Here is the release on Homebase and its SEO practice.
Taking an objective view on this is difficult considering I am a cynic when it comes to ‘accidental’ bad practice in this industry.
The results speak for themselves and a look at the first snapshot will show you how well this approach has worked when combined with link spiking. For the agency looking after Homebase and its SEO needs then it is quite possible they will be crowing their success. For me the crucial test would come if it were scrutinised by Google, would it withstand this scrutiny? Perhaps as usual I am somewhat overzealous for a story?
For me there can be no excuses for some of these ‘mistakes’, clearly hiding text and headings is not a good way to deliver your website into Google and other search engines. The additional interception of Googlebot and other search engine spiders to ensure a different page is delivered to them than the default landing page is also a bit suspect.
One could argue they are not breaking rules on the interception because they are not seeking to gain any advantage and the page Google gets is similar to the page a user will get (only Google also gets the hidden content). The problem here is that the technique itself is questionable and has always been so, the fact that Homebase are being clever to try and promote their wares in search results is incidental?
For me there are just too many factors blending together here, all are linked by the fact that Homebase have page 1 position 1 profile for terms like ‘furniture’ and ‘kitchens’. It is the blend of these techniques that delivers the success and that is also seemingly underpinned by two massive link spikes.
If you add into the picture the use of Javascript redirects and also Meta refresh redirects then for me there is enough non compliance to trigger adverse credit in any search engine scrutiny. Currently the site is powerful enough to skip over any automated system which considering the use of the ‘no-script’ tag that’s hiding the content is also suprising.
So could I be playing ‘Devils Advocate’ unfairly?
- The argument for the no-script delivery will centre on the need to display alternative imagery should people visit the site without the functionality to see the flash element in the homepage, this is held in the no-script tags.
- The counter argument would state that this is merely a function to allow a non Flash enabled delivery with an ‘inadvertent’ delivery of content since this is also in the no script tags. However it is is a repetition of the existing page content that is still visible should the visitor not be enabled for Flash code and is also keyword orientated to the generic search terms they are now listed for.
- The argument for hiding headings – The setting of heading (H1) tags to be invisible (-1000) – this could be argued as ‘just the way developers do it’, again it’s a very convenient developer foible as it allows the site to present SEO orchestrated heading 1 tags on internal pages.
- Arguing the use of Meta Refresh And Javascript Redirects for visitors, the argument for would be based on usability.
- Again this is a very convenient way to circumnavigate the guidelines, it means that a badly setup platform is able to negate its poor delivery by bending the guidelines that others have to observe and deliver users a different page where they cannot see the hidden text whilst Google gets the hidden text as well.
- The interception of Googlebot (probably by IP filtering) and other search engine bots and delivering them also to a populated homepage with hidden content and hidden H1 tags (along with the visitors) will again be argued by the usability faculty.
- For me this is a clear breach of what is acceptable by justifying it through the usability vehicle. At the end of the day if the front end is delivering a page behind the scenes for the testing and or collection of information then its archaic in its use. Covering that process and enabling it to continue by intercepting people and search engine spiders and offering them pages with hidden factors incorporated is again a very convenient loophole to exploit. By delivering a page enhanced for search engine ranking directly to a search engine spider it is difficult to avoid criticism here.
The link spikes are standard practice in our industry where big brands are looking to get generic profile, the spikes are driven by two short term linking campaigns that utilise blogs, paid links and sitewide paid links, it is probable that this activity was implemented during some high profile PR so the smokescreen for link activity is hidden as people argue that link spikes are the norm with high profile PR. A closer look will show spammy links and a widely used paid linking strategy.
For me the abuse of the guidelines is intrinsically linked to their success, a year ago Homebase were screened out of Google and had No Profile for even longtail search. Now a year on with this ‘user functionality’ sidestepped by convenient techniques they are riding high on the crest of the search results.
See for yourself and make your own mind up- is this justified or an unfair advantage for Homebase deliberately engineered by their SEO agency.
One thing is for sure a smaller brand would not enjoy the same flexibility of guidelines!
Here is your pictorial guide for you to make your own judgement, am I on a witch hunt or is this an unfair advantage for Homebase?
- No Script Hidden Content
The duplicated ‘no script’ content (abbreviated for the screenshot)
——————————————————————
- Hidden Headings
Here is the heading 1 that is set not to display in the CSS, this heading used to be attached to the Homebase logo but that gave a sitewide H1 of Homebase – Make a House a Home which is not very keyword friendly and was wrapped round the logo on all pages. By detaching it from the logo the agency is able to nominate the heading structure on internal pages. The other headings are set to ‘-1000 left’ which allows SEO functionality in the system without improving it, enabling SEO techniques to influence a page to Google with disrupting it to the end user – not fair?.
—————————————————————————-
- Meta Refresh and Javascript redirects
Here is the use of the Javascript redirect and the Meta refresh command to deliver viewers a different landing page to the default server page.
—————————————————————————
- Default server page looks like this
Here is the that default page the server offers when you type in www.homebase.co.uk and is the one that Google used to rank Homebase on (very badly), now Googlebot doesn’t get this page anymore as it is intercepted and given the page with hidden content and headings.
This page has no credible search engine information and a meaningless title and description.
———————————————–
- Finally is Google just confused by all this – How can the search listing for the generic term Kitchens offer a misleading title and description and look at where the page rank resides?
Maybe that is why Homebase is able to get away with avoiding automated filtering because the interception and redirection is confusing it, here is the PR for the root URL (according to toolbar) and below is the PR for the redirected page (according to Google toolbar) the same results are seen through seoMoz. Then below that see how the search listing mimics the information from the redirected page and then accredits the data to the root URL, this in effect makes me believe this is an Unfair Advantage!
PR 5
—————————————————
PR Grey
———————————————-
Look at the listing for Kitchens – How can Google match this title and description?
—————————————————————
Conclusions
- So Homebase have had a meteoric rise in search listings for generic terms but is this at the expense of Google webmaster guidelines? Clearly on an automated level Google turns a blind eye but will the site endure scrutiny without penalty?
- If it is acceptable then should not all websites with difficult and unwieldy front ends be utilising the same techniques?
- If it is not acceptable then what will happen next?
- Do the competitors of Homebase feel the playing field is level?
Brought to you by Internal Affairs
I just wanna comment about the argument of the first link rule. I read the article from SEOMOZ and from my perspective, I think it is kind of overrated. SEOs are forgetting the true value of links which is leading visitors to other useful websites. Once I asked a guy in a forum what is the purpose of a link and he answered me: For getting higher rankings on Google. Obviously that webmaster is building his site for a machine and not for their readers. By common sense, the same link distributed within a page has a greater chance to get click so it gets a higher pagerank right?. Well the black magic SEO still works, on the other hand I hate finding the same annoying link every paragraph. Just my thoughts. Loved your blog subscribed!Daniel´s last blog ..Tube Socks
In the end, it is not good business to guide people towards the Grey or Black area of SEO. Somehow, the blame will come back, and haunt you, from one angry customer, whose site got banned by Almighty Google using the techniques from the Dark Side.
You you could make changes to the webpage title Homebase SEO Blackhat or Just Bad Deployment to more catching for your content you make. I liked the post all the same.
Great read..First trip to this blog. Appreciate you for sharing. I am going to subscribe to this site. I was am seo guy for years. Thanks again.
Hello Guru, what entice you to post an article. This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last Thursday.
Hi, how are you? cos I absolutely enjoy your great blog, i wuold enjoy if you would ask me to blog a honest review about your great site on my own would you be ok with that?
Thanks for the post I actually learned something from it. Very good content on this site Always looking forward to new post.
Thanks for sharing, please keep an update about this info. love to read it more. i like this site too much. Good theme
.
Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!
My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
P.S. Sorry for my bad english
Blimey, no wonder I couldn’t order my barbecue from their site! I got mine from B&Q in the end!
I think the way the story is laid out is good and balanced, of course the system being used is a poor legacy system but there is a very good chance that were it not for the extra text and the interception of Googlebot that this site would still be invisible to Google.
Maybe its worth a test whereby Google get a report and then we can see whether Shaun is getting excited over nothing.
Hi Webcommerce
Thanks for your post, my example above is referencing the homepage of a leading DiY company website. Until a year ago they were penalised in Google for their ‘out of the box’ offering, the SEO agency who now works on this has tried to push that system to peform better and rightly so.
My objective is to get response to the concept that in improving the search offering they are gaining an unfair advantage.
Most of the feedback about the SEO for Homebase is supporting the notion that whatever the reason used for offering content to Google in a system like this there is undoubted benefit from having more.
It is widely accepted that many corporates avoid copy where possible on the homepage so in a competitive market its a benefit to have more especially if its hidden since that also pacifies the brand stakeholder.
The Java presentation is indeed not good practice and because out of the box systems are not able to deliver with search engines in mind it doesn’t make it acceptable.
SEO has been around for 10 years or more and yet out of the box solutions continue to fail requirements, its a seperate study and one I did two years ago after going to an ecommerce show where they all proclaimed systems that were ‘SEO friendly’ and yet almost all were really terrible.
Its my guess that were a report sent to Google about the way Homebase is both intercepting Googlebot and switching its page (done serverside) and also hiding text there could be issues.
Interesting blog Sean; however my understanding is that all you are referring to is aligned with ‘out of the box’ websphere commerce (IBM) solutions and common when sites are optimised for JS? This means there is nothing wrong with what is outlined above, as many of the pages you refer to are not even indexed by Google? What of all the other business who run on the IBM platform and have the same set up? – surely they’re not all bad practice by running the same approach?
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Awesome journalism! The column covers it all without any propaganda and sheds light on the subject without an underlying agenda. This is mandatory reading for anyone trying to educate themselves on this topic.
Thanks for your eloquent input Curious,
Its good to see a balanced argument backed up with real quality input. I have not slated them anywhere in public forums and whether you like it or not I merely highlighted bad practice which it clearly is.
Certainly don’t need the business thank you as were already bursting at the seams having gone from 20 staff to 60 in just over 18 months.
Homebase need to tighten up their act and have some input with their webmaster management, there are many corporates in this condition and were it not for a push on brand most would still find themselves out in the search wilderness.
Shoddy SEO is not something I would accept from any agency.
Thanks for your intelligent input you have a clear and educated grasp of the English language, your parents must be proud!
Have a nice day
Never read such a load of xxxx in my life – if you feel you have a case, why not contact HB directly rather slate them in public forums. If you’re touting for business I’m sure they’ll listen….
A fair analysis I thought. Using accessibilty to justify what amounts to black hat in my opinion does nothing for the reputation of SEOs – and in particular those SEOs that go out of their way to play a fair game. As this is such a big company in the UK it will be interesting to see how this plays out as fair-minded SEOs will have to fight fire with fire, which is potentially a race to the moral bottom. Well done in spotting this and I hope this article goes on to bring this to Googles attention. Will they rule that this is all for the right reasons, or the wrong ones?
I can understand the use of certain things on a webiste – like Phark image replacement, for example, as a legitimate technique. But the accumalation of so many techniques that depart from webmaster guidelines – they’ve really pushed the boat out here.
Might Homebase be unaware of what is good and bad practice in SEO, and defer to the guidance of their SEO agency though?
I was just reflecting that you mention Homebase in relation to all this bad practice …. but who are the agency? Isn’t that where primary responsibility lies?
Very interesting indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how often anomolies like this show up in G serps.
It only goes to show that G’s algorithm and automated filters aren’t quite as advanced as they’d have you believe!
I agree that it’s unfair of Homebase’s SEO agency to do this, when it obviously crosses the line when it comes to the webmaster guidelines.
I hope they get took down a notch!
WOW what a story
very interesting – we lost out on a pitch for this work a year ago but never realised there was such an issue at the front.
Maybe this could go up the line in G??
London SEO – a competitor tho