Tag Archives: fake news sites

ParentHerald.com: Another deplorable Google News site

It seems the pervasiveness of deplorable news sources in Google News is never ending. One that has appeared quite often for me of late is Parentherald.com. They consistently top the “News” for any celebrity gossip despite presenting as a site about “parenting”.

Here is an amazing and recent story on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie that showed up at the top of my results….screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-10-31-49-pm

I especially love that Jolie is suffering from “severed headaches” and “husband-and-wife bonding which is needed to keep the fire burning”. Hahaha!

Can you just imagine what ParentHerald serves up as parenting advice?

Obviously the writers have used some sort of translate software to translate the copy which means these writers are not in the US so why would they get top priority for info about US pop culture?

By the way this is not an anomaly. It’s standard for all of their articles.

Again. Why is this acceptable?


Another interesting thing Parentherald does that other deplorable yet highly ranked Google sites like Christian Times do is aggressively promote Advertorials for IPads.screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-12-36-43-am

Seems the quality of the content is irrelevant to Google. The question is why? Google continues to vehemently deny any wrong doing or any “pay for play”, but why are their still so many SEO sites that can “guarantee” you top placement with Google?

Why does ParentHerald show up at the to of Google News consistently? Surely I am not the first to complain to them about this content.


Inquisitr keeps propagating hoax of Dexter reboot

So I am guessing The Inquisitr saw the article that we just wrote about them propagating the hoax of the Dexter Reboot as fact because they have come out in damage control today with a new piece titled…


And with a brand new disclaimer,

So here is the latest doublespeak that will have you scratching your head,

“It’s been three years since Dexter said goodbye to his fans. Ever since the finale, the Dexter fans have been patiently awaiting the news that Michael C. Hall would agree to come back and play the dark character again. For the past year, social media has been buzzing about a possible comeback and anticipated an announcement from Showtime in the next few months.

The one fact that we do know is that Dexter will return at some point. That much Showtime has confirmed.”

Really??? It’s a fact that “Dexter will return”??? …. based on….??? “Showtime confirmed”? Where? Why can’t you seem to show the specific evidence that shows Showtime “confirmed” this?

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 7.22.54 PM
Clip from Inquisitr story

FYI Christian Times is owned by Christian Media Corporation Company which also owns Christianity Today and you know how reliable that news has been!

So they link to an article in ChristianTimes as a source of this “factual information” but click on the link and it says,

“According to reports, a continuation of “Dexter” is currently on the table. However, Showtime has not yet confirmed if it is indeed happening, or if a release date is on the horizon.”

So their “confirmation” is a story that says it has “not been confirmed”….not only a release date, but if it’s happening at all.

And notice they utilize the ambiguous “reports” excuse. “According to reports”….”reports” that we do not have and have never seen, but take our word for it there are “reports” out there….somewhere!

Then the Inquisitr addresses the previous article that we just spoke about,

“The Inquisitr previously reported that Showtime confirmed they are planning to release a Dexter miniseries followed by a movie. Dexter is rumored to be slated to return in 2018, although, Showtime hasn’t confirmed anything just yet.”

Ha! So we reported that Showtime confirmed, but Showtime hasn’t confirmed anything just yet. So in other words ‘we lied to you’.

“All that we know for sure about Dexter’s return is that it will return, but Showtime hasn’t agreed when just yet.”

No Showtime hasn’t agreed that it will return at all!

They just said its a possibility. But I guess so long as Inquisitr can say it’s happening just sometime in the future (who knows maybe not even in your lifetime, but sometime in the future) they think they can get away with that blatantly false statement.

Again the Dexter Reboot hoax was first reported by Snopes. We discuss that in the below article.

And really how can both true? “Showtime hasn’t confirmed anything” AND “we know for certain Dexter will return?” They can not both be true.

Bottom line is this article is an admission that they falsely reported that Showtime “confirmed” a reboot cloaked in obfuscation.

The only thing that is true here is the statement “Showtime hasn’t confirmed anything just yet”.

So settle down fans. Dexter may return. It’s possible and I’m sure if it happens Inquisitr will take full credit for “reporting” it to us, but as of now there is nothing “confirmed”.

Keep digging your hole Inquisitr.

More hoaxes the Inquisitr published

Google Organic search rank is rigged

Google rigs question about whether being an Adwords customer helps your organic search rank

Google vehemently denies that organic search rank is rigged to favor the big players…as in the companies who are either paying Google via Adwords or can do favors for Google, but the evidence is pretty clear that the search game is in fact rigged to shut out the little guy.

And as such is oppressing any real competition by keeping the same monied interests at the top of organic search rank —- which is exactly why anti-trust laws were created. But Google knows anti-trust laws will not be enforced against them since Google runs the FTC.

Personally I am sick of Google lying about “organic” rank not being manipulated because it is so obvious. Not to mention Google has patents allowing advertiser info to connect to search rank! Why does Google encourage people to link their Google Analytics to their Google Adwords?

In classic Google fashion when “asked” the question about whether or not paying Adwords helps your organic rank Google rigged the question using Google employees posing as Adwords publishers.

This is amazing. The “Important Adwords customer” claims,

“I have seen a drop in ranking for my site. Why can’t I get advice on optimizing my site for Googles search result through my Adwords point of contact”.

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 11.04.42 PM

Here is the screenshot from their video in case they try and edit it in the future which I think they have done with some of these incriminating videos.

Problem is the person asking the question is Christoffel Hiltermann who works for Google in Webmaster Support and Education. The commentors are furious and call out Matt Cutts on lying about the fact that the “questions” are coming from random people when they are actually Google employees.

“Hey Barry how about asking Matt why he is answering questions from his employees masquerading as adwords publishers? Read the first comment and then do a search on ”
“Christoffel Hiltermann””

“Pretty lame if you ask me. So does he answer any questions from real people? What a waste of time it must be submitting questions! There is a bigger story in this but I doubt anyone will bother.

Had another look at Matts Videos first one I looked at was this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… and guess what There is an Ihar in prague who works for google! https://plus.google.com/+mahan… Does this guy actually take questions from real webmasters?”

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.21.54 PM

Why would Google do this? Because they want it to look like “Important Adwords customers” have actually seen a “drop” in their organic rank (aka no favoritism) AND that Google will provide no advice on organic search rank to even the biggest Adwords customers because they are dripping with integrity. Nothing to see here. Move along.

And yes there sure is in “Ihar in Prague who works for Google”, not only for Google but he works for Google ranking! Check out Ihar’s resume from Linkedin.Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.40.25 PM

Here are some more comments from publishers,

“Google favors brands by an extremely wide margin, brands just happened to almost certainly advertise on Adwords. Panda also can be averted by buying adwords to improve user stats, those that buy top keywords get better Time on Site, lower bounce rate etc. So Mr Google shill, what say you? Adwords help you gain ranking on Google because that’s what Google wants. Separate Google Search from Adwords and see the SERPs.”

“I have every reason not to trust Matt.

Regardless of what Matt Cutts says, our independent tests have shown a direct correlation between AdWords expenditure and Google organic search results positioning.

We’re going to be publishing a whitepaper on this shortly.”

Exactly, anyone with half a brain can see the biased-ness in Google’s search results. It’s amazing how fast these Venture companies skyrocket in page rank like going from 0 to 6 in a matter of months while the rest of us have been working our tails off for YEARS and our still below a PR of 4.

Remember Google claims:

“We believe it is very important that the results users get from Google are produced with only their interests in mind. We do not accept money for search result ranking or inclusion. We do accept fees for advertising, but it does not influence how we generate our search results. The advertising is clearly marked and separated.”

This is key because you will often see the Google defenders claiming Google is a private business and can do whatever it wants. That is not true. Google’s actions are unarguably illegal because it is not clearly marking these results as “paid”.

There are multiple lawsuits against Google accusing the company of not “acting in good faith”.

I’d say that having Google employees pose as “Important Adwords customers” is the very definition of “bad faith”.

Here are a few more comments from that video of Cutts denying Google is doing this and about Cutts lying about the Publisher asking it.

Christoffel Hiltermann work at “webmaster outreach” or Google’s Propaganda Ministry. So he asked Minister Cutts a setup question, where’s the harm?

Barry is a shill and didn’t want to point that out, in fact he editorialized, agreeing with Cutts & Co.”

Notice the commenters figured out that Barry Schwartz is a shill for Google as a ton of these websites are which all claim this notion of Adwords being connected to organic rank is a crazy conspiracy theory.

If you have a 66 billion dollar business model built on doing something very illegal how much of that money would you be willing to spend to have “bloggers” write articles about how Google is acting within the law? Millions and you would hire 1000s of “SEO experts” or at least what would appear to be 1000s of SEO experts to defend Google.

Incidentally looks like Matt learned his lesson from this because he started only using first names shortly after the first incriminating video. But not before another question came from Webmaster “Warren Redlich” criminal defense attorney/Web developer (interesting combo) from Boca Raton.

According to Wikipedia,

“Redlich has been accused of cybersquatting. He purchases domain names related to his political opponents and others and posts websites about them such as http://www.christineodonnell08.com/, primarily as a means of revenue (the O’Donnell site nets him approximately US$85 per day in advertising revenue from Google AdSense). He has heavily advertised on the Internet during his gubernatorial campaign.”Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 8.49.06 PM

Interesting considering advertisers sued Google for putting their ads on shady parked domains JUST like this and $85 a day is a hell of a lot of revenue from Adsense for a site that only has one page and no content. Why was Redlich compensated so generously by Adsense?

Thankfully a court recently ruled that the lawsuit can go through. So perhaps the plaintiffs should do a bit of research on the relationship between Redlich and Google.

I found this great article in Seobook titled “the Rigged Search Game”.

“The names may have changed, but traditional power structures were soon reasserted. The old gatekeepers were replaced with the new gatekeepers. The new gatekeepers, like Google, grew fat, rich and powerful. They controlled the game and the game was, once again, rigged in favor of those with the most power.”

Yep, and Google plays the long game. They start out appearing legit for years to gain your trust and to accrue power and most importantly accrue a monopoly. Google insists there is plenty of competition, but it’s puzzling that no one can come up with an algorithm than can compete with Google.

In the beginning I know that Bing was buying their search results from Google because I knew an insider (I don’t know if they still do, but they did a few years ago). So if Bing is buying their search results from Google how is that competition?

Then you have the strange case of Yahoo. Yahoo’s CEO is Marissa Mayer a former executive from wait for it…..Google.

Mayer was the Vice President of Google Product Search until the end of 2010. In 2012 she became CEO of Yahoo. How does that make sense considering the very elaborate NDA’s these Google execs sign?

So is the rivalry between Yahoo and Google really just theater to convince us that Yahoo and Google are not the same?

The SeoBook article goes on to claim,

“My point is that if you’re not getting the same business benefits from search as you used to, and the game seems that much harder, then it’s not because you’re not clever. It’s because the game is rigged.”

Exactly, the game is rigged to shut out the little guy. I have witnessed this first hand having a website that I have worked extremely hard on for years naively believing the meme that “content is king”. Yet every time we seemed to be doing really well and establishing credibility a new website would emerge and outrank us with our own content. Most recently Bustle and their demon child Romper.

Incidentally Bustle was a wait for it…..Google Venture company. So this GV company which relies exclusively on how well it ranks with the search engines monopolized the top results for all things reality Television when they were very very late to join the game and had zero original content.

Eventually the company was owned exclusively by Time Warner venture money but is it so crazy to suggest that the search engines have made agreements about how they will treat one anothers venture companies especially considering the millions that Time Warner gives Google for Adwords?

And if you start looking at the Linkedin profiles of Google employees an interesting pattern emerges. The software engineers that control the algorithms flow back and forth from one giant like Google to another like Facebook to Yahoo etc, seamlessly. In fact Ihar from Prague now works for Facebook.

So isn’t logical that these companies agree that if you are in this internet mafia you will ALWAYS get precedence over a small publisher, especially a small publisher that does not pay Google to advertise. See whenever a company is big enough to potentially pose a threat to Google, Google lets them in on the game and shares the profits. This ensures no one with any power will ever expose the game.

Here is a funny article on SEO where the author Shaun Anderson is stating that if you want to be #1 for high traffic terms you will have to pay Google. And no one knows better than the SEO experts!!

“In competitive niches, you will need to pay Google to be number 1 using Google Adwords, and this will continue to be the case as Google becomes more an more, a local search engine (IMO). Google Adwords is typically the fast way to get to number one for valuable and competitive keywords and key phrases.”

By the way Google recommends that you use their recommended “partners” to manage your Adwords accounts. (Again notice how Google outsources the gray area to their “partners” separate companies).

Here it is in case Shaun changes it. Before you say he must have meant your ad would place at the top, Nope. Read this. He clearly means you will have to pay VIA Adwords to place #1 in organic rank which goes along perfectly with Google’s patent connecting advertiser “data” aka amount bid on search terms to organic rank.

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 7.28.16 PM

And the SEO experts know an organic rank is way more powerful than an ad because it appears authentic because Shaun also says,

“Organic listings as a whole get more (perhaps double) the clicks a sponsored ad listing attracts according to musings in the SEO industry at the moment but it suits Google to balance that out in the future (because Google makes more money from advertising).”

Hmmmmm, so if only Google could combine the two allowing people to place bids on terms and getting a bump in rank.

I guess Shaun did not get the memo. You are not supposed to say that out loud. I’m sure all professional SEO folks know that you have to “pay” Google for top search rank, but you don’t blast that on your website. You tell your customer over the phone, not in writing. But it’s interesting that he is so nonchalant like this is just a fact that every SEO professional knows.

The problem is things are only getting worse as Google “tweaks” their algorithm more and more to favor sites that are paying them. In fact I would even argue that sites paying Adwords millions of dollars are not really paying for ads, they are paying for organic search rank. And how would anyone be the wiser?

This is how Google works their “magic” by obfuscating their criminal actions and creating layers of plausible deniability. Thus there is a glass ceiling of sorts ensuring that real small publishers will NEVER get to the top. They can at best be bought out by one of the oligarchs, but they will NEVER rise to the top no matter how hard they work and how quality their content is because this game is RIGGED!

Additionally smaller Adwords customers will continue to get ripped off as Google will overcharge them to advertise on low quality sites owned by large Adwords customers or insiders. The big guys paying Google get overpaid, the little guys not paying Google get way under-compensated for their work and the power paradigm continues to shift in favor of the insiders.

By the way if you look you will find countless claims by confused publishers who see their traffic and other stats fall off of a cliff the minute they either suspend an Adwords campaign or the minute they are overdue paying for an Adwords campaign. So how is that acting in “good faith”?

More on that to come.


‘Bustle.com’ spawns a new demon child ‘Romper.com’

The only reason I started noticing Bustle.com is because they kept showing up at the top of the organic search results out of nowhere a few years ago when they first started.

I looked them up and saw that they were brand new. I was perplexed at why Google was giving this site with no track record whatsoever so much precedence over better more relevant search results.

Then I saw that they were funded with a combination of Google Venture capital and Time Warner capital…so two search engines funding a D list celebrity tabloid site in the name of empowering women.

Here is a quote on the funding from Forbes,

“To fund its expansion, he’s raised $5 million more in venture funding from Social+Capital and Time Warner, existing investors, along with R&R Ventures, a fund run by Dick Parsons and Ron Lauder.”

Eventually Google dropped out, but only because they were angry that Goldberg got Time Warner involved behind their back. So now the primary money is from Time Warner and Facebook. Social Capital is a venture capital company owned by Chamath Palihapitiya from Facebook.

Do you think this tiny women’s website may have some pull in terms of their search rank? After all the behemoths of Silicon Valley have been caught making agreements with one another on multiple occasions.

In other words if you or I had the brilliant idea to start a website targeted at women’s issues do you think people would be throwing millions of dollars at us?

Why would these companies invest in an idea that is far from original and actually completely saturated since theoretically if you start a website you have to prove yourself to Google and other search engines and work your way up which takes years—unless you have a way to control your search rank.

If you have ever started a website you know no matter how great your content is you will be lucky to make $3 a day your first year and by year 4 or 5 you will be very lucky to make 5 figures a year.

But hey in July of 2014 this brand new site crossed 11 million monthly unique visitors after hitting 10 million in June and as of October 2015 was on target to bring in over $10 million in revenue after their 2nd full year in operation. Bustle is now pulling in 31.6 million unique views a month. Again if you have ever started a website you know how absurd and impossible these figures are, particularly in light of the very low quality of their content.

In fact in this BusinessInsider article in the comments section someone calls them out on lying about these statistics pointing readers to this site where you can see Bustle only has 10-15 million visitors a month with a 73% Bounce rate and only 1.05 seconds on the site and a very Slow load time: (2.478 Seconds), 73% of sites are faster.

“Looks like they are buying shady traffic according to Similiar Web. 45mm uniques is great, but not if it’s all paid for…” the reader claims.

I’m guessing this is why Bustle decided to disable any comments. They can’t have anyone calling them out on their lies publicly.

And have you noticed the obscene political bias of the site? Their love for Hillary Clinton is cringeworthy. Im no fan of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, but the Hillary love from Bustle coupled with their pervasiveness atop any Google search result is disconcerting for sure.

So Bustle is so amped up over their explosive growth they are now launching a demon spawn child called Romper.com (God help us!!)

Margaret Wheeler Johnson, Bustle’s managing editor claims, “We were reaching a huge number of millennial women at Bustle, and we realized that although the average age of first birth is twenty-six years old, there is no millennial-focussed parenting site.”

And yet strangely Romper appears to primarily cover D list tabloid reality show gossip just like its mom Bustle. Just what the world desperately needed–ANOTHER site to aggregate tabloid celebrity news. And the fact that the New Yorker has written an article gushing about this brilliant idea to start a website to aggregate news is also indicative of the inside connections the owners possess.

Check out some of the reviews from Bustle employees on Glassdoor.com,

“Low pay (started at $10/hr), emphasis on quantity over quality (article quota becomes overwhelming), no benefits, creatively draining

Advice to Management

Pay your writers better and allow your writers more time to produce quality articles rather than just pushing them to write clickbait.”

And another…

“Pay could be much better. Also article quotas could be a bit much; I would have appreciated more time to really perfect my articles instead of just churning out content as fast as possible.”

Both reviews from writers complain that Bustle is obsessed with quotas and pumping out content with little regard to quality.

My issue with these websites is not that they are horrible. Horrible websites will come and go constantly. My issue is how they are being subsidized and helped by serious inside connections.

How did Bustle go from a PageRank of 0 to 6 in 2 years? — especially since Google claims they no longer change PageRank. (No they no longer change PageRank for sites without inside connections. That way the riff raf aka public can never really compete).

Why are the content curators and internet providers allowed to also be content creators since they determine who lives and who dies in the website biz.

And when will we hear more of an outcry from the public about these so-called “venture” companies rising to the top of the organic search results with such low quality content while the small publishers busting their tails to bring the public the valuable content they are actually searching for are pushed farther and farther down in the ranks? We already know from the leaked FTC documents that Google created a special algorithm to promote it’s own interests. These interests must include Venture Companies.

The pattern I continue to notice again and again with sites like Bustle and The Inquisitr is that they were started by Venture Capital money by big very connected owners and investors, usually the search engines themselves all under the guise of some big social justice meme. Yet ALL end up just being tabloid content farms copying and pasting their content from other places.

There are a lot of issues here and laws that are being broken with regard to disclosures and I hope the public will start raising some hell and demanding this VC insider shell game stop.

If you still think Google is not using their God-like powers to help companies they invest in check out this story on Thumbtack–the site was caught buying spammy backlinks and penalized but the penalty was removed by their biggest investor, Google a mere 3 days later and yet spammy back links still pervade the site.


Is Google charging for links in Google Answer Box, Direct Answers or Knowledge Graph?

I only really started paying attention to Google’s Answer Box, Knowledge Graph and Direct Answers over the last year because I started noticing information that we had acquired exclusively from insider sources on people was showing up in their “answers” with out a source credit, as if it has always been part of the public domain.

But it got worse. Suddenly this same info had source links, but they were not to our site. The source links went to big sites like Wetpaint even when Wetpaint was sourcing US. I found countless examples where Google “Answers” had swiped info from our site and given credit to their big advertisers instead.

Needless-to-say I was livid and I realized this was only going to get worse.

I offered “feedback” on said “answers” to tell them they were giving source credit to the wrong sites. Interestingly in a few cases where they “did” something, because it was so damn obvious that their source was not the source, rather than replacing the answer box with the proper link to our site, they merely removed the answer box all together.

In my opinion this is proof the answer box is paid. Why was the question worthy of an answer box before, but now that they had the correct source, it no longer warranted an answer box. Why? Because we don’t pay Google to advertise. That’s why.

This problem seems to be particularly bad with biographical information especially on lesser known celebrities. Google has decided that any information you acquire on public figures is theirs. This is especially bad with C and D list celebs since bio info on them is not in the public domain. We often go to great lengths to get this info from exclusive sources only to have it stolen without any credit. I wish Google would stop assuming bio info is all public domain and would stop stealing.

Google has always been looking for ways to sell the top spots to sites with out having to disclose that it’s a “sponsored” result, and this is it.

Google pretends that they are offering an “answer” to a question—steals the info from the small publishers who don’t pay them to advertise, then sells the link credit to a big site who does.

So how do they get away with it? Easy. As with all things Google does, they use plausible deniability to commit their crimes. These are big advertisers. They know if they bid enough on certain search terms they will suddenly “magically” find that they are the source link in Google’s answer box.

This is why Google wants you to use their “preferred partners” to “manage” your Adwords campaign. It’s why they call you constantly and ask you to raise your bid a little bid for “better exposure” (nice and vague). This is why Google wants you to link your Google Analytics account to your Google Adwords account. That way they can see the terms you are bidding on and if you are bidding more than the competition you get the #1 spot or you get the giant answer link.

This is nothing short of fraud on the part of Google as well as theft. When Google presents something as an “answer” they are implying that they have done their due diligence to ensure that one, the answer is correct, and two that they are giving proper source credit. They are doing neither.

In the forums you will find a lot of angry webmasters replying to articles written by the Google Ministry of Propaganda which insists that webmasters should be celebrating the fact that Google is going to steal your content for their “knowledge graph”. Actually they go even farther…adding insult to injury they are telling us how we should write our content to make it even easier for Google to steal.Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 11.56.25 PM

I like this guy’s answer. He’s right. Since Google started stealing from my biographical pages I have had to completely change how I present my information to make it a little harder for Google’s robots to steal. It’s unfortunate because the viewers suffer. I can no longer present the information in a clean and simple way because it was far too easy for Google to take.

And check out this great response to the Google troll….Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 12.26.52 AM

“Just because Google is a search engine they are not entitled to steal. And that’s precisely what Google is doing with the KG.”

EXACTLY! Why does Google think it does not have to follow the same rules of attribution that everyone else does?

Google’s power is growing exponentially. The fact that the FTC buried extensive evidence showing criminal wrongdoing reveals exactly how much trouble we are in…

“Earlier this year every other page of a staff memo written by the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition was mistakenly included in the response to a Freedom of Information request made by the Wall Street Journal. The 169-page FTC document quotes liberally from internal e-mails and memos, during the time when Google’s partners were noticing many of these changes to the search engine—and what they contained seemed incriminating…..

Rivals point to dark conspiracies behind the FTC’s decision. Google was spending tens of millions lobbying the U.S. government; it was unusually cozy with the Obama administration; ex-Googlers worked in the White House.”

In fact I found this funny glowing review on working for Google (as a contractor before she got an FTE job with Google) and how she got to meet Obama. Hmmmm…..Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 12.08.42 AM

Seriously, when will this stop? Publishers need to raise some hell and demand that Google offer full disclosure with their “answer” box, knowledge graph and direct answers. I hope some of the big guns like Yelp and Expedia will demand this end and Google either offer full disclosure that their “answers” are “ads” or that they stop the answer box immediately.

If you have been robbed by Google too please share your stories. Start a blog and make it public. Report it to your state Attorney General. File a civil suit. It seems like if enough people got together this case would be easy to prove.

I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that PPC in Adwords is linked to knowledge graph links. That would prove the knowledge graphs are a fraud.

Let Google know that we will not sit back quietly while they rob us blind. Enough exposure may make them back off. And please demand that Congress break up this monopoly!!!

ChristianToday.com — clickbait / Google products dominating Google News

Just when we get done lashing out and exposing a few Google News clickbait sites new ones emerge. ChristianToday.com has been around for a while, but has never COMPLETELY dominated Google News until now.

Christian Today is a allegedly a non-denominational Christian news company, headquartered in London, England.

It was established in 2000 supposedly for the purpose of reporting on news in the global church, and current affairs from a Christian perspective, but funny thing is trashy tabloid articles on celebrities show up in my newsfeed everyday from CT with ZERO Christian perspective aka CT is no different than WetPaint or any other low quality tabloid.

The other funny thing is that the site posts non-stop articles promoting the Android (again what exactly is the ‘Christian’ perspective on the Android? — no diff than IBT) which has an exclusive and likely monopolistic and illegal contract with Google — you know same type of articles IBT posts (Here are some amazing examples so you can see I am not exaggerating).

UPDATE 2/2016: Interesting that it is so amped up to promote Android since Google made 31 BILLION dollars off of Android.

I found this great article on Reddit from an Android customer complaining about the pervasiveness of ChristianToday.com on their news feed.

“Over the last month, I have noticed that almost every day when I look at my Google Now cards, in the news there is either a Christian Today article, or some other Android “news site” citing Christian Today.

Their articles are 100% clickbait. I’ve read several of the articles, and not one of them has any kind of actual source, just baseless claims. And I keep seeing Christian Today cited in many other tech blogs repeating the same bullsh!t.

I don’t want to link to their site to give them the traffic and ad revenue, but Christian Today and the other sites that cite them are horribly irresponsible and do nothing but spread bullsh!t.”

The author goes on to say,

“At this point, they so utterly dominate my news feed I’m considering just opting out of that card. If it’s not a Christian Today article, it’s another site using them as a source.

And it’s not like Google is using my browsing habits to find news sources. Until it started popping up in my feed, I’d never even heard of the site. I don’t know why it’s so predominant, but it’s really irked me.”

And some comments:

“Not even. I’m not OP but I get the same thing, I’ve never been on that website before it was recommended in my GNow. Such bullsh!t articles.”

“Honestly, ARS’s quality has gone down the tubes recently. I used to like them, but now they’re just as clickbaity as anyone else.”

And what do you know, just like International Business Times their articles are pushing Google products. From the author of the Reddit article,

“I’ve seen at least 5 articles pop up about Android 5.1, claiming it will be coming to Nexus devices very soon, yet reading the article there’s absolutely no substance to their title’s claim. Then another article with the title “Lollipop for Nexus 5, 6 and 9 quietly rolls out” and in their f**king article, all they talk about are some of the problems people have with 5.0.1-2. Their own f**king article doesn’t even address their ridiculous claim. Nothing in the article mentions 5.1 having rolled out, quietly or otherwise.

I’m hard-pressed to think of another website that is so brazen about putting out clickbait articles. Not to mention all other f**king websites using Christian Today as a source.”

And this person makes an excellent point…

“Yes please, I don’t need to see articles from them ibtimes or any other clickbait websites. Unless Google is being directly paid by them I don’t see why they wouldn’t give better quality sources like their search results.”

And so does this guy,

“This has been raised here many times before, but I will upvote any thread on this, any time. There must be someone at Google, or perhaps a Xoogler with some contacts there, that can pass on our collective exhaustion with this issue. Please, Google, either change site ranking for this to get IBTimes and Christian Today out of there, or allow us to opt out of news from specific domains. These sites have somehow gamed the system, and they’ve made Google Now incredibly annoying and not in the least bit helpful. I long for the day that I get cards for Android Police, The Verge, f**k, even Engadget. Anything but this interminable blogspam clickbait made-up crap.”

Except I don’t think IBT and CT have “gamed” the system. I think they are OWNED by the system. This is why both are saturated with advertorials posing as actual content pushing Google products. They both need to be removed from Google News or this backlash is going to explode and a lot more people and hopefully attorneys are going to start investigating Google’s vested interest in the sites it pushes to the top.

Incidentally Christian Today is owned by Christian Media Company which also owns

Christian Post

Christian Times

Christian Examiner

Christian Daily


So don’t waste your time clicking on any of the below websites.


Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.12.26 PM

Inquisitr Whistleblower claims plagiarism and content theft are rampant and blatant by the company

I just showed several examples of Inquisitr committing content theft aka plagiarism and now we have word from an insider about exactly how rampant and widespread plagiarism at the Inquisitr is.

‘Hello…i recently quit the Inquisitr and during my time there I saw repeated acts of plagiarism and repeated fake stories posted. They asked that you pull your info from other sites and rewrite the information. Even if they did speak with a writer about an article being or bordering plagiarism thy did not pull the article. The owner is based in Iran and it makes no sense how they could pay the rates they do if you compare U.S. currency to Iran’s.If you had a $600 week that translates to nearly $17,000 rial. I’ve also seen Inquisitr stories get google ratings over leading news outlets even if the story came out days later when the subject was old news. I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, but I think there may be truth to the rumor that the Inquisitr is how Treisman gets money into the United States.’

This is interesting after the most recent hoax they propagated about a dinosaur birthday cake from Costco which allegedly depicted a dinosaur’s feet in the shape of number “666” on July 13th by John Albrecht. Costco allegedly pulled the dinosaur cake design from its online ordering platform.

Problem is you can’t order birthday cakes online from Costco!

And even better, the ‘customer’ at the center of the story was the Inquisitr reporter’s girlfriend.

So the Inquisitr has gone in to MAJOR damage control talking about themselves as victims who were “duped”. Problem is this is not an anomaly. There are numerous claims of the site propagating hoaxes and reporters not doing even the most minimal due diligence to verify claims–and now reinforced by this claim by an ex employee that content theft was encouraged and was the norm. If the Inquisitr is this naive then they do not deserve to be called “news”.

The question is why does Google give the Inquisitr such preferential treatment. There are countless claims of plagiarism against the site which viewers have reported and countless examples of circular linking schemes with sites like WetPaint and the Examiner, but Google refuses to take any action to remove them from Google News and remove them from the top of the SERPS.

I suspect the truth is that Google and the other search engines in Silicon Valley are not only in the biz of content curation, but they are also in the BIG biz of content creation. After all since they control the supply and demand end of advertising their profits can not really grow unless they find new methods of guaranteed revenue and being the content creators allows them to keep 100% of the ad revenue.

The Inquisitr was created by a writer at TechCrunch and TechCrunch is owned by AOL.

Another prolific writer at TechCrunch was hired as a Partner at Google Ventures. Imagine that…look at the guys resume…not all that impressive in all. MG Siegler went from being a writer at TechCrunch to a partner at a multi-billion dollar investment company.

Siegler is also CrunchBase so you can see how all of these websites have an agenda to prop up big G and I imagine big G returns the favor.

By the way, if you examine each Google Venture company and there must be over a hundred by now you will see one mysterious commonality…they all have employees from “TechCruch” or “Crunchbase”.

In other words there certainly appears to be a connection between The Inquisitr and Google.

UPDATE 2/17/2016: Check out this ad for a post in The Inquisitr…$250 and notice how they brag about their PR of 6. This is highly unethical yet it seems that The Inquisitr can do no wrong in the eyes of Google. And this should prove it.Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 6.56.24 PM

If you have any info I highly recommend starting a blog and sharing it. The more these companies are exposed the more likely things will change. Google needs to stop playing favorites and bring transparency to this system. Put sites like The Inquisitr where they belong….at the bottom.

Running List of VERY low quality Google News sites

Running List of VERY low quality Google News sites that do not get penalized

  • Inquisitr.com
  • Christantoday.com
  • Wetpaint.com
  • Examiner.com
  • CelebDirtyLaundry.com
  • Realitytea.com
  • Movienewsguide.com
  • Capitalwired.com
  • Capitalpost.com
  • Latinopost.com
  • LawyerHerald.com
  • Observerchronicle.com
  • Bharatpress.com
  • nysportsnut.com
  • Beaconreview.com
  • Ibtimes.com
  • Heavy.com
  • Enstarz.com
  • KpopStarz.com
  • Bustle.com (a Google venture comp)
  • Romper.com (launched by Bustle)
  • India.com
  • Timesofindia.com
  • postpioneer.com
  • Hollywoodtake.com
  • Starpulse.com
  • Dailytimesgazette.com
  • Reporteradvocate.com
  • Morningledger.com
  • Usfinancepost.com
  • Benchmarkreporter.com
  • Thestandarddaily.com
  • Whatlauderddailysciencejournal.com
  • Bulletinecho.com
  • Thesilverink.com
  • Dakotafinancialnews.com
  • Wkrb13.com
  • Mideasttime.com
  • Esbtrib.com
  • Apexbeats.com
  • Whatlauderdale.com
  • piercepioneer.com
  • clapway.com
  • immortal.org
  • picayuneleader.com

If you have more suggestions please include them in the comments section and I will check them out. This is a running list. I will keep adding to it until Google takes action against these spammy sites and stops playing favorites. The rules must apply to everyone in equal measure.

Check out these ads selling do-follow links on some of theses sites. Why does Google turn a blind eye to highly ranked sites like Examiner and Inquisitr selling links?

No wonder the content of these sites looks so spammy. It is.Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 11.07.17 PMScreen Shot 2016-04-20 at 6.56.24 PMcdl-2015-10-20 at 9.11.36 PM

More allegations against The International Business Times regarding their media ethics

I see I am not alone in observing a rapid disintegration in the quality of internet news and what Google deems acceptable for “news” and I see I am not alone in my frustration with the ethics of a website called The International Business Times. Keep in mind, this company is so big it owns Newsweek so the fact that they are stealing content with computer algorithms and the outranking the sites they steal from is infuriating. It would be one thing if Google acknowledged their behavior and kept them very low on the SERPS, but quite the contrary Google allows them to outrank the original source of the content.

So I have been keeping a record of other incensed Publishers in the hopes that google will be publicly shamed into taking action and demoting this site in the SERPS. This complaint was filed 4 years ago but nothing has changed.

Here is a complaint from one gentleman:

“I am the owner of TheWeatherSpace.com, or The Weather Space … Which will be Science News Times in the near future, The Weather Space turning into the main weather section.  The Weather Space is not all about weather, but “Space” as well … Weather and Space were the keys … however a couple writers wanted to write other science news so we granted this wish.

I AM NOT ALONE:  I know I am not alone where I say I know IBTimes is GAMING Google to death … Especially in the “Science Section” since they are suppose to be BUSINESS.

Now: THE INVESTIGATION … Google .. .I will be updating this thread with proof that International Business Times is GAMING YOU.  There are sites out there that do the right thing, post something and leave it there.  I’ve seen sites take me on the rank before and did not feel the “NEED” to post the same article AGAIN 3-4 hours later.  I’ve made a lot of revenue from being patient and the VALUE of my writers are simply to NOT REPUBLISH (Unless of course it is an update).

Proof #1 – Duplication Articles –

One of the very guidelines of GOOGLE NEWS is simply to not republish articles.  Now it may not seem like International Business Times (IBTimes) does this but they actually do.  They use something called an article spinner.  Article spinners take other’s work and you can make different synonyms an use a thesaurus to switch out words  I suspected this and went ahead a researched IBTIMES.  Some of their paragraphs do not make sense, which confirms they do not re-read the articles and they “SPIN THEM” from either their articles or other people’s.

Proof #2 – Different URL extensions –

tv.ibtimes, au.ibtimes, ibtimes – etc etc … The list goes on.  IBTimes is using different url extensions for the SAME STORIES and this is why they game Google News 24/7.  They are consistently cheating the system and people who play fair are getting sick of it.  I know I am.


This entire staff is likely just two or three people running ALL those site extensions.  I’ve searched names and Huffington Post comes up with one of IBTimes’ “Reporters” and nothing comes up for a real Kay Aviles other than them saying she exists.”

This guy is absolutely right. I have caught them spinning my articles on many occasions and like he says, the way the computer “spins” them they don’t quite make sense. Google claims “content is King” yet it condones computer written and stolen content.

The Publisher is also right that IBT is allegedly about “business”, yet they have succeeded in monopolizing every niche even D-list celebrity gossip. Niche sites should get priority over a website that covers EVERYTHING especially a site that claims to focus on business. It should be obvious to Google that when sites like this start branching out to Science and Entertainment news they are doing it purely for clicks and not because they have a special interest or expertise in the field.

If you are a legit Publisher demand Google address sites like IBT and stop rewarding them for stealing our work.

Google “news” websites change dates or publish duplicate stories to manipulate SERPS

Again my question is when will Google’s words match their actions. I started noticing several websites changing dates to manipulate their SERP rankings. Sometimes they would make the date more current so the article shows up as a recent news story and sometimes they would back date so it looks like the website was first to publish something. Sometimes they would do both. Either way these sites were violating Google’s guidelines and not being penalized. In fact in some cases listed below you can see a site has their two duplicate stories at the top of the cue.

Here is the infamous Wetpaint. I couldn’t figure out why the same article “meet the contestants” by Wetpaint… kept showing up in my Google News alerts. I noticed the date change countless time but was only to screenshot 3 of those changes. You can see 4/20/2015, 4/22/2015, and 3/16/2015 are the EXACT SAME article and finally 3/11/2015 is slightly different but contains the exact same information reworded. None are the original publish date. You can see on the bottom example all they do is change the title a tiny bit from “meet the guys” to “meet the lucky guys”. Both try and coerce you to “click through their gallery”–same gallery. wpdateswpdateseThe March 16th date is a lot earlier than that article was published. Look…. the date of all the photos isn’t until 4/2015. How can the photos have a later publishing date than the actual article?

Because Wetpaint is changing the dates of their articles. Notice they created one that would be really early even before the official spoilers were released so they look like they are first, then one that they change to keep current so it always shows up in recent news. So their strategy is to have at least two duplicate articles. One to be first, one that they can continuously change to keep in news. wppicdates wetpaint-datechange-meet Here is another one of my favorite Wetpaint changes. The article name is “Who is Eliminated contestant Carly Waddell?”. The article is dated January 15th, 2015, 1 week after the show premiered. Carly did not get eliminated until week 7. wetptdate-changes

Wetpaint needs to be more careful when they backdate so they don’t back date a story so far back that it is before it even happened!

Here is another big site that follows the same pattern as Wetpaint called Heavy.com…

heavy-change-datesYou may argue they changed the text a tiny bit, but it’s the same information–even the exact same title.

Here is another one from Bustle.com. You can see its from 13 hrs ago screenshotted May 4th. EXACT same article below dated April 16th. You can also see it’s being reissued as “news” on May 4th.

You can see each of these examples are “news” sites. bustledatechange2bustledatechange Bustle kept changing the date of this article up until early May. BTW Bustle.com is a Google Venture project. They received $100,000 in seed money from Google. The rest of their $6.5 million in seed money came from telecomm giant Time Warner so are these “start-ups” getting special treatment since big tech owns a stake?bustle-8

As a side note, one of my favorite parts about this news story is where the writer claims she doesn’t know whether Craig passed the BAR or even took it! Talk about click bait!

Here is an instance where the same site, The Inquisitr changes a few words but writes the same article and both articles are at the very top of the cue. shawn boothridicIs this seriously acceptable for a “news” site? This is clearly manipulation designed to deceive the user. And none of these are small sites. Wetpaint recently sold for $30 million dollars and has been getting away with this sort of behavior for years.

UPDATE 1/2016: The parent company of Wetpaint aka Viggle recently filed for bankruptcy after taking millions from investors. I suggest the investors and their attorneys look at Google for artificially inflating the value of Viggle–keeping Wetpaint at the top os SERPS despite black hat techniques. Also look at the connection between Adwords PPC campaigns and how they ranked for search terms. If there is a connection (and I strongly suspect there is) that would show that Google conspired to artificially inflate the value of the company.

The other sites are very highly ranked despite this behavior in addition to other manipulative tactics. The Inquisitr has been caught plagiarizing content and printing hoaxes—not to mention their painfully slow page load time…over 4 seconds! Slower than 93% of other sites yet The Inquisitr tops the cue every time multiple time with duplicate content. So does Heavy.com and Bustle.com.

These sites are making millions of dollars off of this coercive and deceptive behavior. How much longer will Google look the other way?

I have started putting a list together of very spammy sites that do not belong in Google news. If you have any to add let me know.

  • Wetpaint.com
  • Examiner.com
  • Ibtimes.com
  • Heavy.com
  • Capitalwired.com
  • Latinopost.com
  • observerchronicle.com
  • movienewsguide.com
  • bharatpress.com
  • nysportsnut.com
  • beaconreview.com
  • Bustle.com (a Google venture comp)
  • India.com
  • Timesofindia.com
  • postpioneer.com
  • dailytimesgazette.com
  • reporteradvocate.com
  • morningledger.com
  • usfinancepost.com
  • bulletinecho.com
  • wkrb13.com
  • benchmarkreporter.com
  • thestandarddaily.com
  • whatlauderddailysciencejournal.com
  • bulletinecho.com
  • thesilverink.com
  • picayuneleader.com