digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

New York Times Spams Google 'Sex' Results

searchenginejournal.com — The New York Times is using questionable practices such as publishing old archived content as current stories to spam Google search results.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • balibones, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The WSJ is doing this same thing:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=search+china+business+site%3Awsj.com&btnG=Search

    • sheepster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1http://www.google.com/search?q=sex

      the article says nothing.
    • adjustafresh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did they hire back Jason Blair to write it?
    • reeder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hey, its ok when MSM does it!
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Wait, wait, I'm sorry. Am I wrong to think that what's going on here is the NYT googlebombed sex? How is this different than when Colbert asked everyone to make his name come up when you search for "greatest living american" or last week when a number of diggers tried to googlebomb HD-DVD to return the code as the first result?
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Wait, wait, I'm sorry. Am I wrong to think that what's going on here is the NYT googlebombed sex? How is this different than when Colbert asked everyone to make his name come up when you search for "greatest living american" or last week when a number of diggers tried to googlebomb HD-DVD to return the code as the first result?"

      Colbert is a comedian. The HD-DVD people are just a bunch of random people. The NYT is supposed to be a respectable newspaper.
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I think it's pretty hypocritical to say that we can Google bomb whatever we want but the NYT can't because they're a buisness. Either way, Google doesn't condone it so why is this case any different?
    • dt40, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Google will not put the NYT in the archive because it is not in their selfish interest to do so. Google needs to show NYT results, lest many search results will be less strong than competitors.

      It is interesting to observe that big content providers like the NYT have some real power with Google, unlike the little guys that Google banishes as punishment.
  • FameMoney, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5With so much interesting blogs the traffic is decreasing, and they need to do something. Take a look at their Alexa ranking ... is decreasing.

    http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.nytimes.com
    • anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Alexa is hardly an authority. According to Alexa, Digg's traffic has gone down by approximately the same amount:
      http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.digg.com

      If digg's incredibly slow response over the past few months is any indication, I'd say that digg's traffic is higher, not lower.
    • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26alexa is a joke, please dont cite it in the future.Thank you.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Alexa is indeed only a sample and a skewed one at that. However, I do kinda wish that there really were a service that people felt OK subscribing to that would publish free stats on actual web usage based on a truly representative sample. I know companies already do that but I don't think any publish the results real time and free.
    • zepolen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alexa can give you a relative measurement of popularity, nothing definitive, but a decent enough idea.

      Digg has always been slow, this page right now is 200kb big ... it's all the damn bloat.
  • GotMex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Too bad google doesn't have the balls to send them to their supplemental index for these practices. They would for most other sites.
    • XxXoldsaltXxX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12There's a difference between the NY times and a ***** blog nobody cares about.
    • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Google does evil by treating people/companies as non-equals.
  • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Questionable practices" are nothing new to the NYT.
  • Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2/sings/
    Some ones going to goo-gle hell...
  • korbink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they're looking to lure porn-seekers than they fail. Nobody I know types "sex" into Google hoping to find good porn.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15BZZZZZT wrong. Lots of N00bz type 'sex' to find porn. Further, they actually PAY for the porn that they do find. FURTHER we are lucky they do because SOMEone has to pay for it or it would stop being produced.
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3what do you expect for this leftist liberal commie rag, hahaha...
  • Spikito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8and why where you googling "sex"?
  • WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's funny. So, you can search for sex on google, and you find Wikipedia and the NY Times. I'm guessing that's not what people are looking for, although you can at least make a case for Wikipedia.

    Wouldn't there be a giant uproar if sex sites were returned when searching for the NY Times?? I can't be so lucky. Instead, I get more subdomains than I care to deal with. Even 2003 SEO works for the NY times.
  • aleahey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you still take the NY Times seriously, thats your own stupid fault.
  • monkeyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If some horny schmuck was searching for porn and came across a NY Times article, do they really expect the person to stop and read it? Surely they are advertising to the wrong crowd.
  • juicys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whoever searched for sex and found this is seriously a loser lol
  • AussieWebmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I always get my porn from the NYTimes.... all the ***** that are fit to print
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.