advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Home Depot’s SEO Furor

April 18th, 2012

Home Depot’s Niemi also said: “In this case, where it’s stated ‘visually indicated,’ it could better have been said ‘visually differentiated.'” If a link isn’t visually differentiated, that would still seem to meet Google’s hidden definition, in that a site visitor couldn’t see that it was a link, nor where the link went to, but search engines could.

An even more interesting explanation from Niemi speaks to the key question of why Home Depot would even suggest that a link needn’t be “visually indicated.” She wrote: “Because our service providers for the installation business can generate business from other avenues beyond The Home Depot, [the Home Depot SEO group’s] concern was that the link to Home Depot would be a distraction, so we just wanted them to know that a link to The Home Depot didn’t need to be any more prominent than any other links to their other partners.”

In other words, the Home Depot argument is that installers wouldn’t want to alienate their customers at Lowe’s and other Home Depot rivals by including a link back to Home Depot. So to remove that reason to resist the link, the suggestion was made to make it not visible.

Two concerns with that. First, the memo didn’t say anything at all about a link being more or less prominent. The memo suggested that the link not be “visually indicated” at all.

As for being sensitive to its partners not wanting to upset Home Depot rivals, another SEO consultant had a different take. John Williams, the president of SEO consulting firm RankSolid, said he is guessing that the installers’ fear that Home Depot was really trying to address through its invisible link suggestion was traffic exits. The installers might fear that a visible link to Home Depot would give its customers an option to click away and explore alternatives.

Williams said the competitor concern might be something that impacts Home Depot more than its installers. Home Depot is likely thinking, “We don’t want to alert our competitor, Lowe’s, so that they don’t try and do the same thing,” Williams said.

As for saying that Home Depot’s links need not be more prominent than those from rivals, Williams offered this cynical interpretation: “Your hidden link for us doesn’t have to be any more prominent than your other hidden links.”

The Home Depot move struck an emotional nerve with many SEOs. “They don’t think very much of their suppliers and partners if they think they can pull the wool over their eyes. It’s flat out wrong,” said SEO consultant David Strom. “It annoys me that someone will take the time do this rather than optimize their page for actual SEO results. It’s an offensive, wrong-headed, dumb idea. Bad Home Depot, bad Home Depot.”

Google has always been aggressive about slapping down retailers for abusing link procedures—consider JCPenney and, shortly afterwards, Overstock.

Even in those two cases, the retailers each pointed fingers elsewhere. In the Home Depot case, the company had the courtesy to put it all in writing, and then to send it to a few thousand of its closest friends.

We reached out to Google to get its take on this situation and the company had nothing to say to us. Somehow, we’re guessing Google will have quite a bit to say to Home Depot.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.