Subscribe in a reader
HOME
Sullivan vs Gray
Danny Sullivan counters Michael Gray’s argument about a “paid” internet saying:
Yeah, I’m with you on the “just figure it out” attitude that Google needs to take, examine links in general and give credit as they estimate it is due, regardless if it’s paid, bartered, reciprocated, done out of admiration, earned or whatever.
But I have to disagree, Michael. Hyundai might not complain about the minds of consumers being polluted, but plenty of consumers dislike product placement. It can be annoying, especially when it feels completely out of place. It’s certainly annoying if you’re reading something you assume was an editorial piece that turns out to be some paid review.
Yep, I know it happens. Yep, I can even see value in a well done paid review type of system. But I can also absolutely appreciate that proper disclosure of something being paid is in order.
In terms of Google dictating how people can advertise, honestly, I’ll puke if I keep hearing this tired, tired argument. You or anyone needs to come up with something new, if you really want to win hearts and minds.
Google has not said don’t sell links. Google has not said you must use nofollow. Google has simply said that if you sell links, buy links or fail to use nofollow, then this may have an impact with you on Google.
If we’re talking crybabies, then include the website owners that have tapped into the PageRank economy and now are upset with the Federal Reserve Of Google has decided to cut interest rates. Hey, newsflash — Google’s an independent company that at least in the United States has a court-backed decision that says the First Amendment gives it a constitutionally protected right to do whatever the hell it wants with the PageRank meter. So you built your business around selling ads linked to PageRank, and now you’re upset when Google pulls the plug? Suck it up — the writing’s been on the wall that this WILL happen (not could) since 2003, and all Google has really done is finally made it more visible that many sites selling PageRank weren’t actually passing along credit at all.
If I’m going to be upset, I’m saving that for the relatively few sites that have been hit by PageRank decreases because Google’s “detection” system turns out to be more screwed up than it publicly lets on, and how it shouldn’t just be guesswork that you’ve been hit with a PageRank selling penalty (I don’t think this yet shows up as an official report). I can also get a little upset over Google trying to jump into FTC guidelines for human disclosure of paid reviews to try and make it seem like the FTC was calling for “machine disclosure,” when it was not — an that’s an especially hard line to make when some AdSense units actively encourage site owners to embed links as if they are part of editorial.
Overall, I just don’t see anything new in what’s happened this year, in terms of the basic arguments. If you care about being listed on Google, follow the guidelines it issues. If you don’t, do whatever you want. Just don’t complain if you violate the guidelines and Google smacks you down. To date, despite the whining, I’ve not seen a mass movement by site owners to robots.txt out Google in a boycott of solidarity. That would really hurt Google — seriously hurt it. But site owners don’t do it because in the end, they get a lot more help from the Big G despite also feeling like it’s Big Brother.
Similar Post:
December 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
i think both of these guys are brilliant about this.
“It’s certainly annoying if you’re reading something you assume was an editorial piece that turns out to be some paid review.”
but shouldn’t you learn to trust sources for their editorial quality and not believe anything you read online?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I think the key question is what should one expect from Google. Once upon a time it was relevant information from out there on what I am looking for. That’s relevant as defined by me. Gradually Google is becoming a publisher with an editorial review process, however that is done. So if I like what I read, then Google’s for me. However it may no longer be a neutral provision of what I think is relevant. Now with Knols, Google is starting a crowd-sourcing process that will muddy the waters even more. It’s all very confusing.