Cancel
Search Engine Optimization

Gaming the Google Search Engine...

by Don GoldbergFebruary 19, 2011
Share

The unseen and often unseemly world of search engine manipulation came into full public view recently when the New York Times ran a brilliant piece of enterprise reporting after noticing that J.C. Penney’s kept coming up at the number one result in dozens of Google searches for common household, clothing, and consumer items– even if Penney’s would not be the first store you would think of for those items. Enter “bedding,” and Penney’s, not Bed Bath & Beyond, for example, would come up first. Try “area rugs,” and again it would be Penney’s, not, say, Crate & Barrel. Put in “Samsonite Luggage,” and yes, Penney’s would be number one– above the more obvious Samsonite.com.

 

After enlisting computer scientists who specialize in search engine techniques, the Times discovered that Penney’s had achieved these page rankings through a massive placement of links on hundreds if not thousands of web sites often created for exactly that purpose– to fool the search engines (read the Times article if you really want to know how they did it). Penney’s, of course, has denied any knowledge of this trickery and has fired its social media firm.

 

Those of us in the online reputation management (ORM) business have been well-aware of how to game the search engines, and are only amused when these things backfire by becoming public. Google and other search engines pride themselves on using sophisticated algorithms that return search results based on the number and importance of the links back to that page, and a couple dozen other factors that they won’t divulge. But there’s always a way to game the system, and as the Penney’s case demonstrates, if you get away with it, it can pay off.

 

“Link farms,” as we in the trade call them, actually aren’t very sophisticated– they just take a lot of manpower. Political campaigns often employ computer scientists who can write sophisticated algorithms placed in the meta-data of positive content to drive it up towards the top– and driving the negative stories down far enough that no one will see them. When dealing with ORM, the goal is often to push down negative content any way you can. But there’s a significant risk if you get caught.

Google will blacklist you for a long time. Once Google was alerted to the issue and it corrected for it, Penney’s page rankings dropped down so far that no one wold ever really come across them during a search.

 

The challenge, of course, is using techniques that fall within the bounds of sound ethics and good business practices rather than succumbing to the dark side. From a practical standpoint, getting caught and outed is too high a price to pay. Public embarrassment of the kind that Penney’s faced following the Times expose simply isn’t worth it. In addition, Google’s punishment is severe and long-lived. Getting good search engines results the old-fashioned way– by earning it– is still worth the time and effort.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly happened with J.C. Penney's search rankings in the news story?

A New York Times investigation found that J.C. Penney ranked first for many product terms after a surge of backlinks from low-quality sites. These links appeared to be part of a link-farm strategy designed to manipulate algorithms. Once Google was alerted, the rankings cratered as penalties were applied. The episode became a cautionary tale about short-cut SEO tactics.

Why are link farms so risky for brands?

They violate search engine guidelines and can trigger harsh, long-lasting penalties. Beyond traffic loss, public exposure damages credibility with customers and the press. Recovering from a manual or algorithmic action can take months of clean-up and rebuilding. The reputational cost often dwarfs any short-term gain.

Is there ever a 'safe' way to game the algorithm?

No. While technical optimization is healthy, attempts to deceive inevitably carry detection risk. Modern algorithms evaluate link quality, context, and patterns that reveal unnatural behavior. Even if manipulation works briefly, it rarely sustains and can invite scrutiny. Earning rankings through quality content and authentic links remains the durable path.

What should brands focus on instead of manipulative link schemes?

Invest in content that answers real questions with depth and clarity. Pursue legitimate digital PR, partnerships, and thought leadership that naturally attracts citations. Strengthen technical SEO-site speed, structured data, and crawlability-to help search engines understand your pages. This approach compounds value and protects your reputation.

How does online reputation management intersect with SEO ethics?

ORM aims to surface positive, accurate information while reducing the visibility of negatives. Ethical ORM uses content creation, publisher relationships, and engagement-not deception-to shift the narrative. When tactics cross into spam or manipulation, the backlash can amplify the very issues you hoped to bury. Transparent, high-quality publishing is both safer and more persuasive.

If we've inherited toxic links, what's the remediation plan?

Audit your link profile to identify unnatural patterns and low-quality domains. Pursue removal where feasible and use disavow files judiciously to distance your site from spam. Meanwhile, publish authoritative content and earn reputable mentions to rebalance signals. Document the work so future reviewers can see a sustained commitment to quality.