“In approximately April 2012, Google stepped up enforcement of its policies against link building schemes, in part through the implementation of new programs and algorithms collectively known as the “Penguin” update.” (Sterling, 2014)
As of November 2022, Google Search Central clearly states:
“Policy circumvention
If you engage in actions intended to bypass our spam or content policies for Google Search, undermine restrictions placed on content, a site, or an account, or otherwise continue to distribute content that has been removed or made ineligible from surfacing, we may take appropriate action which could include restricting or removing eligibility for some of our search features (for example, Top Stories, Discover). Circumvention includes but is not limited to creating or using multiple sites or other methods intended to distribute content or engage in a behavior that was previously prohibited.”
“Scam and fraud
Scam and fraud come in many forms, including but not limited to impersonating an official business or service through imposter sites, intentionally displaying false information about a business or service, or otherwise attracting users to a site on false pretenses. Using automated systems, Google seeks to identify pages with scammy or fraudulent content and prevent them from showing up in Google Search results. Examples of online scams and fraud include:
Impersonating a well-known business or service provider to trick users into paying money to the wrong party
Creating deceptive sites pretending to provide official customer support on behalf of a legitimate business or provide fake contact information of such business” (Google Search Central, 2022)
The article by Greg Sterling, Lawyers Sue SEO Firm For Violating Google Guidelines, was based on the wording in the guidelines above. “Creating and using multiple sites” and “Imposter sites”. The case was filed in 2013 by the law firm in Michigan, Seikaly & Stewart, against Rainmaker Institute for violating Google guidelines in the SEO plan they were providing to the law firm. 6720 links were created 6532 of which were useless link farming techniques that often did not lead to the lawfirm’s site at all.
In 2015, the lawsuit was resolved in favor of Rainmaker Institute and against Seikaly & Stewart. Both parties were ruled to be responsible for their own attorney’s fees and costs. Seikaly & Stewart was ordered to take nothing, and the action was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Eileen S Willett on 3/20/2015. This means that although the judge determined Seikaly & Stewart did not adequately prove their case and that they can’t re-file the same claim again in that court.
Although legally Rainmaker institute won the case that does not mean that they were ethical in the ways in which they manipulated SEO. Seikley and Stewart law office paid for services that they felt were not adequately rendered. In fact it was alleged that it actually damaged the company’s Google rankings due to this unethical behavior. Just because there are legal loopholes does not mean that the behavior is ethical as this information indicates. As more and more firms become privy to the shady behavior Rainmaker is engaging in they may see short term revenue but the business reputation will eventually go bust. If one engages in ethical behavior it is far more likely that the business will succeed long term as that is a universal value that insights trust in your target market. Aaron Morris in 2014 wrote the following article explaining his experience with Rainmaker and it is certainly not positive. http://practiceoflawblog.com/my-experience-with-stephen-fairley-and-the-rainmaker-institute/ While Rainmaker is still in business I am skeptical to believe that their own marketing processes are above board after doing research for this blog, which isn’t even the extent I would research should I be looking into them for my own small business. Research is an incredibly important activity prior to writing a check to any marking firm, history of a company is telling.
Resources:
Arizona District Court (February 2, 2017) Seikaly & Stewart PC v Fairly et el: Case No. 2:13-cv-01502 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2uys8gf/arizona-district-court/seikaly-and-stewart-pc-v-fairley-et-al/
Google Search Central (November 11,2022) Spam policies for Google web search https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#policy-circumvention
Sterling, Greg (May 26, 2014) Lawyers Sue SEO Firm For Violating Google Guidelines https://searchengineland.com/lawyers-sue-seo-firm-violating-google-guidelines-192492
Wellington Jessie 