Matt, WordPress, and Search Engine Gaming

Update:
Every­one, Please under­stand that this not about WordPress the soft­ware, or WordPress developers, or even WordPress Inc. It is about Matt Mul­len­weg allow­ing someone else to game Google’s search engine on the WordPress.org site.


I feel I have to com­ment on the cur­rent WordPress story build­ing over the ‘dis­cov­ery’ that Matt has been using the wordpress.org domain to host thou­sands of specially-written art­icles designed to attract high pay­ing Google Adsense adverts, and their out­go­ing links gain­ing high page rank from WordPress.org’s own page rank.
Dou­gal Camp­bell has writ­ten a reasoned response to the story break­ing. It is most unfor­tu­nate that Matt is cur­rently on vaca­tion in Europe, but Jonas has replied quite reas­on­able. Jonas is also say­ing he will answer anyone’s ques­tions 24×7 which is most gen­er­ous of him.
I will also quote Andrew’s open­ing disclaimer:

Dis­claimer. I’m hes­it­ant to even write about this, know­ing the web’s fond­ness for angry mob justice, but I feel like it’s an import­ant issue that needs to be addressed. My one request: please be calm and rational. WordPress is a great pro­ject, and Matt is a good guy. Think before pil­ing on the hate­m­ail and flames.

I sus­pect that Matt is now aware of the situ­ation as the pages seemed to have dis­ap­peared, or else someone trus­ted has taken them down.

It’s worth not­ing that Matt already respon­ded to a query on the sup­port for­ums about this in Feb­ru­ary saying:

The con­tent in /articles is essen­tially advert­ising by a third party that we host for a flat fee. I’m not sure if we’re going to con­tinue it much longer, but we’re com­mit­ted to this month at least, it was basic­ally an exper­i­ment. How­ever around the begin­ning of Feb­ru­ary dona­tions were going down as expenses were ramp­ing up, so it seemed like a good way to cover everything. The Adsense on those pages is not ours and I have no idea what they get on it, we just get a flat fee. The money is used just like dona­tions but more spe­cific­ally it’s been going to the business/trademark expenses so it’s not entirely out of my pocket anymore.

My opin­ion? I say, let’s not make a moun­tain out of a mole hill till we have all the facts. It sounds very much like Matt has made dubi­ous decision for all the right reas­ons. But I believe the only thing one can con­sider Matt may have done wrong here is host­ing these art­icles on wordpress.org. Host­ing them at all I don’t have a prob­lem with: It is one way that could be used to help pay for the enorm­ous host­ing costs he must have. There are art­icles out there explain­ing exactly how to do this on your own site.

Matt has my sup­port, he has done a huge amount for this pro­ject. Far, far more than I have. I hope he can sort this one without to much fal­lout. The fact that he has already been open about it stands in his favour.

update:As Dr Dave poin­ted out in the com­ments, Matt didn’t respond to the forum post until Andy said he was going pub­lic with the story. I will still sup­port Matt, but I think he really has been very silly to get involved in this and to tie it in to wordpress.org

19 thoughts on “Matt, WordPress, and Search Engine Gaming

  1. If Matt wants to make a little cash, who are we to ques­tion how he does it? He cre­ates a great product and has a com­munity that sup­ports that product. As long as it isn’t in our face, let him do what he wants, he deserves it.

  2. Pingback: raincontreras.com - one pinoy pundit points and shoots » Google vs. WordPress, on Search Engine Gaming

  3. To me this is an obvi­ous attempt by Google/Blogger to threaten the com­pet­i­tion (WordPress). I haven’t seen the WordPress art­icles in ques­tion, that’s not really import­ant – Google never had to spider these pages in the first place – nobody forced Google to spider any­thing – and remem­ber there are dozens of search engines out there, thou­sands of index­ing robots, and just as many sites selling adwords. Using keywords to feed ads has been com­mon prac­tice way before Google was buy­ing ads on TV. WordPress is clearly a beau­ti­ful pro­gram – and as an artist, that’s why I use it – and will con­tinue to use it.

    Because of this I will not be using Google in the future – I’ll be switch­ing to Hotbot.com. Browsers and search engines come and go like the wind – Google has clearly lost touch with real­ity – maybe the money is going to their heads.

  4. PJ,
    Google have no such agenda in mind.
    I think you are miss­ing the real point of the con­tro­versy. Matt used hid­den links on the homepage of wordpress.org. That’s the bit that is under­hand, expli­citly against Google’s rules, and, I believe, an error of judgement.

    Mike

  5. Pingback: Mangas Verdes » WordPress flirtea con el spam

  6. You are blind if you think so. What do you think a meta tag is? It’s a “hid­den” keyword. Look at any affil­i­ate pro­gram – use Zappos.com for example. Do a search for the pair of shoes that you are wear­ing right now and you’ll see dozens, if not hun­dreds of domains using keywords and links to attract Google traffic – all of them auto-generated by some script with the intent of gar­ner­ing the atten­tion of SE index robots. Is that spam­ming Google? No! Ebay does the same thing!

    WordPress can serve whatever it wants to that’s legal – who died and made Google lord of the inter­net? I can’t believe that any­one is sup­port­ing Google on this. Isn’t it obvi­ous to you that WordPress is a tar­get because of Blog­ger?! Maybe you don’t real­ize how import­ant Blog­ger is to Google. What Google didn’t anti­cip­ate – Wordpress users are smarter than Blog­ger users ;)

    If you think that Google should have the power to tell you what ads to use, where and how many, you have just lost your mind.

    Inform­a­tion wants to be free – good­bye Google.

  7. This is dir­ec­ted primar­ily at the haters:

    PJ has this right. This is *not* Google’s inter­net. What people do on their own webpage is their own damn busi­ness. Who gives a fly­ing flip if it’s “against Google’s rules”? I believe the site is hos­ted in the United States, and last I checked, in most of those states, the 1st Amend­ment still applies.

    How is what was done any worse than a google­bomb­ing, or any other “abuse” of Google’s index­ing cri­teria? This tech­nique is not new. This tech­nique IS NOT the same or sim­ilar to e-mail spam. Per­haps Google needs to work on its rank­ing cri­teria. Like most tech com­pan­ies, when they were small they embraced the hack­ers, now that they’re big they seem to be about to begin attack­ing them.

    Matt has spent more time work­ing on the WordPress pro­ject than most of these whiners gaze into their navel, which is a lot. It’s sad that his work and recog­ni­tion has made him a tar­get of these leeches.

    A mis­take in judge­ment was made. It was noth­ing more than a P.R. error. I wish people would just grow up and deal with it.

    Argh.

  8. Of course, I side mostly with the camp of reason and mod­er­a­tion on this one. I fully agree with (and know oh-so-well) Dougal’s point about the fact that run­ning an open-source pro­ject hardly ever brings the money to even pay for themselves.

    That being said: here are the few points that bother me (admit­tedly nowhere near deserving the kind of cru­ci­fix­ion some are try­ing to put together here):

    1) Indeed, very bad judge­ment. Then how comes abso­lutely *nobody else* seems to have been involved in this decision. I know Matt is the “lead developer” and prob­ably WordPress’ Pub­lic Fig­ure, but we also both know very well that he is only one of a team, and that many other people should have at least a small say in such a decision (If Matt had con­sul­ted a few people, even if he hadn’t listened to them, we prob­ably wouldn’t be there now). Unfor­tu­nately, this sounds rather typ­ical of many of the pro­ject decisions I have witnessed.

    2) As you say, along with your link to his reply in the For­ums, “The fact that he has already been open about it stands in his favour”…

    Except he hasn’t.

    Andy spe­cify that this thread in the forum was ori­gin­ally “closed without com­ment by an unknown mod­er­ator”. It took Andy’s talk­ing to Matt and basic­ally mak­ing it clear he would dis­close the details to every­body in the near future, that promp­ted Matt to write some sort of explan­a­tion. I am per­son­ally very annoyed by that.

    All in all, abso­lutely noth­ing to get up in arms about. How­ever, if there’s any­thing to be learnt from this, it’s maybe that a little bit more trans­par­ence couldn’t hurt.

  9. Pingback: ushimitsudoki.com : the blog » Blog Archive » WordPress Games Google

  10. Pingback: yarbroughs dot org » WordPress Spamming Google?

  11. I must say I agree with Mike.

    The hid­den links was the shady part. I have stumbled upon some of the art­icles in ques­tion and wondered about the /articles/ folder because I hadn’t seen a link on any WP pages. I didn’t take note of it at the time, nor did I know he was using hid­den links to build pop­ular­ity. I hon­estly thought it was just another part of the WP site he was developing.

    The two art­icles I read were on host­ing and SEO — they were in no way “spammy” in my opin­ion, and were actu­ally well writ­ten for a new­bie look­ing for info.

    If only Matt had just placed a vis­ible link (even if he added a little “spon­sor” tag to it), all would have been peachy keen and good…but then there’s that pesky prob­lem with the duplic­ate content…

    It’s a good idea to gen­er­ate some extra cash IMO, but it just needs to be executed with a little more forethought.

  12. Is this an April Fool joke?
    If it is, I do not think it is very funny.
    If it is not, WTF? How the heck did this happen?

    Why do these prob­lems always pop up when the big boss is on Vaca­tion?
    PLEASE Pho­to­Matt — send a mes­sage to cla­rify this!

  13. PJ, Brandon,
    Again you are miss­ing the point. Google’s reac­tion isn’t about Blog­ger versus WordPress, or about whether Google can dic­tate what any­body puts on their web­site, it’s about the leg­ally bind­ing con­tract the users of Google’s Adsense pro­gram agree to. Which expli­citly pre­cludes doing what Matt did. Note that these are NOT Matt’s adverts, he was merely host­ing them. He did not make any money dir­ectly from Google.
    No-one should fool them­selves into think­ing that 168,000 art­icles on per­haps dozen sub­jects was any­thing innocent.

    Dr Dave,
    you missed the timestamps on those events. The forum thread and Matt’s response were more than a month ago. Andy expli­citly says he IM-ed Matt last week to say he was going to run the story.

    Every­one,
    Please under­stand that this not about WordPress the product, or WordPress developers, or even WordPress Inc. It is about Matt Mul­len­weg allow­ing someone else to game Google’s search engine on the WordPress.org site.

  14. Mike:

    Cor­rect me if I’m wrong (and I may be: I haven’t spent my day look­ing into that), but here is what you see on that forum thread:
     – last com­ment made by a user regard­ing the mat­ter: Pos­ted: 2005-02-21 18:18:52 #
     – reply from Matt: Pos­ted: 2005-03-24 15:00:41 #

    Basic­ally: one week ago, more than one month after the ori­ginal inquiry, and most likely after Andy told him it would be pub­lished any­way. And Andy men­tions that until that point, the thread had been closed without notice by a moderator.

    In my book, “being open” about it (in a very lim­ited way, since we are basic­ally talk­ing about a small blurb at the end of a month-old sup­port thread) because you are about to be pub­licly called on it, is not really being open about it…

    Don’t get me wrong: I fully under­stand why he would want to do that, and, to some extent, I under­stand the decision (if only by giv­ing a look at the incred­ible blo­go­sphere cir­cus this thing has become). But I can’t bring myself to find that OK.

    Oth­er­wise, I agree with you regard­ing what this is about and what this is not about. But it’s impossible to fully sep­ar­ate wordpress.org from the product: one def­in­itely affect the other. Decisions on one affect the other.

  15. Dr Dave
    You are right. I totally mis-read the dates on those post­ings!
    Please accept my apologies.

    It also got men­tioned in early March on one of the wp mail­ing lists, but again, there was no response.

    Mike

  16. Pingback: Doe Niet Zo Moeilijk! » WordPress aan het spammen?

  17. Pingback: Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com » Moral Dillema

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>