better yet all those companies who claim their product is the greatest, isn't that fictional?
The only real thing a fictional news story can do is lower the credibility of the people showing off the "news" story as true. So if any one disagrees with the authors technique simple self sensor your self, and lets pray the search engines don't try to sensor this kind of content on our behalf's.
I don't know, though. We can argue ethics or the need for increased digital literacy all we want. The ethics of this technique don't appear dramatically different than those in a viral campaign or online game. No, what I want to know is:
Did this campaign generate any long-term business value for Money.co.uk? And,
Didn't the SEO have an ethical responsibility to his client to explain how this might drive traffic, but at a potential loss of credibility?
If the goal was merely to drive a one-time hit in traffic, with no long-term business value and a realistic shot of hurting Money.co.uk's brand image, then I'd say, "mission accomplished." But shouldn't SEO's - and all marketers, really - focus their energies on building long-term brand value for their clients? That's the real ethical dilemma here for me.
Hi Rishil,
No argument that quality inbound links generate business value. My question is "do we know what the value of the links in this case is?"
I've not heard that "£10/link" value before. Is that an industry average I've missed? Or does it correlate with CPM revenues for the Money site? For instance, the value of inbound links to the sites I'm responsible for varies widely. Did Money.co.uk actually see an increase in their business from this activity or only in their traffic?
Valid question. I just based it on a rough estimate on what it would have cost to buy that many diverse and independant links. Infact all the follow up posts on SEO bloggers sites would be worth more.
Its hard to put a financial value on viral links gained, and I doubt money.co.uk would be willing to share that figure. I used the example to highlight a potential value purely from links. Business wise, I am sure most SEO's agree that regardless of the anchor text, that man links strengthen a domain - which in itself is one of the best reasons for running viral link campaigns IMHO- most of the times its diffiult to ensure the right anchor is used.
Fair points. I would suspect, in this case, the anchor text might be particularly poor. I mean "credit card" would be awesome, but 13-year-old, Texas, Xbox, and hooker likely aren't terms they're looking to rank for. ;)
Seriously, I sometimes question whether these viral campaigns, despite their one-time hit, actually provide long-term business value. But, you're right, money.co.uk is the only one who can answer that.
I love this. The presses' creed of "unbiased facts" has been distorted ever since it was made, "You give me the pictures, I'll give you the war." Anything to wake people up and get them to check facts is a plus. Something that causes them to question misplaced trust even better. And making Fox News look stupid? That's the trifecta!
I think the fact that it makes Fox look stupid is one of my favourite things about the entire episode.
It's strange though how much faith people put into the press and I think this is why an event like this gets so much commentary. Do people really believe that when someone becomes a reporter they're able to set aside all bias and foibles that are innate to being human? The answer is repeatedly no, but people like to continue to think otherwise...
I think the problem here is the location of the story. If the story appeared on The Onion, it would be obvious for what it is. If it appeared on the NY Times, the writer would have been escorted (pun intended) out of the building. None of this forgoes the lack of journalistic integrity from Fox in fact-checking the story (of course, I'm not sure Fox has heard of integrity or journalism for that matter).
I think the important point to remember is to protect the integrity of your site. If integrity and reputation is a concern you may want to avoid this type of link baiting (or save it for April 1st).
Of course Jane, I'm also wondering if your being from New Zealand impacts your acceptance of the story. Seems a lot of strange stories originate from New Zealand.
I too would like to know Google's view of this issue. I hope they are indifferent to it. Google should provide relevant results to a searcher. It should be up to the user to determine credibility.
SEO's don't write the news. I say leave it to the "journalists" to report on the news. I feel that almost every professionally written articles has some type of spin to it.
Yes this article was fake but its no different that buying a link.
The counter-argument to mine, and one that I'm surprised hasn't been made already, is that the goal of this is to have money.co.uk rank for its primary keywords, not for "13 year old hires hooker." No, they keywords aren't in the article, but the links it gets helps strengthen the domain as a whole, increasing the chances that it'll rank well for profitable searches.
Is that okay? The increased PageRank / link juice was gained from an irrelevant falsehood.
I think its ok. but hey thats just me
Who the heck cares ?
Matt Cutts has already posted commentary a few days ago.
Thanks for a very lucid and sensible take on the subject Jane.
I don't think Fox News were stupid or made a mistake at all, the first thing a journalist is taught is to check their sources (since when was a corporate finance site 'news' section a trustworthy source?) and get at least one other reliable cross-reference to a story.
I think they probably suspected this story was BS, but went ahead and used it anyway because it sells papers. They knowingly lie all the time, and on issues with much worse repercussions than this (see SeanMag's spot-on comments on Sphinn). Ultimately it's comes down to "how big a risk of getting sued for libel is there if we print this story?" - and often even when they know they'll get sued they still run with the story because it makes them more money than the payout anyway.
Sound like the kind of thing Rupert Murdochs team would do...
Is it really too much to ask for honesty in SEO? In copywriting, sure, you flower up the truth. I like to think of it as creative nonfiction, which is a real field of professional writing.
But complete falsifications are just too low. But to grab attention and to lure readers in, sure. Shouldn't there be some disclaimer though? Or maybe everyone (including Fox) are just too lazy to do due diligence.
TV commercials or print ads are monitored by advertising regulatory bodies. Companies have to show supporting studies with independent laboratories or research agencies lest they make a false claim.
Wow, I think the jewel of this post comes more in the comments than in the post. My few thoughts:
I think the comments, thoughts and ideas in here are definintly worth thinking about and mulling over for each individual who reads them. I'll let the Matt comment slide because I could argue both sides, each has its merit. That's a whole post itself.
I agree with your point-of-view, Jane. I saw a comment on Sphinn posted by a respected person in our industry discussing the responsiblity SEOs have as 'online journalists.' I just don't see us that way. Fox News editors are journalists. They should have conducted more thorough fact finding. I have The Onion in my feed Reader for a reason. Fiction is funny.
[citation needed]
w0rd!!!!!@
They have since issued an apology and fired the SEO in question.
https://www.money.co.uk/article/1000487-we-apologise-for-hoax-story.htm
Errr, that link points me at a 404 & I can see no mention of an apology on the site (and the story is still in the And Finally section.)
Is this your idea of a hoax?
EDIT: Seems it was just the URL that was wrong. Money.co.uk apologise.
Nothing wrong with the URL I posted, just as long as you copy ALL of it... including the stuff on the second line.
I can't believe anyone believed this story was legit, considering how poorly written it was. The grammar was shit, the title sounded juvenile, and the content was clearly written from a "gamer's" perspective.
It sounded like someone telling a story to a friend, rather than a journalistic article. In fact, it was similar to way The Onion staff writes up their satire, just not funny or engaging.
And if this kid is under 13, he should remain anonymous right? So if anyone bought this garbage...
All that said, I don't think it's wrong to make it up, as long as he's transparent about it, which he doesn't appear to be, at least on the link you provided.
Either way, mission accomplished.
I just posted a video of Matt Cutts response to this issue on my blog at:
https://www.rentvine.com/blog/
I took the video from the You&A session with Matt Cutts at SMX Advanced a couple of days ago.
and they are apologizing for making a hoax story and not disclosing it for only twelve days
wow just pure crap
:-|
I don't see a huge problem with the act of creating and seeding the story. We aren't journalists - if journalists are that irresponsible they need a little comeuppance.
I do think gloating about it is extremely foolish, and bad form. That's where he blew it. If you succeed at something like this, you nod quietly, smile to yourself and tiptoe off stage left.
I am not that bothered about this fake story. If people like to get excited by such silly stories, does it matter for them if it is real?
It is very similar with newspapers. They write to sell not to tell the truth. That is why they put shocking, many times, negative stories on the front page.
@ Mighty : exactly, I fully agree !
Fake link bait goes against Google's TOS - check Matt Cutt's comments on sphinn today
But what's the line between 'fake link bait' and 'a good story'?
What if I write a funny story about three pigs and a hermaphroditic turtle, and tomorrow the Discovery Channel does a piece on it? I had no intent that it be taken at face value. Did I violate their TOS?
If you believe and desire that blogs should be an alternative source of RELIABLE information to the giant multi-purpose and multi-interests corporations, it is on your best interest to protect the credibility of this new medium...
This guy might have created a huge amount of traffic by faking the story and tell writing about it, but what will be the reception of his next story?
I'd argue that 99% of what he writes doesn't have his name attached to it, and neither did this piece, so it's highly unlikely that the next time you read one of his stories, you'll know he wrote it. This doesn't change the story or its outcome but it makes a difference to his future success.
As somebody who is running a site that does this thing completely I have to say that the readers need to read intelligently. People who surf generally skim through what they read, leading to false conclusions. Many times a writer hides the intention or punchline until the end of the story, the sad part is that many readers jump to conclusions to early to let us as writers finish our stories.
But that's just my two cents.
dave, https://www.thehistorybluff.com
I guess Matt Cutts did react to your post Jane : Matt Cutts suggests Google Penalties for fake stories, on Sphinn
I guess they (Google) are just mad, that an hoax did get so many linkbaits...
My latest spoof video about Matt Cutts being electrocuted by solar panels is of course totally made up. But I think most people that watch it will understand within a few seconds that it is a spoof.
Is my video done in poor taste? Maybe.. Is it misleading? No, I don't think so.
I was just testing a new video editing technique for my training videos and thought it might be fun to place some focus on Oatmeal's Widgets Gone Wild post.
I am still waiting for Matt Cutts response on Oatmeals post.
Perhaps Matt will define the white hat / black hat off-topic link bait at SMX in a couple of weeks.
I'd love it if he did! I'd also like to know Google's stance on fabricated stories that gain a lot of links... and what they plan to do about them. In fact, the more creative forms of linkbait that come to light, the more amused I get at the notion that search engines can police them. If Lyndon had never let it be known that this was fake, it's unlikely anyone ever would have found out.
What's a search engine to do?
I think that the story was very unethical; however, it was a very effective linkbait piece. It's still getting links even after it has been outed as being untrue.
As an SEO and someone that works in the news business, I would not support or condone this type of linkbait tactic. It does make the industry look bad.
Lyndon made the mistake of publishing something untrue and now is paying the price. I think we should all learn a lesson from this.
Oh please. Really? What price did he pay? What lesson have we learnt, other than the amount of preaching that was obviously building up in the community (or the tiny sub-sector of it that inhabit Sphinn, SEOmoz and the like)?
This story is like a nasty spot - I know I shouldn't scratch it but I just can't help myself.
What price has he paid? How about all the negative press that he's getting. That's bad enough. Not to mention a personal smack down from Google Guy himself.
What lessons should we learn from this? How about, be even more careful about what you put out there for linkbait, it could come back and bite you in the end.
Morality aside, I think the only lesson here is the one in my last little paragraph... Lyndon's name isn't associated with any of these pieces of content. We only know about this because he told us.
What negative press? You mean the comments here & on Sphinn? With the greatest respect to Danny & Rand, no-one in the 'real' world reads them. This is part of the problem; we operate in a self-referential goldfish bowl and often make the mistake of confusing the people we interact with in these spaces with the wider industry.
And, as far as I'm ware, Lydon is very busy thank you, a ot of it down to the 'success' of this campaign.
"Should we make up lies and promote them as truths? To that, you want to say, "no, of course we shouldn't." But let's put everything else we do in language like that: should we hide unflattering results for clients based upon how much they pay us? Should we work to have a client rank better than its competitor, even if we know the competitor is better at what they do?"
I have you admit that when I started reading this post, I really didn't expect you to go in this direction, Jane. You surprised me with this post.
I'm surprised you didn't like this post, Matt. Jane tells it how it is, calls out some hypocrisy and, in my opinion, makes SEOs think about all the ethical issues involved in their jobs, not just the "fake story" for linkbait.
The thing is... Wouldn't Google want to rank that page for queries like "13 year old buys prostitutes"? That would be the most relevant result, certainly. You currently rank this page for gay marriage and tons of fascinatingly false pages for topics surrounding Judaism, Islam, Barack Obama, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.
Google's job hopefully doesn't extend into policing the truth or falsehoods of online content (or the ethics of freedom of speech), right? I'm really not catching on to what upset you here.
Left at Sphinn, but this comment from Matt should probably make it into this debate, too. Reproduced here for slow-loading Sphinn page:
I am sorry, I too (like Ciaran) respect Matt and this community but I must admit I am a bit disappointed by the answer... Google is a search engine and while media like Fox are responsible for what they publish, Google is only responsible for searching. They might be worried about link baiting side of thing but that's another story (Google's attitude to link baiting in general...)
"fake-story-without-any-disclosure-that-the-story-is-hoax" thing is NOT Google's business while people search for the story and want to find it...
Ann - well written. Echoing some of my comments on the latest entry to the debate on sphinn
(reproduced here because sphinn takes ages to load...)
If money.co.uk ranks for 13 Year Old Steals Dad's Credit Card well, unfortunately they are the most RELEVANT result in this case right? OK I see what you are saying that G doesnt endorse tactics that can manipulate their algo this effectively. And yes its their business and their search results. But true or not - this tactic is no different to what goes on in offline media - how many media whores get fake or outrageous stories published about themselves? Which result in the gain of several hundred inches of valuable print space? Agreed - maybe not ethical conning people - but as marketers we are ALWAYS conning people. I dont remember ever turning down a client that wanted to be seen as the BEST solution - even if they arent. Do you? Does anyone else? Granted I dont take on illegal or morally challenged clients - but small twists like this are common practice in marketing. Maybe I am biased. Or deluded ;) But I certainly DONT think that Google should penalise because a fake story went well.
Matt,
I know it feels like a decade ago(before October 2007) but I am sure you did not forget that Jane was an SEO in her previous life right??? I respect you as a smart SEO pirate hunter but for God's sake this comment about your disbelief was as hypocratical as the old time A-list SEOs claiming that Lyndon has done a lot to destroy SEOs' reputation on that massive Sphinn commentary. SEOs all know exactly where they stand in this world. If SEO was all God had to judge search engine professionals on judgement day, I wonder how many would see the gates of heaven?
Mert, call me an optimist, but I'd like SEO to be a field with a positive reputation. Saying untrue things to get links is short-term thinking in my book. It burns away the credibility of the specific site, and it burns away the credibility of SEO as an industry. Some people may be totally fine with that, and that's their right. But if I were an SEO, it would bother me.
"Should we make up lies and promote them as truths?" The answer to that question is no, and there's a line that separates embellishing from making up lies. So yes, Rand, it did surprise me that the post seemed to answer that question with: "Well, we know what the answer should be (don't lie), but what's the difference between tweaking a story headline and lying anyway? Besides, the burden should really be on the person being lied to--they need to check what I'm saying."
Maybe I misread the gist of Jane's point. But her final takeaway point seemed to be "If you pull off a lie, don't tell anyone." While that is true, I would have expected to hear something like "Don't lie." Or even "With a compelling idea or a creative angle, you don't have to lie to get links." I think that would have been nice message to convey, since most SEOs probably don't want to lie.
Thanks for clarifying Matt; I've got a couple of points to add.
I think one of the reasons I don't have a problem with this whole thing is that I simply don't see this as a lie; rather I see it as a hoax in the tradition of plenty of other spoof marketing campaigns (such as the ones I've referred to here & over on Sphinn). Yes, it could have been sign-posted more clearly, but I still therefore find the slightly George Wahsington-ish language that is being used in a number of comments slightly over the top.
There's also another issue which I'm not going to go in to in too much detail here, but which puts rather an interesting light on this. I believe there's an old saying along the lines of
Now personally, I tend to agree with Google (and Yahoo & MSN) that it's nothing short of rank hypocrisy for politicians to berate companies for doing business with China at the same time as grovelling to the self-same country to get as much business for their constituents as they can. However it does, for me at least, rather blunt the right of Google (or any company in a similar position) to make pronouncements on ethics or morals.
Is it worse to lie (which, as I've said, I don't think this is) than to edit the truth? I really don't know.
Again, this isn't meant as a dig at Google (I personally think that as a company there is a lot to admire about them, and at two recruitment events I've been to in the past fornight they've been voted, by graduates, one of the best places to work.) It does however highlight just how complicated the world can be, and why we should all be careful before making any sort of judgements about others.
Mert, call me an optimist, but I'd like SEO to be a field with a positive reputation.
SEO CANNOT have a positive reputation when the general populace thinks its snakeoil tactics.
How Google can make a difference? Improve on your definition of SEO. Highlight the benefits of having an ETHICAL SEO. Stop pebalising link buiying simply because a competitor reported it. Look at link buying from a whole industry point of view.
And dont just pass of a byline "SEO isnt SPAM" 9Like you did recently - explain clearly WHY you think it isnt spam. Most SEO's want to work WITH G not AGAINST.
But heavy handed techniques such as sudden penalties (dont say they dont exist please) without any notification, well that dont help.
Regarding this post - Fake stories do wonders in offline media - why should online media be exempt?
I'd rather see one damn good (and effective) May Fool's Day prank - yes - it was a prank, not lies - a prank - then 10 million crappy ones sweeping the internet all on the same day.
This won't damage Money's reputation one bit.
Matt,
I will not take your time and if you want to be called an optimist well I guess I am having a pessimist day.
1) You would not be good at what you do if you had simply shut the doors of your office and not communicated with the SEO industry to learn from us so that you can improve on the 10 commandmants of Google (webmaster guidelines) and figure out how to find the secret hideouts and tactics etc.
2) At the same time, as good as a person you are (from what I am told), I do not believe you would be invited to the big SEO parties or have such a popular blog, if SEOs did not want to communicate with you to learn how far they can bend the rules before breaking them.
3) Old Turkish preverb says they kick the one who tells the truth from 9 villages. This is my 10th village. Honestly Matt, this is not meant to attack you but if SEOs were pirates of the Carribean you would be the governor of Havana protecting the treasure fleet from the pirates.
Matt,
I'm just curious. Were you an Eagle scout?
Hi Sean, nope: I was a cub scout, but never a boy scout or Eagle scout. :)
For the UK readers, please explain - is an Eagle scout like being a cub scout, but with added ornithology?!
;)
Interestingly enough, this same guy also took some of my source code that I used on my widgets and put it into his own:
https://www.howrichwillibe.com/
I'm just surprised at the lack of innovation. It's like a carbon copy of the stuff i've created.
That quiz generates a badge link that points to money.co.uk with the anchor text "money."
Maybe he'll get an article in The Guardian as well....
This was not me who did that. I would NEVER steal someone elses work, I did not build that site, had nothing to do with it, AT ALL, apart from being requested to give it a stumble and a digg.
I would have prefered it if you had asked me this directly rather than posing the question here as I take such matters very seriously.
I would never rip off work like that.
Sure I make up stuff and game google and digg, but never steal another persons work.
I have sent you a private message about this and hope you get in touch as I want to clear this up as soon as possible.
So, you think you're the only one on the planet that created a quiz widget to gain links?
More than anything, you sound jealous that Lyndon has recently been hailed as having created the greatest piece of link bait ever.
Geez - between whining about the attention he has recieved and in your recent blog post, whining about the attention Rand and Gillian recieved from Newsweek over a year ago, it seems like your ego is in desperate need of a boost.
I wrote that comment because I thought it was an interesting intersection between two hot topics right now: widgetbait and hoaxbait - whereby the same guy coincidentally was doing both.
Also, as cornwall said above, he's not the guy that did it, it was someone else.
As to the "theft" of my quizzes, I was bitching because the person who created that quiz used the javascript code I wrote without asking, not because they created a quiz
My point was that it came across as whining because you made the public accusation here without checking with the target of your comment first, to see if he had emulated your tactic.
As you know - he's quite easy to find. I thought that was a bit unfair.
On the other hand, I didn't realize the person had actually re-used your code - so I apologize for that.