Comments on: will the last one at SF Gate / San Francisco Chronicle please turn out the lights?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:43:56 +0000

The techdirt article and the blog post it’s based on are hugely erroneous. None of these pages, at least of the ones I’ve seen, are “keyword stuffed”. The “questionable tactics” amount to no more than presenting the papers content in the most search engine friendly fashion they can.

By: Michaelk42

Michaelk42 — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:23:24 +0000

Well, hey, look at that:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100312/0023188528.shtml

“Newspapers Gaming Google With Questionable Tactics”

By: Andy Beard

Andy Beard — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:38:20 +0000

I think they could do a better job of the SEO of those pages, they should really come up with a way to have the title more unique.
That would give them a chance to target more keywords effectively.

Google isn’t going to filter them all… maybe some depending on what they are doing with each of the destination sites, but compare this to stories syndicated by the AP, and it is just a drop in the ocean.

This doesn’t mean I am defending them changing the meaning of your writing, and I am a huge fan of followed links in all kinds of scenarios. That is espeiclaly true if the link is important to the content.
That is then a material change that affects the material substance of what you were writing. If they can’t come up with solutions to provide human clickable links then their tech guys really need to get another job.

By: Rooster

Rooster — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:01:06 +0000

As an SEO guy, I can tell you that the advice from Bacchus is sound and you should report them right away. Here’s the link again:

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport

By: bswise

bswise — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:49:50 +0000

Violet,
I am completely blown away by this absolutely amazing highlights list. Bravo! I am in total awe to read these again. You should get a Pulitzer for taking on these important issues with such great skill, passion, logic, humor, and analysis. Seriously. I’ve really enjoyed this column, and this post is as fascinating, and fair and informative as always. I think you are an excellent writer, and I look forward to reading you wherever you publish.
Excelsior!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:51:05 +0000

@bachus
It’s going to put their sites into the Google penalty box, and keep ‘em there until they eliminate the duplicate content. And their lowliest web intern probably could have told ‘em so, had they the brains to ask.
I think you misunderstand how Google treats duplicate content. Low quality sites that have no content of their own and simply steal the copy of others will certainly find it hard to obtain good search rankings, but it’s quite permissible under Google’s guidelines to offer different versions of your own content. In that situation there’s no “duplicate content penalty” as some people seem to think, it’s more like a filter – they will attempt to pick a definitive version and only show that in their results. They even provide mechanisms to help webmasters do this with the rel=canonical tag (which sfgate are using incorrectly, but that’s another matter).

And their lowliest web intern probably could have told ‘em so, had they the brains to ask.
That may well be the case, but they’d be wrong, just as you are. With all due respect this is why you shouldn’t take SEO advice from interns or random blog commenters ;-)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:57:47 +0000

“trapped in a dead end of static content and ads”
Is the version I’m seeing in Google’s cache different from the ones you saw? Because the cached version has a link to the home page, so I’d hardly call it a dead end…go to home and you have all the functionality you need to further explore sfgate.

From a random visitors perspective this might even be a usability improvement…why bother with all the site “furniture” if you only want to read that specific article? If someone loves the piece and wants to find more of your work granted it’s slightly more difficult, but again they’re only a click away from the home page and full search functionality.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:51:32 +0000

I’m not at all clear on what your issue is here. Certainly the removal of commas and the “ashamed” URL is unfortunate, but they are easily fixed and it seems like SFGate were willing to fix them.

Beyond that you had a contract with them to provide articles, and they had a certain amount of freedom in the formatting of those articles. Removal of links (probably done to preserve page rank/ “link juice”) would seem to fall under a reasonable interpretation of that. And the main site is ad-supported so I don’t understand why you’d have a problem with the articles sub-domain showing them?

At the end of the day sfgate are presenting their content to search engines in this way because they believe it will attain higher rankings, which mean more visitors, which mean more budget for quality content. Do you really think this approach is spam, or are you simply upset about the comma/url thing (which you have every right to be) and trying to make it into something more than it is?

By: Amy Lightholder

Amy Lightholder — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:17:10 +0000

Oops, nevermind. Bacchus spells out explicitly the vague feeling i was having in my tummy.

By: Amy Lightholder

Amy Lightholder — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:10:41 +0000

Have you considered reporting them to/lodging a complaint with Google? I’m not sure if this is officially offered yet but I know they have a team of people devoted to black hat SEO tweaking and if you work your connections, you can probably get their attention. I’m not sure if what SFGate is doing would qualify as black hat or not, but it seems at least grey to me so it’s possible that they’d sandbox SFGate content for the affected keywords. And furthermore that such action might become part of the toolbox for writers when they get ripped off.

By: Pameladeda

Pameladeda — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:08:46 +0000

Ugh, this sucks and good for you for speaking up! Sometimes these corporate idiots actions are just well so stupid. I guess they are not dying fast enough so they are trying to commit suicide.

Now for the important stuff —- where will we go for your columns?!

Long may you run

By: Victor Agreda, Jr.

Victor Agreda, Jr. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:42:24 +0000

It’s a shame, really, but kudos for you for standing strong on this. The article about Jennie is still #3 as I write this for the ‘ashamed’ search, but it’ll fall in time. This is a short-term, dead-end, last-gasp play by newspapers. @Bacchus quotes the scripture as to why ;)

The larger ethical implications are just sad. On to your next leap forward!

By: Christin Evans

Christin Evans — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:05:57 +0000

Violet,

I was just talking about you yesterday and then saw this!?!? Wow, this is an incredible story about how SF Chronicle failed at new media.

I really enjoyed watching the video you did when you started out on this adventure: http://ryanishungry.com/2006/09/21/violet-blue-our-front-page-news/ and then reading your account of how it unraveled.

It really shows how the Chronicle is desperately trying to adapt, failing miserably and then bungling their mistakes, responding ineptly thus furthering their woes.

By: Jeremy Hatch

Jeremy Hatch — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:02:25 +0000

I was wondering when this would happen. I’ve long felt that you are better than the Chron deserves (such a joke of a publishing company, really), and you have been so ill-served by them over the years anyway, what with their troglodytic commenter base, the ridiculous issue about links, etc. The paper always seemed like a hostile environment for your work — the whole suburban mindset it exudes is at such odds with everything you wrote there, I felt their contracting with you was a cynical ploy from the beginning, about using sex to drive up pageviews, and not about any sort of respect for your work or sympathy with a sex-positive outlook. (Though I’m sure there were a few people who wanted you on board for the right reasons.) Anyway, I say good riddance to them, and here’s to a brighter future for you.

By: Paula Wirth

Paula Wirth — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:54:26 +0000

Sorry to hear about this – glad you stood your ground, regardless. Glad to hear there are journalists out there who believe in integrity, truth, accuracy and openness. Not sure all your fellow bloggers and dead paper journal owners share your positive qualities.

By: ThatToyChick

ThatToyChick — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:40:51 +0000

I’m sorry this happened to you, Violet. I enjoy your work and I’m disappointed that they would do this to you after all the years of content you provided.

As others have said, your star is high and only rising, so it is truly their loss.

By: Lip Reader

Lip Reader — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:18:11 +0000

yes, the deadwood edition is horse and buggy . save a tree , read the web. i have noticed a difference in the deadwood and the online versions of stuff i read. seldom do
i read the dwe anylonger. but isn’t this been the practice of newspapers for ages. changing a field reporters item , enough so it leaves out important details that mislead
the reader.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:55:29 +0000

I know the law is different in the U.S., but in Canada (and many other Commonwealth countries), this action by SFGate could be considered as a violation of your moral rights in your work which, unlike copyright, cannot be waived or assigned. In other words, there would be grounds for a lawsuit because your intent expressed in your work was changed substantially by the publisher in a way that cast aspersions on you (essentially it’s like third-part defamation in a way).

By: David Carroll

David Carroll — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:34:26 +0000

Wow I’ve learned a lot about SEO and such today. Thanks Ms Blue and the rest of you.

I was wondering: What is to become of the Trolls, Haters and other assorted crazy people who seemed to dominate the comment section of your SF Gate column? How will they fill the hours of their pathetic little lives?

I’m off to rat-out SF Gate to Google now…

By: Michaelk42

Michaelk42 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:54:50 +0000

@Violet – @Bacchus there confirmed what I suspected to be the case. If Google did let this sort of thing go on, the web would be CHOKED with these sorts of shenanigans.

SFGate just looks to be utterly cluless, but newspaper, so I’m not shocked.

By: Ani Niow

Ani Niow — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:02:02 +0000

Looks like the SF Gate removed "ashamed" from the url of the article you were talking about. Still shows up in Google's cache however.

By: Laura Casey

Laura Casey — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:25:10 +0000

Hi Violet,
I admit that do miss your witty and fearless columns. I think you bring a voice to this area that is so unique, even if I am not a huge fan all the time, you know? And I believe we need more edgy writers in MSM. It’s a shame this partnership did not work out.
I wonder, though, if this is the fall of newspapers. There are several amazing writers who are still at the Chronicle and Sfgate — Jill Tucker (schools), Demian Bulwa and Henry K. Lee (public safety), Bob Elko, Mark Morford and on and on. The Chron isn’t what it used to be, no doubt, but tell me a company that is.
I felt terrible googling “ashamed porn star” and finding your story. That’s just not right. I agree, it needs to be changed.
But I am still curious about the death of newspapers. Also, it sounds to me like this is a SEO company or education problem that should be addressed but I wouldn’t take it personally.

By: Andrew J. Holden

Andrew J. Holden — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:41:49 +0000

Hi Violet,

As a Web / SEO Professional I’d like to confirm Bacchus’ comment – this isn’t ‘good’ SEO and it will actually drop their site’s value considerably.

A lot of the web industry is corrupt – they leverage their client’s lack of knowledge on technical issues and online marketing to their advantage. This would be one example.

If they had kept your columns intact, links, etc. – that would actually be of the most search and visitor value, by far.

By: rjones

rjones — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:22:39 +0000

I’ve worked with companies that have done what you described above pretty much by accident/ignorance/greed. For a highly “respected” domain it can take longer for google’s algorythym to pick it up automatically, but it will get picked up even if manual intervention is required. Then all of the content will disappear from search results and probably all domains including original sfgate. Basically, sfgate is being screwed over by ignorant manager or bad seo consultant, and long term it will kill their website.

Not sure if that will make you feel better or worse about this, though.

I’m really sad to hear how badly they’ve abused your work. SEO and quality writing is a struggle, but this was an assault.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:55:20 +0000

Bacchus has it right – this is lame blackhat stuff. But perfectmarket has that nice corporate image that oozes respectability, so using dupe farms for link spam mus be ok.. right?

My additional current gripe is their use of Tynt to autoinsert link backs into your copy buffer, so that if you paste any content, it adds a link back at the bottom of what you pasted. I already link back (as do most reputable bloggers) and it’s damned annoying to have to edit now because they’re worried about “content theft”. My solution? I’ll be taking (typically) the same AP content from another publisher, and they’ll lose links.