Target.com's Aggressive SEO Tactic Spams Google
eldavojohn writes "Greg Niland is blogging about target.com's aggressive near-spam search engine optimization, and is more than a little critical not only of how this affects the most popular search engine, but also why it will probably persist. If you want an example, search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance' and click the first link."
Exercise Bike Clearance
signature is pants
At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled Dissatisfied? Help us improve. Click it. Tell them the link is spam. Google ends up filtering them out of the search results, and we all win!
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Generating them is wrong, according to Google:
Quality guidelines - basic principles
Quality guidelines - specific guidelines
Emphasis mine, on the areas that Target is plainly and obviously not following. There's a bunch of other stuff listed which they might be doing as well, but I can't be bothered to look into it any further at the moment.
Kid-proof tablet..
Google for link:http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr_bmvd_redirect?field-keywords=Anal%20Massage%20for%20Lovers%20Vol%202&url=index%3Dtarget%26search-alias%3Dtgt-index. Six sites are linking to it! It's showing up in Google's results because people are linking to it.
Of course, the story is a bit trickier than that. People are linking to an old product URL (Target sometimes has humorous products on their site), which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product. Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same (you'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL, not the search result URL).
In many cases, this is a reasonable thing to do. People point to content they care about. They usually don't care what the exact URL is. If the URL changes, they likely still care about the original content. Target's redirection breaks this assumption, but I'm not sure there's a straight-forward fix. Perhaps they could return a 404 response (with the same content) when redirecting from a broken product URL?
Please learn what you're talking about: these aren't generated. Example:
http://www.target.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&index=target&field-browse=1038626&rh=k%3Aadolf%20from%20slashdot will give a page claiming that the search had no results. This is exactly the same as, say:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=aosdnfons+foasnfo+nafonwefoawenfowng&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 which ALSO has no results.
So, sometime in the past, someone searched for 'exercise bike' in the clearance section of target. Then they posted about it, and google found that, and indexed the page. Then the item went away, and google.. kept indexing the link. There's no irrelevant keywords here, no hidden text, no hidden links, and the page DOES help users, since coincidentally, it's a search results page correctly informing people of the results. Yes, that's right, the top result for 'exercise bike clearance' is a search results page from someone else's search engine; in this case it just happens to be target.com's search engine.
There is NO indication that Target did anything wrong here, I don't understand why no one has noticed that yet.
I could see target using a database dump of searched terms in to an automated XML map that google bots are slurping up.
Living in Chile
Google's algorithm puts trust in domains that other people link to.
Exactly. And that is the flaw in the algorithm. You can't trust the whole site just because some of the pages are well linked to. Links to a certain page, only indicate that the specific pages are interesting and/or relevant, and only concerning the subject linked about.
This flaw has become more and more noticeable with Google over the years. You often notice pages from more popular sites popping up, even though they have nothing relevant or new to add about a specific search query.
The word "Company" is derived from the French word compaignie, meaning a body of soldiers. That word is in turn derived from the Latin words "Com" and "Panis", meaning "with bread"-- i.e., the biblical phrase "... and they broke bread together" (this was still common practice for people working closely together up until very modern times; for that matter, coworkers stillroutinely eat together.) Therefor the word "company" refers to the people who comprise it, not the organization as a gestalt. Although I'm American and follow the American usage, I understand the reason for this particular British usage.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
These are used to allow users navigating the site with screen readers an easier time. Search for 508, screen readers, and accessibility for more info. A bit more searching will show target was sued 3 years ago for its site not being accessible to blind users.
'Anal Massage for Lovers Vol 2 Wow.
Vol 1 wasn't enough? Wow indeed!
There were some gaping plot holes that needed to be filled.