Thumbtack Blatantly Violating Google TOS?

[kirmeliux]

Hi,

We have a business registered on Thumbtack so we receive their newsletters. I'm aware that review sites offering a "badge" or verification logo which links back to your profile is nothing new. But the email I received from Thumbtack is a fairly blatant attempt to game Google for popular keywords.

I was just curious on your thoughts about this. I believe it was Overstock who did something like this and got slapped by Google pretty hard for a while. Could Thumbtack be heading down the same path?

Image: http://i.imgur.com/FWPnmEP.jpg

[Travis_Bailey]

It's pretty hard to tell if that's a followed link, what with the strike-out and all. Though I would say this falls into the link scheme category, given the exact match anchor text. Google has already been fairly clear that badge/widget links, especially those that pass PR and include exact match anchors, are seen as manipulative.

So yes, it appears they're playing a pretty dangerous game. Though they may slide in under the wire until it comes to a manual review, or if it becomes so noticeable that it's filtered or hit by the algorithm. It definitely violates a few of these guidelines on link schemes.

[kirmeliux]

Sorry, the link is definitely follow and as you noted, an obvious exact match anchor. They're a huge site and are obviously aware of what they're doing. The link itself goes to the person's profile page and not a generic category page which is still pretty risky.

[YairSpolter]

Looks like it caught up with them: http://searchengineland.com/confirmed-google-venture-backed-thumbtack-hit-with-manual-action-for-unnatural-links-222664

[kirmeliux]

Yup. I just saw the article. Looks like they actually used my screenshot on it from last year. Glad to see they were punished. I hate when giant sites get a free pass on stuff like this.

[Travis_Bailey]

Ten. Years. Later. XD

It is pretty interesting to note that they specifically state they've removed the 'bonus' internet points from Thumbtack profiles. I would imagine they were told it might improve their case. It's definitely a bit of a SWAG on my part, but even the goofy internet points may have been considered material.

One could see how possibly having more 'internet points' may influence a purchase/contract decision. So that may be enough to support a materiality claim as well.