Google demotes its own Chrome browser search rankings after site is caught paying bloggers to hype it



Google is to manually 'demote' its Chrome browser - making it appear lower in searches

Move comes after site paid bloggers to hype Chrome

Move will see Chrome rank lower for two months

Chrome predicted to overtake Internet Explorer in 2012



Google has said it will manually change its search rankings to 'demote' its own Chrome web browser for two months - after the site was caught breaking its own rules by paying bloggers to write posts promoting it.

'We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote Chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days,' a spokesman said in an email.

PageRank is the key to Google's search algorithm - the lower a site's number, the lower it usually ranks in Google searches. The move is an unprecedented one for the search giant.



'We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote Chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days,' a spokesman said in an email





The search giant has taken the unprecedented step of 'demoting' its own search browser for 60 days in response to the scandal

Google has already removed most of the offending posts - which it claimed were created by a third-party advertising agency.

The posts violate Google's own policies on which links and posts are counted in search results.



Google traditionally frowns on any posts that are created with a view to boosting a site's PageRank by linking to it.

'Some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites,' the site says in its policies.

'Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results.'



The posts contained very vague praise of Chrome with little original content, and helped the browser gain in popularity in Google's PageRank algorithm which determines which sites come at the top of search results.

The campaign was in violation of Google's own policies - and while the site says it did not authorise the campaign, it has agreed to demote Chrome in its results for 60 days

'We’re now looking at what changes we need to make to ensure that this never happens again,' says Google

Google said that it did not authorise the controversial marketing campaign, and claimed that the company had 'consistently avoided paid sponsorships'.

The offending posts came in the form of blog entries talking about the benefits of Google Chrome, especially for small businesses.



Many of these posts talked in a general way about the benefits of doing business online, and ended with a video from Google's latest advertising campaign.



The sponsored messages all ended by saying 'This post is sponsored by Google Chrome.'

They could also be identified by the phrase 'Google Chrome helped this small business in Vermont go global. What can Google Chrome do for your future?', which appears in a large number of the paid posts.



Another controversial aspect of the campaign is that the blog posts link to Google Chrome's website but are not classified as 'nofollow' links, an attribute which would ensure that they are not counted in search results.



The practice of marking paid-for links as 'nofollow' was originally suggested by Google itself.



Google issued a statement claiming that it was not directly responsible for the sponsored posts and blaming advertising agencies it had hired for other purposes.



The company said: 'Google never agreed to anything more than online ads.



'We have consistently avoided paid sponsorships, including paying bloggers to promote our products, because these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users.



'We’re now looking at what changes we need to make to ensure that this never happens again.'



One agency publicly apologised to Google for running the unauthorised and 'poor quality' campaign, but another company thought to have been responsible for some posts denied its involvement.

