Has the Gentleman's Code of hyperlinking been violated?

Adrants believes it has exposed some unreconstructed search marketing practices over at the FT. 

A researcher found 138 hidden links (typically hyperlinked text that is formatted the same colour as the background) on FT.com. As it is probable that Google's algorithms favour the FT as a "trusted source" any websites that benefit from in-links from that site may appear more regularly at the top end of Google's search results pages.

Unfortunately, the Adrants piece is itself suspect as it fails to 1) identify the context of the research 2) assumes that the FT has charged for these links and 3) doesn't say which pages were the beneficiaries. (Worth a bit of a play on FT.com though...)

"We don't pretend to know a lot about search engine marketing but we don't have to know much to realize it's practices such as this that undermine the medium, affect consumer trust and make life that much more challenging for marketers who choose to play by the rules.", Adrants concludes. Which rules are these? Surely a more serious factor affecting trust in the medium is the very ignorance they owned up to at the start of that statement?

Published 14 June 2005 11:51 by Guy Howard

Filed under: Search marketing

Comments

• 

  Steve Hall said:

  Obviously you know what a blog is because this appears to be one. Following that logic, you'd also know blogs link to stuff. Had you looked closely, you would have realized my post linked to the full article I was referring to where you could then grasp the full context of what McGaffin uncovered. So, to point 1, follow the link and you'll have your answer. As to point 2, sure I assumed but who would go to the trouble unless there was some gain. It's not FT that's gaining from these links but those companies whose links were placed on FT. As to point 3, see point 1.
  
  As to which rules, see Google. They frown on the use of hidden links and punish sites that use them. Is it any wonder it appears the hidden links have, reportedly, disappeared from FT following this discovery?
  June 14, 2005 15:01
• 

  Guy Howard said:

  Have now found that link on Adrants.com - thanks and apologies for the hastiness. Yet I originally read the story in an RSS aggregator and it wasn't visible there!
  
  I think what we are discussing here are business rules rather than an ethical code. The FT wouldn't do this if there was no advantage to be had by bending them. I therefore suspect it was the adverse Adrants publicity that prompted the removal of these links, rather than a sudden realisation that in search marketing terms, they had been pissing into the wind.
  June 14, 2005 17:38