In that post, he made a feedback that got the WebmasterWorld forums discussion. Duncan wrote:
What makes SEO unique at the BBC is the editorial slant content producers have to take on it. For instance, almost all search engines incline to rely BBC content (because of the number of inbound links to the website and its constancy over time) and rank it pretty highly so when BBC staff select keywords, we need to be as honest as possible. This is so that we don’t unknowingly exceed other content on the web which may be more meriting of that top place in Google. (This is almost “reverse SEO” if you like!)
Truly, BBC is the only spot that is honest about keyword choice?
Perhaps, we are being a bit defensive on this tale or possibly not?
Why would any site want to rank for a keyword that wasn't really applicable for the content anyway? This kind of traffic is generally worthless, unless you are earning something for ad impressions. And still, these ad impressions that don't send clicks aren't note worthy for the advertiser so that also becomes tough fairly fast.
I frequently try to terminate unwell targeted traffic, and I don't do it for ethical reasons. I do it solely out of self-interest. I think this feedback from the BBC is a bit of spin. Nicely done spin, nevertheless - but it's still spin.