Howdy all – sorry for the delay. Been lots of craziness in the Demand Sucks world, but it looks like we have the website back under control. Just so that we all know what the score is, here’s some prices to remind you:
DMD IPO Price 2011: $23.59
Current DMD price 2015: $6.58
Of course, that current price is after a couple of splits, so I’ll leave all the financial mumbo jumbo up to you DSSers or Richard Head if he ever decides to show up again.
Anyway, thanks for all the emails. Here’s a guest post from DSSer “Bob Smith”.
Demand Media Studios was founded on one principle – you can make millions by gaming Matt Cutts and Google. Demand did this successfully for a few years until it and other content mills nearly destroyed any credibility Google’s search engine produced. After Google took steps to crush content mills and the crap they produced, Demand promised to behave and create only quality content.
But has Demand has found a new way to game Google?
Although Demand has been replacing its library of eHow articles with “higher quality” versions, Demand is still keeping the comments, Likes, Tweets and Pins related to the old articles attached to the new articles. Doesn’t Google ranks pages higher in SERPs if they have more Likes, Tweets, Pins, Shares, etc.? Demand is keeping old comments on Writer A’s article attached to the new version of the article written by Writer B. Now, if a new eHow article is flawed or contains thin, generic content, it still gets the old article’s “Awesome!,” or “Really helpful!” comments, and the former article’s Likes, Shares, Tweets, Pins and Recommends.
If you also do a Google search of “site:ehow.com” and your Demand writer name, you might find your name attached to a list of articles you never wrote (original or rewrite). Is this being done to take advantage of a writer’s online presence to boost article search rankings? We’re not talking about a temporary lag that occurs when writers rewrite old articles: some eHow articles now appear under the name of credible Demand writers who had nothing to do with the original or the rewrite.
Is it fraud if Demand’s intent is to use author names, consumer comments and social links from a deleted article to boost the SERPS of another article to generate more revenue from advertisers who think the pages on which their ads are appearing are being socialized? Do Demand’s advertisers have any recourse to recoup some of their money, no matter why this bogus socialization happened? It will be interesting to see if there’s a class-action suit against Demand or Google.
Of course, this all could be an oversight. Demand would never purposely keep bogus socialization on their pages until they got caught, and then say, “This was just a technical oversight, we’ve fixed it.”
Hey Matt Cutts, squeal like a pig for us. Again.