Oh, great. This is exactly what we needed now.

While doing link analysis on behalf of Debtcounsellors.co.uk, I discovered something very surprising - hidden links on The Financial Times website, FT.com. The links were placed on prominent pages and pointed to one of the major online financial services providers in the UK, Moneysupermarket.com.

Jesus Fu@%ing Christ! Are even respected media companies no longer able to resist the quick buck that shady SEOs offer?

At least when individuals do this, we usually see an apology and get a bit of back story. Anyone wanna bet on the publisher issuing an apology and explaining why they're stooping to such lameness?

Posted by jzawodn at June 11, 2005 07:54 PM

Reader Comments
# Phil Ringnalda said:

And how can you not love the fact that if you follow his link to comment on his blog, you find a comment spam expressing outrage about link spamming, and a comment spam saying it's a victimless crime.

Also, I'm trying to figure some way of interpreting http://finders.telegraph.co.uk/petinsurance/ as anything other than The Telegraph selling links to moneysupermarket.com, and failing.

on June 11, 2005 10:12 PM
# Che Dong said:


on June 12, 2005 12:21 AM
# Nick W said:

I laughed so hard i almost wet me pants...

This stuff is going to blow up, I think it's possible that link based algo's could get a right royal rogering as more and more 'ordinary' folks discover what you can do with them...


on June 12, 2005 08:04 AM
# aaron wall said:

>quick buck that shady SEOs offer

I don't think that move was dependant on a shady SEO. They didn't even use good anchor text.

It is interesting that any time ANYONE does something shady (as it relates to search) it is immediately assumed to be tied to an SEO company though.

on June 12, 2005 11:17 AM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

No, a *shady* SEO company.

See the difference?

on June 12, 2005 11:58 AM
# NFFC said:

>See the difference?

No, Elucidate.

on June 12, 2005 02:06 PM
# Ben said:

Jeremy, I respect your views, and read your blog regularly. But I have to take expception on taking my Lord's name in vain ("Jesus Fu@%ing Christ!")
God bless you.
- Ben

on June 12, 2005 09:04 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

Hmm... How about H@oly Cr4p!?

on June 12, 2005 09:24 PM
# aaron wall said:

For what it is worth that link is now visible.

When stuff like that invisible link happens, many times it is the fault of bad recommendations of a web designer / web developer who assures the webmasters that they know what they are talking about.

Sometimes SEOs actually help make things better.

on June 13, 2005 06:06 AM
# seth said:

Goddammit, Ben, I pray to god that you are kidding.

on June 13, 2005 12:26 PM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.