Another big company is caught spamming the Google search engine – and is punished for it.

The Google (NSDQ:GOOG) search engine algorithm uses links as a core factor for ranking sites. The more inbound links a page has from other sites, the more likely it is to rank well.

Still, not all links are created equal. A link from a page that itself has a lot of links, counts more than a link from a page in the outskirts of Internet oblivion. A link from the New York Times is more valuable than a link from Pandia, and a link from Pandia is much more valuable than a link from how-to-get-rich-in-5-minutes.info. A link from a page on the same topic as your own should also count for more, ranking boost wise.

Getting inbound links

An essential part of search engine marketing is therefore to get as many relevant inbound links as possible. Doing so is not in violation of Google’s guidelines, as long as the links come from relevant pages of good quality. Google and the other search engines are, after all, trying to help their users find relevant content, and such links help them identify useful pages.

Spamming

But what if someone decided to try to trick Google’s search engine algorithm, by getting a large number of links from a large number of low quality sites with no relevance to the topic at hand?

Would it be possible to overcome the handicap of non-relevance by increasing the number of links?

In theory, Google should be able to detect such schemes. After all, it has been doing this for years, and is constantly working to catch spammers and black hat search engine marketers.

The fact is, however, that it is still possible to succeed by way of artificial link building schemes. You can get a significant boost in search engine rankings this way, but the risk is very high indeed.

JC Penney gets caught spamming

The New York Times reported yesterday, in the article The Dirty Little Secrets of Search, on how the US store JC Penney (NSDQ:JCP) managed to get the top spot for a large number of shopping terms, even if there were other more specialized stores that should be expected to give better and more relevant selections:

“Type in ‘Samsonite carry on luggage,’ for instance, and Penney for months was first on the list, ahead of Samsonite.com.”

Apparently JC Penney had hired an SEO firm that had bought links from a large number of irrelevant sites:

“Some of the 2,015 pages are on sites related, at least nominally, to clothing. But most are not. The phrase ‘black dresses’ and a Penney link were tacked to the bottom of a site called nuclear.engineeringaddict.com. ‘Evening dresses’ appeared on a site called casino-focus.com. ‘Cocktail dresses’ showed up on bulgariapropertyportal.com. ‘Casual dresses’ was on a site called elistofbanks.com. ‘Semi-formal dresses’ was pasted, rather incongruously, on usclettermen.org.”

Google takes action

Last week, the New York Times informed Google about the links to JCPenney.com. Matt Cutts of Google says that Google had detected previous guidelines violations related to JCPenney.com on three occasions, most recently last November. Each time, steps were taken that reduced Penney’s search rankings. They had not detected this last paid links campaign of JC Penney.

“Am I happy this happened?” he later asked. “Absolutely not. Is Google going to take strong corrective action? We absolutely will.”

Penney penalized

And they did. JC Penney is now dropping like a stone in search engine rankings for a large number of search queries.

“Penney reacted to this instant reversal of fortune by, among other things, firing its search engine consulting firm, SearchDex,” the New York Times writes.

Political fall-out

The New York Times points to a political aspect of this and related stories. Both American and European authorities are getting nervous about the market power Google has bulit up online, and has started to look into its practices to see if it is violating competition regulations.

“Is it possible that Google was willing to countenance an extensive black-hat campaign because it helped one of its larger advertisers?” the Times asks.

We doubt that very much, but the idea itself can be damaging for Google. Google argues that its search engine algorithm is fair because it is automatic and untouched by human hands. Still, every time they catch a spammer, they punish that site by reducing its search engine rankings manually.

That seems fair to us, but this it the kind of thing lawyers love to make cases out of.

Overstock.com

Planet Ocean (subscription required) points to a similar case:

“Not long after seeing the devastating results to JCPenney.com, a competitor noticed similar unsanctioned activity on [shopping site] Overstock.com and decided to snitch on them as well. Overstock.com had put out an offer to .edu sites for 10% off their purchases for students, faculty, staff etc. in exchange for links on their .edu pages. The link typically took the form of a seemingly innocent 10% discount for students that was stuffed with keywords and links.”

Planet Ocean says that it’s refreshing to see such sites being penalized for blatantly going against Google’s guidelines:

“Perhaps Google’s drive to clean up their results will also give us all a slightly more even playing field when competing for popular search terms.”

The moral

The moral in this story is that you should not risk the reputation of your site, brand or company by making use of such tactics. If you hire a search engine marketing firm, make sure that they do not do so either.

This will not stop the real black hatters from trying, however. Many of these schemes are not made for well established sites, but for large networks of cheap and content weak sites set up to sell pay per click ads or affiliate products and services. By building several networks the black hatters gamble that they will — and can afford to — lose the rankings of some sites. They can always make more.