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.
The case in point is an article (linked on TechMeme) covering a sexy new open source digital video device from Neuros Technology. The device is newsworthy. It’s sexy, well designed, and in a hot niche. It enables individuals to handle video the way technology allows, sans the crazy DRM copyright crap. It’s a social and technological experiment. And the New York Times is all over it, with coverage that includes pictures and commentary and information no doubt willingly provided by Neuros. But there’s no link.
None. Nada. Zilch. Web coverage of a hot new device, designed to enable consumers at the dawn of the Age of Digital Video, and no link. What the….?
Actually, there are a few links in the article… but they are self referencing spam links with anchor text “Google” and “iPod”. What are those for, eh New York Times SEO Team? Gimme a break. The Neuros guys provided the great content and opportunity for your publication to look good in front of viewers, and you don’t even provide a website address or link. Greedy Bastards, plain and simple.
Dear New York Times: if you think the disdain we showed towards your paid subscription attempt was “off putting”, and if you were uncomfortable suffering the BugMeNot phenomenon, why the hell are you polluting the web with attribution-free content? It stinks… it has that bad smell of greed and disregard for what made the web a success. I still see a count of 11 million URLs from query.nytimes.com in Google. Isn’t that abuse enough, or is the New York Times really so hard up?