- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mongoose wrote:and it you’re buying links for the traffic (err, like, an Ad), what’s it matter if there’s a “nofollow” tag on it, or it’s javascripted? your getting visitors.
Because a nofollow suggests that you don’t vouch for a site, or that the url was probably placed there by someone attempting to spam your content.
I don’t sell any links, but I probably wouldn’t place a link on one of my sites if I had to say I won’t vouch for it. Yahoo charges $299 to even consider a link. If I were going to sell a link, I wouldn’t accept any link. Ok, well, at 299k, I’d sure get a lot looser.
Really, I’ve always done what Google wanted because I need the traffic, but I think they are going overboard when they’re trying to create their own standards like this. They’re going to create a whole new class of webmaster whiners.
Pretty much, if the results are relevant, then they are good.
mongoose wrote:– i get the opposite read on this. if you de-value paid links, the guy with say $xx,xxx a month to spend on links (in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings – not as traffic gathering tools) has no advantage over the fellow with $xxx to spend on links.I’m not so sure about that. If I have 10,000 per month and you have $999 per month, I guarantee you that I will seriously outlink you. The difference now is that it won’t be webmasters who are earning the money for putting up links. It will be other people earning the money… like writers, for instance. At the end of the day, the 10,000 guy will still be dusting the 999 guy in the search engines.
It will just be people other than webmasters that are making the money. Anyway, this doesn’t worry me since I don’t really buy links either. I just think it is bad for webmasters in general.
The whole idea seems like Google is asking for upaid “snitches” or something. Just feels like they’re making more of a dogfight out of the whole system they created in the first place.
oneguy, i was talking about it from the buyer’s end.
if i were selling traffic, instead of PR/SEM juice, i’d change over to javascripting without any qualms. it’s not one of the bigger pains in the ass google has given me.
If I have 10,000 per month and you have $999 per month, I guarantee you that I will seriously outlink you.
– aye. i said that.
The difference now is that it won’t be webmasters who are earning the money for putting up links. It will be other people earning the money… like writers, for instance.
– ok, i get you. but, you won’t be outlinking me through link buys, which is the current area of interest for the googleGods.
I just think it is bad for webmasters in general.
– i think there is the potential for a blow to the economy of peddling PR/SEM power, but i’m putting my nickel on the sellers in that market being able to adjust fast enough to keep a lot of their equity.
if you can write an organic link, you can sell one, hehe.
and it’ll just be the next iteration of the google game of good link/bad link.
mongoose wrote:oneguy, i was talking about it from the buyer’s end.if i were selling traffic, instead of PR/SEM juice, i’d change over to javascripting without any qualms. it’s not one of the bigger pains in the ass google has given me.
I guess that is right, and maybe people will have to do that so Google doesn’t tank them. OTOH, most of the obvious paid link buys out there haven’t done any good for quite some time. If all Google does is devalue those links (as they have), then people will keep selling them. Hell, there’s still tons of drivel out there on the web talking about how important meta tags are.
mongoose wrote:– ok, i get you. but, you won’t be outlinking me through link buys, which is the current area of interest for the googleGods.That’s right. But, I do think that the people cheering this on will still be outranked this time next year for other reasons. I just don’t see it as evening the playing field, just changing it. (and I bet you are playing in a bigger league than I am.)
mongoose wrote:and it’ll just be the next iteration of the google game of good link/bad link.So true.
Here is todays article from WebProNews:
Quote:7 Reasons Google’s Paid Link Snitch Plan SucksMatt Cutts blogged that Google would like you, the average search engine user, to report on sites you feel are displaying links for cash. This created a firestorm of negative responses from the SEO, webmaster, and free speech crowd. Below, I put together what I feel are the top 7 reasons Google’s paid link snitch plan sucks. I linked to my inspirations (No payment requested!).
Editor’s Note: Google’s Matt Cutts had a busier weekend than he’d planned after setting this fire. The paid links report debate raged on for 250 comments on his blog, placing him in front of his home computer monitor until late Sunday night answering questions and concerns. General consensus: Nobody likes this idea. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
1. Links are valuable because of the Page Rank display in the Google Toolbar. Matt, if Google doesn’t like the way paid links influence search results, then eliminate the scoreboard. It’s hard to take your call-to-action seriously when you have the power to grind serious link buying to a halt all by yourself.If people had to guess a page rank, most of their motivation for buying links would go away. Of course, Google won’t eliminate the green bar because that is the number one reason the Google search engine is at the top of most web browsers.
2. Most people that post on Digg, or add articles to Wikipedia, or work as editors at DMOZ also send paid link reports to Google to benefit themselves in some way. My point: Anyone taking the time to send complaints to Google about a paid link that hurts no one and may even be relevant, probably has unseen motivations.
One of the problems is that there is no other motivation I can see to report a paid link than to help Google out. It’s not like paid links irritate the end user like poor search results do. Therefore, the detection these reports offer will be of no value to Google.
3. It’s impossible to define a paid link exactly. Paying cash is obviously what you meant, but is that any different than a link to a client or to a buddy who helped you submit your site to 1,000 free web directories?
If I’m right with that assumption, then it’s really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss!
4. Payment can be proven only by following the money trail. Otherwise, it is simply a case of ‘he said, she said.’ This creates a heavy burden on Google to be correct in their assumptions.
5. Marketing Pilgrim’s Andy Beal asks: “What business does Google have in dictating the disclosure of any business relationships on others?”
Google, you are just a search engine. You should be reacting to the internet world, not trying to recreate it in your own image. Links are not evil and payment for links is not evil. The Web is based on links, link-trading and advertising, which of course is payment for links.
6. The hypocrisy of being in the business of selling links and then asking others not to sell them is a bit much for many webmasters.
7. Is this just a way to cre ate more spending for Google AdWords? Stopping the selling of links will make AdWords one of the last ways to generate traffic from Google. If the link police can slow this to a crawl, then what will businesses do?
Argh prof, you’ve been faster than me! :shooter: I was just reading this article and thought it would be great to share it here.
Interesting post at seoclass.com
(http://seoclass.com/blog/google-tells-you-how-to-run-your-website/)Quote:(…) While Google may be the start page for the internet, they aren’t a body of elected officials appointed to protect our interests on the web. They are a public company who need to show growth and profit to their shareholders every quarter. If you agree that people should be able to build, publish and advertise on the web without Google acting as an ad hoc, defacto, regulating board that serves their own interests you need to help spread this information. Send a link to this post to friend via email, bookmark this post on social bookmarking sites like Digg, Netscape, and Delicious or write about it on your own website.The more people that you can educate about Google’s intent to monopolize, rule and govern the way advertising is done on the internet, the better. We like Google and we feel they generally are a good company. What we don’t like is them telling anyone, including you, how you should run your business and why you should change it. There’s no need for you to sacrifice your profitability because their algorithm is unable to determine the intent of a link.
Google just made its first public error…
Don’t be so mad at Google.
They just told everybody that buying links is a recipe to game the serps. sigh.gif
