Comments on: The New York Times flexes its SEO Muscle http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere.... Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:50:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: » Greedy Bastards at The New York Times - John Andrews - johnon.com http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-78788 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:36:27 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-78788 [...] I admired the New York Times for their SEO efforts in the past, and even followed up when some SEO people whined about unfair competition from the New York Times SEO efforts. But now The new York Times is demonstrating the greedy behavior that some of those SEO whiners feared. It’s not just The Times, but many other newspapers, magazines, and private websites getting to be Greedy Bastards these days. [...] […] I admired the New York Times for their SEO efforts in the past, and even followed up when some SEO people whined about unfair competition from the New York Times SEO efforts. But now The new York Times is demonstrating the greedy behavior that some of those SEO whiners feared. It’s not just The Times, but many other newspapers, magazines, and private websites getting to be Greedy Bastards these days. […]

]]> by: Dabo http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21473 Thu, 10 May 2007 19:58:49 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21473 Regarding your website, the information is great but it's Hard to read your blog! I have fairly good eyesight, but I wonder how others with less than 20/20 vision read your faded grey small font. Have you had anyone else comment on that?... Regarding your website, the information is great but it’s Hard to read your blog! I have fairly good eyesight, but I wonder how others with less than 20/20 vision read your faded grey small font. Have you had anyone else comment on that?…

]]> by: Matt Keegan http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21471 Thu, 10 May 2007 19:55:14 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21471 I suppose The New York Times has to do something given that hard copy newspaper readership continues to drop. Still, it makes you wonder: will we see stories about World War II listed as TODAY? I suppose The New York Times has to do something given that hard copy newspaper readership continues to drop. Still, it makes you wonder: will we see stories about World War II listed as TODAY?

]]> by: Gram Gothko http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21182 Wed, 09 May 2007 13:25:29 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21182 what "current events" search terms did you use to test? i tried three different queries ranging in time from 2007, 2006 and late '90s and couldn't match your findings. nyt never ranked number one and in the one query where it showed up 7th, the link went to a page with the first-published date clearly marked. it would be interesting if in the dawning age of corporate integrity and ongoing media scrutiny, if nyt said, screw it, we're going to cheat. what “current events” search terms did you use to test? i tried three different queries ranging in time from 2007, 2006 and late ’90s and couldn’t match your findings. nyt never ranked number one and in the one query where it showed up 7th, the link went to a page with the first-published date clearly marked.

it would be interesting if in the dawning age of corporate integrity and ongoing media scrutiny, if nyt said, screw it, we’re going to cheat.

]]> by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21090 Wed, 09 May 2007 02:20:19 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/303/nytimescom.html#comment-21090 Geesh I never anticipated all the "spammer" stuff on the web today. Pitiful. Bow your heads in homage to Matthew and his partners over there propping up the NYTimes. It's SEO and it works and they did it and they know it, I know it, and you know it. Self-check for all who call themselves "SEOs": if your reaction to this was to cry "spammer" you should re-consider your career choices. Geesh I never anticipated all the “spammer” stuff on the web today. Pitiful. Bow your heads in homage to Matthew and his partners over there propping up the NYTimes. It’s SEO and it works and they did it and they know it, I know it, and you know it.

Self-check for all who call themselves “SEOs”: if your reaction to this was to cry “spammer” you should re-consider your career choices.

]]>