Subscribe in a reader
HOME
Revisiting Paid Links
Let’s revisit the paid links discussion by reading Matt Cutts latest posts shall we?
- How to Find Hidden Links.
- Using Sponsored Wordpress Themes to inflate your pagerank breaks Google’s guidelines. Also beware of hacked themes and plugins which you will be hearing more about in the future.
- Help Google develop stronger algorithms by Reporting Hidden Links.
So, Matt just repeats the obvious that Google does not like paid links that are used to influence search engine rankings. It is also a heads up that they will be tweaking their algorithms to flag paid links with the data you contribute. Note: stronger algorithms would not require human intervention via link narks would they?
Matt also points out an interesting fact about the FCC and disclosure, how does this relate? Ever heard of pay per post?
My thoughts on this have always been the same, as long as Google clearly states the rules for ranking in their engine I have absolutely no problem with it!
Here is another question to help sort your possible broken logic. If people are allowed to buy their way into organic search via paid links who do you think will own the top 5-10 results?
That’s right, those with the biggest budget and believe me, you do not have the cash to compete!
Starting to make sense to you now or do you still think I am a jerk for agreeing with Matt Cutts and Google on the issue of quality, fairness and democracy? Anyone ok with the clearly stated rules for ranking in Google?
Similar Post:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I’m with you, buddy.
Mind you, how much I’m with you depends on what types of links Matt is talking about and what they plan on doing with those links, which hasn’t been stated yet and which people are missing. I love how geeks jump the gun and get all worked up over something based on minimal information.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Yes indeed, as I have been saying sinse 2003, Google needs to clearly state it’s rules. The good news is that many of us work well within clearly stated guidelines, SEO is not dead and their is much opportunity on a level playing field.
You are correct sir, further clarification is needed but Matt is surely going to stir it up and get some amusing responses from this one. ;)
April 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I think a lot of the excitement comes from the fact that people believe that Google needs to be fair and democratic. Which they don’t. They are not a government body, their a company with software. They can do just about anything they want, without notice. If Google decides that they are going to rank all sites with black text higher they can.
On the flip side, they are fair usually and try to make changes that aren’t arbitrary or have significant amount of collateral damage.
I do think the scary thing to this whole issue however is the editorial nature of trying to devine intent based on overt clues. What if I found a directory that clearly states that they charge for the review of the link, however in reality the directory just does that to keep the scum from submitting? :) Now if that site is submitted as a link seller and penalized by having it’s link juice removed, it would be wrongly accused as the site owner never actually accepted any payments but was actually operating an above the board directory.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:19 am
JLH - I am currently having this issue with my directories, having “payment” to review and include does in fact filter out lots of crap. As you know I submit good sites that need a little help found in Google groups for free often. Just because it appears to be a “paid” directory and it is not Google could disallow it’s link juice in it’s search results.
(edit: off topic ideas, sorry)
April 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Now hang on you two.
What you’re both forgetting is that the site seller isn’t going to get punished in and of itself (unless the site seller bought links). The target here is the buyer. And this would actually be beneficial to buyers, since the traffic buyers would see would be non-search-engine-bot traffic (assuming the seller prefaces his/her links with rel=”nofollow”). Makes sense to me.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Democracy is a lousy analogy for the current state of the internet. It would be more accurate to compare it to a large network composed of autocratic city-states, most of which each speak the same language. Those with the most cash will be able to buy up the lion’s share of the available resources, in this case, the fabled Google Juice. So has it been since the earliest days of human civilization, so it will always be.
Look at it this way: if you, the God-king of SEO Buzz Box, want to delete my comment, do you have to consult a committee first? No way. Around these parts, your word is law, unless an empire has won a victory over you, and has made you swear fealty. In this case one might say that the empire is Google and the victory is one of propaganda.
Like all rulers you will ultimately have to decide what is best for your state: to safely dwell in the corner of an empire, content in obscurity, or to risk death in pursuit of untold riches.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Great post STRZA! :)
April 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Aaron, I understand your position but let me ask you this. If it’s not ok to buy your way to the top why does Google place an AdWord ad (or three) above the #1 organic listing?
They aren’t trying to make things more democratic, they are simply trying to make sure they get a cut of the action.
Also, do you really think Google will be able to weed out all the paid links? Of course not. The one’s they’ll be able to catch are ones through brokers like TLA or Linkbrokers etc. The people with the big bankrolls will continue to be able to purchase links quietly on an individual site to site basis and Google will be none the wiser.
Also, you mention clearly stated rules… don’t you have a problem with Google breaking their own rules? They tell us that we should act as if search engines didn’t exist but we’re supposed to cater to them when they can’t figure something out?
@Adam, what evidence do you have that the link Sellers aren’t being targeted? Google hasn’t told anyone who they are targeting or what they are going to do with the data, they are asking webmasters to report it while giving us no idea what it’s true use will be.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Skitzzo - You have some good points there but let me try to answer a few of your questions:
“If it’s not ok to buy your way to the top why does Google place an AdWord ad (or three) above the #1 organic listing?”
If you are doing a search on google.com you are on their domain, they can place ads where they want. (kind of a scary thought if they get more greedy and eliminate the prised organic serp eh?)
“They tell us that we should act as if search engines didn’t exist but we’re supposed to cater to them when they can’t figure something out?”
I believe you are correct on the idea that they are placing a bandaid on paid search while they develop stronger algorithms BUT believe me, link neighbors will soon be fully understood. I believe Matt was offering a “heads up”.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You’re right. I don’t have any evidence of anything yet. But what I was referring to wasn’t Text Link Ads or Text Link Brokers or anything else of that nature (although personally I would love to see those. What I was referring to is this scenario:
Mom and Pop Site A buys an ad from Publisher Site B, also a mom and pop. Neither one has any idea about the search engine ramifications, real or implied, of said link. It’s just an everyday advertiser transaction.
The link is then reported as a sold link.
Who loses in that scenario? The seller, or the buyer? The seller in that equation could gain and stands to conceivably lose nothing, and the buyer stands to lose. That was the basis of the speculation.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t really care what they do. I neither sell links, nor buy them (other than the odd Amazon link and Google AdSense; I nofollow the Amazon links to ensure visitors are being tracked vs. bots and GAS is GAS.) It’s just serving as another dose of high comedy from geeks who overreact about things to me.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Matt-Cutts-Bashing and Other Blunders
Responses to what appeared to be an upfront disclosure and an honest solicitation of industry-input have quickly developed into a slew of Matt-Cutts-bashings. I’ve never met the man but, folks, he simply doesn’t deserve that from us.
That said, I do find horrendous problems for Matt Cutts in finding ways to define, to identify and to monitor paid links. I’ll just give you three examples here.
1. Define What is a Paid Link
At law, compensation doesn’t just mean cash. It also means goods, services and even love. What is a paid link? If I write a 750 word article and allow it to be posted on a Web site in exchange for a link, do you not realize that I have just paid between $220 and $750 in time and talent for that single link even though no money traded hands?
If a philanthropist donates $20,000 to a nonprofit and that nonprofit posts a thank you for the sponsorship on its Web site and provides a courtesy link to the donor’s Web site, is that not a paid link? If it isn’t, than all link farm sites can become nonprofits and give away links for a “donation.”
2. How Will Google Know For Certain How to Identify a Paid Link?
I just finished a backlink campaign for a client yesterday. I submitted 100 links. Not one was a paid link and not one was given a reciprocal link or a “no follow.” If my record holds, 90% of these links will be accepted. But here’s a problem. Five of these links were to directory sites (PR 6 or greater) that also post paid links and links that are paid for by reciprocal links. No one but the sites’ Webmasters and I know for certain which category of link I applied for. I’m certain that the Webmasters of these sites would not want to volunteer how many of their posted links are given for free. Like all of us, they have mouths to feed.
3. How Will Google Monitor and Mediate?
If a competitor of my client’s Website “reports” to Google that I have paid for links, will Google notify me so that I may initiate a slander or libel lawsuit? Will Google mediate so that I have an opportunity to refute the accusation? (How many new employees will Google have to hire to monitor and mediate the accusations and complaints?) Or, are we to be presumed guilty with no opportunity to prove innocence?
So Matt Cutts asked for a discussion, so let’s discuss. I am seriously pleased that he gave us this opportunity to participate. And for all the panicking Web site owners, may I just point out that it is possible to garner a Google Page Rank 7, place #4 on a Google search out of 256,000,000 Results for a 2 word Keyphrase, with a Home page that does NOT contain the Keyphrase and a Web site which has only 20 inbound links. If your SEO expert doesn’t know how this is possible, check WebSyndications.com next month.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:14 am
I completely disagree with everything you have said, and here is why.
Google Quote:
Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
A Yahoo link is not a paid link? Goolge is encouraging this, and even tell you it will improve your ranking. Yes, I know what is coming next, but these links are human eidted/reviewed. Please, as long as the site is not breaking any “rules” and has any content at all it will be accepted.
As for a DMOZ listing, we don’t even want to go there. DMOZ is either horribly broken or completely corrupted, in either case the results are the same, honest webmasters with quality sites cannot get into the “Open” directory.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:11 am
I think there`s a lot of hypocrisy with what Google`s doing. It`s going overboard to weed out the `cheats` yet protects itslef, not always practicing what it itself preaches.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:53 am
You get a good PR for your site having worked hard on it, and someone wants to reward you for your efforts by offering to pay you for placing a link on your site. What`s really so wrong with that? As a previous poster commented, Yahoo get away with it on a much bigger scale, but no penalizing by Google for them.