As commented in the uswitch post, moneysupermarket have been dropped by Google for the term [car insurance]. Have Google finally realised that moneysupermarket are spamming the index and manipulating the results? Moneysupermarket (also seen as insuresupermarket) have occupied a top ten spot for the coveted term for as long as I can remember. One of our diligent readers (thanks Creased) noticed the change in results and let us know.
I’ve got a feeling some heads will roll over this. We’ll post back updates as soon as we find out more…
Update #7 23rd May: 16:00: They’re Back!
Moneysupermarket are back appearing at #1 spot for [car insurance].
Update #6 23rd May 11:50: The UK Press has Picked this up:
The Daily Mail, SEOChat, mortgagestrategy, searchenginewatch, marketingchat,
evilgreenmonkey and ioun
Update #5 16th May 16:20: Moneysupermarket Look for a New SEO Team:
Moneysupermarket are looking for an SEO Analyst and a Link Builder!
Principal Responsibilities Include: Approaching third party websites and obtaining links
Update #4 16th May 10:30: Traffic Levels are Hit Hard:
Alexa is already reporting traffic levels are way down. Alexa stats are normally rubbish but this gives us a fairly good idea of a trend. Now that MS have removed their ‘links’ are we going to see Google remove the penalty? We’ll keep an eye on those graphs.
Update #3 14th May 14:30: The Debate Is On:
Discussion over at SEOChat.
Update #2 14th May 13:20: 40% of Traffic is from Natural Search:
This statement from Hitwise suggests that organic traffic is at 40% versus 60% for paid.
Almost 10% of traffic is down to the [car insurance] key term. I would like to be a fly on the wall of the MoneySupermarket offices today!
Update #1 14th May 11:10: An Official Response from MSM:
(or is that an unintentional, unofficial response)
Wouldn’t banners on university sites just be classed as branding rather than SEO.
Related posts
GoCompare number 1 in Google
GoCompare Banned
Confused Banned
Capital One
Credit Made Clearer
lovemoney
Relationship with Your Money
CashQuestions
Personal Finance Problem Solver
Life Cover
Insurance Made Easy
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }
Glad to see some eagle eyed people out there. Great stuff. Comin’ now, ‘fuss up …who has filed a spam report on Money Supermarket in the past??!!
They are appearing in position 42 at my DC for [car insurance].
Indeed heads will roll. Moneysupermarket seemed to use alot of HTML based banners – which I actually thought was quite clever advertising and SEO in one hit. What are your opinions on this?
It looks to me like those banners in conjunction with the volume of them across university sites may be the problem. They have dropped out for most of the terms in the banner, however there are some insurance terms not in the banners that they still hold number 1 position for.
Incidentally, do you think Money Supermarket could re-build their entire inbound link equity as a result of so many people talking about them being dropped (and linking to them) in blogs on this topic??!! That would be annoying, wouldn’t it!
Creased, you’re on the brink of opening up the same can of worms which Matt Cutts opened a few weeks ago when he spoke about the ‘paidlink’ reporting.
It must be difficult for Google to distinguish with – black and white rules – between what is or isn’t “intended” link spamming. It has been fairly obvious to the rest of us what MS have been doing but to put that into a rule will be tough.
Wouldn’t banners on university sites just be classed as branding rather than SEO.
If you links are not relevant or the on page text of the pages carrying the adverts is irrelevant then why would Google kick them out, its just links at the end of the day, not much use for SEO so the links would be discounted anyway wouldn’t they?
@Psyfer
There is no way that you can spin this as ethical advertising! Paid links (bought by moneysupermarket) are clearly being used to cheat Google. Buying these links (or bribing Uni students) doesn’t mean that because you have the money, you should appear top!
P.S. You should have a disclaimer saying that you work for MoneySupermarket as that’s what your IP Address resloves to!!
I don’t do SEO George, apologies I was asking a serious question, I was just interested…
This is a tough one. I never thought that their banners were a problem – and in terms of the sites functionality, I beleieved it to be a good entry at #1 for most insurance terms; after all they did feature most products and insurers. I’d rather they be #1 than a niche product provider like Saga or Diamond.
I don’t support anything they have done should it be ‘Black’ or ‘Dark-Grey Hat’, but it definately feels like the lines are blurred if that is what they have been penalised for.
@Creased
This is where we will probably disagree. You say that you’d rather MS were #1 than a niche provider such as Diamond or Saga. I can see your point but I’m much happier knowing that those who appear at the top for a certain term have done so by ethical means.
We all know that it involves a lot of time and resource investment to achieve top ranking for the most popular insurance terms. We also know that a niche provider will convert less of this traffic due to their underwriting rules. Therefore, simple economic forces should give a natural and happy medium for customers and SEO’ers.
I see your point Ernest – and i agree; i’d love to be a fly on the wall at the offices today.
I was just saying that its a shame that a site that (in my opinion) probably should be #1 naturally had to use potentially underhanded methods.
What do we all predict will happen next?
Looks like all of the ads have been taken down!
@Creased
I’m not sure I’d agree they “should” be #1. But that goes into other debates about ethics, business models, general behaviour and so on.
As for future predictions…I’m sure they’ll come back up the listings but not necessarily as high up. Google will find them a natural listing in a few days – making this look like a severe slap on the wrist.
By the way MS, it has not escaped the attention of most that you’re suddenly being very nice. It makes people nervous! Go back to being a bully. At least everyone knew where they stood then!!
Is anyone seeing more changes? I’m seeing Admiral at #2 on one DC, but not the other?
@Creased
Looks like a simple update to me. I’ve got them at #2 on one DC and #6 on most of the others. Depends which DC tool you’re using and which way the trend is heading.
Which of the DC checking tools are you using?
Mcdar – i’m not a big fan of it. Admiral & Virgin seem to be absent of a couple of the DCs.
You tend to get a huge US slant on the McDar tool. That’ll obvious skew things. I woulnd’t be surprised if it’s just an update working its way through the DCs. Give us a shout if the trend is ‘drop’ rather than ‘pick up’.
So, having commented a fair bit on the MS situation (and following Rich’s post) …what do you think MS should be doing now? Or what can you see them doing?
Not sure I agree with the any of the discussion surrounding the advertising on MoneySupermarket’s site being the casue of the penalisation.
Back-links, bought ones, and lots of them – that’s the cause. MoneySupermarket are the biggest name in the UK’s online financial sector and Google have picked them out because they know it will trigger this exact discussion, hoping that many SEOs will now be saying ‘link buying’s dead’, but I don’t know any that are, or will ever be, until the random penalisations stop, and an algorithm change puts a stop to it all (which I don’t think will happen any time soon).
My thoughts on MoneySupermarket, ASDA finance and Ocean Finance, the big three sites to be punished over the past few months can be read here:
http://www.groupmind.co.uk/asda-ocean-finance-and-now-moneysupermarket-google-gets-tough-on-the-big-link-buyers/
@Jones
Great piece on the MS and OF situation. I share many of your views but…
…the debate on this post about the advertising which MoneySupermarket has been running (I agree – its not the sole reason they’ve been penalised). However, the reason it is interesting is that it fits into that grey area between link buying and advertising. Perhaps the human eye is better at spotting these. Maybe Google will be putting more emphasis on page theme of the linking page. All speculation and none of us know.
I’d be looking more towards the ‘help’ they give to university students in exchange for back links. What say you?
I think you’re spot on in that this is being used as a warning to the market – perhaps ASDA and 17to40 weren’t big enough SEO entities so they had to go after the establishment! Still, good to shake things up a bit and, at the end of the day, MS can’t say that what they were doing fits within Google’s guidelines.
Have Google issued any advice on how they wish everyone to proceed or even advised the market as to how they wish to see things change?
Jones mentions in his article that Confused should be worried, but shouldn’t they be made aware of what exactly they should be worried about in the first place. There appears to be a lot of speculation that unethical link buying is the cause (which makes sense), but it would be helpful to have this confirmed so that everyone can correct their SEO strategies accordingly.
Kevin
I think Jones probably says Confused should be worried on the basis of some of their backlinks. They seem to have purchased run of site links from unrelated sites which look exactly like the type of links Matt Cutts is asking for feedback on, he updated his link buying post a couple of days back and gave examples of the type of link buying they want feedback on.
I don’t think google need to come out and clarify, their position is clear. Eveybody in the top 10 has acquired links to some degree, if they don’t they won’t rank, but some have been going over the top and trying to force the issue, got greedy, trying to keep up, call it what you want.
I’m actually surprised Confused have bought that type of link, maybe they were getting fed up with MS getting away with it??
I know the focus of this discussion and site is Insurance, but I actually think the other financial sectors are being spammed more at the moment, especially, loans, mortgages & credit cards.
Some very heavy link buying in these sectors and also co-op link network participation.
I would think Ocean finance are the tip of the iceberg in that sector.
@Kevin
Read the Google guidelines. Any link ‘buying’ is unethical according to the Big G. That’s why I raised an eyebrow that you were dabbling with this.
Google prefers to see the natural accumulation of links. Therefore, you should look to grow steadily and not too quickly, keep as many links as possible in line with text, create content which people want to link to without being paid …keep pushing your PR! If the Big G sees this, it will see you as an authority in the sector and your links will carry some good weight even if you don’t have 100 billion trillion million of them.
Kevin
For clarity, this is an example of bad linking buying on Confused’s part – http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/category/adsense/
Bottom left, 1 of loads of links under the heading “Site Sponsors”.
Just my opinion, I don’t think a site of that stature needs to do that.
@Rich
Fret not about heading off sector. We can all learn from things outside of our wonderful world of insurance!! I think you’re right. This is could be the tip of the iceberg. Maybe Google is using MS and OF as visible domains to put people off and invoke this sort of debate (as Jones suggested). Maybe they’re trialling methods. Either way, the Big G isn’t happy.
Could it be that competiting on one of the most competitive SEO terms in the world [car insurance] and having to use non-ethical techniques is simply not worth it? Could it possibly be that the conversion rates (remember this is about revenue not egos) of the slightly widers terms is better, more cost effective and achieveable without breaking the Big G’s guidelines?
Interesting that USwitch are using the same tactics as moneysupermarket i.e. a banner placement on student sites e.g. http://www.bamstudent.com.
Wait a second.
Let me get this right. If I want to compete with a website high in the insurance market all I have to do is buy that site a few hundred links on some student sites?
What a fantastic weapon!
Sorry, I don’t beleive it nobody can control who links to them…
@M A L
If they’re supplying the hosting they can set the condition. If the site doesn’t accept the condition, their free/discounted hosting is revoke. So, yes, they could control the links. It’s just a different sort of payment. Of course, that is in addition to any other paid link activity which is open to everyone.
Also, nobody is saying that this is the sole reason for their success. They have a number of strong on-page elements, coupled with some strong authority links coming from their partnership pages e.g. newspaper and money sites.
What say you? Got a vested interest?!
@Ernest
I’m confused. What I’m saying is lets say moneysupermarket sort their mess out. They’re back number one in the serps etc.
Well if I don’t want them there and I want them out of the index again all I’ve got to do is buy a load of links on the same student sites and poof, they’re gone.
I’m liking this more and more, thanks google.
@M A L
I see what you’re saying. Absolutely. This is a dangerous area. I think it was one of the most common points to be raised in the responses to Matt Cutts’ “paidlink” reporting post.
I don’t know how Google will be able to distinguish this sort of malicious activity, although some claim to be able to spot pattern and that this is what they’ll look for. I guess the “padilink” use of the spam reporting tool lets them feel around for ideas and see how people report these links.
I’ve heard a weak argument which suggests that the cost of buying links will deter competitors from doing this and that it’ll have an oligopoly effect – you’ll have to do it because everyone else is – cancelling all of the activity out. Bit far fetch and complete rubbish if you ask me!
Any ideas on how the Big G will work through this?
Do any of our readers have a Hitwise account? It would be good to see how the traffic volumes have been hit.
@George
Hitwise have not updated their figures yet. Will check back on Monday.
With regards to buying links to get other sites penalised (or Google bowling). I don’t believe this is possible anymore, all that has happened to Moneysupermarket is a devaluation of a large portion of their paid links.
Cheers Tron. Good to see a new name on the posts. Been lurking for a while??!! Let us know when you get the Hitwise stats. Did you fill in a MS spam report or two or your own?
@MAL, Dan
If Google roll out an algorithm that penalising link buying, Google bowling could become the next big SEO tool and I know I would have a queue of people lining up to use it, whatever the cost.
Hopefully this won’t become reality.
However, instead of penalising link buyers, the algorithm would more likely penalise link sellers, preventing them passing PageRank to other sites. This is the likely avenue Google will take, but it will only serve to make link buyers smarter. Already I’m seeing the sites using the words ‘Sponsored’ and ‘Advertising’ etc. (the words Google’s algorithm will be using to determine which links are paid-for) above their sold links struggling to attract the same kind of attention they once did, proving that the link market is starting to become a little worried about possible algorithm change.
Personally, I don’t see the major link brokers like Text Link Ads or LiveCustomer lasting much longer if they continue down the same path. They’ve tried to branch out and get a little smarter, but not to the same extent as new link brokers like LinkXL, which I believe are about to become a major thorn in Google’s side.
I see moneyexpert.com are starting to climb for “car insurance”, following on from their high rankings for loans, credit cards & mortgages.
How are they doing it? Digital point link network.
@Ernest – thanks for the welcome. Hitwise has now updated.
There has been a fairly obvious fall, but perhaps not as significant as you might have expected. Sorry that I can’t post graphs, but license does not permit.
No, not been doing any of the reporting – in fact I would suggest that MS are perhaps one of the companies that deserves to rank prominently. I think from a user point of view they provide a fairly decent service. Their use of sponsored links is only in place to contend with link farmers.
@Rich – I had noticed Money Expert creeping up, but again a quick “link:[URL]” search shows that they have a fair few sponsored links pointed their way as does just about every page one listing.
@Tron
If you look at previous comments; I made the same point about MS being a good service – and deserving the #1 spot for many terms. On a recent journey through the site, pop-ups were shooting up all over the place. In fact during a quote for Travel Insurance a pop-up shoved Norwich Union in my face for the same product in-between every page!
The site has far too many ads in my opinion – http://www.gocompare.com and http://www.confused.com don’t go down the same route – thankfully!
@Rich, funny you noticed moneyexpert.com. I came back onto the blog to post a comment about them having spotted a link ring which they appear to crop up in. They also appear with moneyweb.co.uk but I haven’t had any time to look into their situation.
@Creased, you’re coming around to our way of thinking!!
@Tron, there are many reasons why they don’t ‘deserve’ to be number one. They don’t supply the best service to the customer or the insurance market and work towards the short term goal of floating. Everything about them is designed to make people click. Customers end up buying a policy based on a high excess, false information and/or a stripped out policy. Plenty to cover in a single post.
@Google: chooseinsurance, endsleigh (and their many affiliated sites) and moneyexpert need the same treatment!! Optimistic but worth a shot
@Creased – In my opinion, there is no excuse for pop-ups. I am amazed that a/ any real consumer focussed website would want to serve them and b/ any bona fide advertiser would want to buy them. I am sure the lesson will be learned one day though.
The only exception I would suggest would be the occasional rich media Tangozebra / Eyeblaster type creative, which should be carefully capped.
@Ernest – sure, number one maybe not, but prominent. Although the following investigation might not agree. Sorry, it is not really insurance specific, more comparison orientated… http://tinyurl.com/2qrfcg
I would welcome a return to a more content focussed indexing with less reliance on what external sites are doing. This would then encourage websites to investigate ways in which to deliver more accessibility and consumer focussed initiatives. Ironically this is what Google say is at the core of the algorithm already.
Not sure if you guys have seen the following… http://tinyurl.com/345gy5
@Tron
A balanced view as ever. Indeed, there should really only be two camps:
a) content is king
b) customer is king
…which when it comes down to it, they’re exactly the same thing!!
I suppose you’re suggesting that the power is currently sitting with the webmasters and not customers – customers aren’t yet placing enough links to the best service. The link generation and power comes from having journalists and webmasters in your pocket working alongside a well oiled PR machine.
It seems like the story is certainly doing the rounds! Does anyone believe that this is a ‘temporary glitch’ on Google’s part – as MS suggest in the thisismoney.co.uk report?
It seems as though most of the people writing about the MS situation have absolutely no idea about SEO.
One guys is writing about the forums discussing invisible links. If he checked the date of those posts, they’d see that they date back to 2005.
Ah, to think MS claim not to use any black hat techniques when it actually goes back to years of trying lots of dodgey practices.
@Creased – I’m sure they’ll come back in a few weeks. They’ll work around it, push their budget into different areas, concentrate on bringing themselves closer to the grey line, pay their bung to the Big G. Whatever it takes.
Does anyone think this was a “temporary glitch”. Either way, they’re back at number 1 across all the DCs I have checked.
Perhaps someone delivered a brown paper bag filled with cash to Google!
Seems a company called Latitude are doing Ocean’s seo
http://www.searchlatitude.com/index.php?/weblog/authors/fc0f66819bd0e6afc21539ad3f97ad6e/
Thats a shame. Does this mean they didn’t do any wrong? or what they did do isn’t as black as we’d hoped?
So, MS are back. Everywhere you look. Amazingly they have even acquired improved positions.
I stand by my original statements and maintain they deserve prominent positions, but something seems a little odd here.
To hit top spot on so many terms where previously not even on page 1 is a little suspect. None of the pages have even been crawled since 20/05 the day on which they took the hit.
I could understand it if it was the odd phrase here and there, but such a clean sweep, in the space of an hour or so – go figure.
It seems Latitude don’t like being in the spotlight. They’ve removed the content, LOL.
It is detailed many times on their website…
http://www.searchlatitude.com/index.php?/weblog/authors/fc0f66819bd0e6afc21539ad3f97ad6e/
@M A L
This should help:
http://www.searchlatitude.com/index.php?/search/results/74ed27d7ece8167d35369ac9f992d11a/
@Tron, Creased,
They started removing many of their banners soon after they were dropped. But, to turn it around to quickly, something seems a little fishy…
It’s worth pointing out that Latitude don’t do Ocean’s SEO anymore, that’s probably why the content was removed.
Ocean Finance have gone with another ‘leading’ SEO company, and subsequently were banned by Google even for their domain name.
This has now been reversed but they still don’t rank well for anything.