Google hypocrites

[freaky andy]

I just read this article about big G written by a guy I know (available here (http://helot.org/2008/01/01/google-link-sale-inconsistency/)). Google surely has a double standard when it comes to link selling.

[Stallion]

It's not a double standard. Google sells links for the purpose of driving traffic. Google punished people that sell links for the purpose of PR. Big difference.

[Pierce]

I dont see a double standard?

The issue google has about link sales is the manipulation of search engine results.

When you place adsense ads on your site they are behind javascript and no search engine can run the javascript.

As such the search engine doesnt see the links, doesnt reward PR and so on so forth.

However selling PR through links (links without no follow tag and that you have been paid to place) is what google is trying to stop and they have every right to stop you selling a commodity (PR) which google gave you in the first place!

The article written by your friend is very confusing and I do not see the point he is making. If you could clarify that for me that would be great.

Pierce

[ruffnat]

that's kind of a silly distinction

people are after the synergy between PR~SERP~Traffic

higher PR means more authority in most people's minds, with which they hope to get better rankings and therefore more traffic

As far as PR goes, I've never heard anyone in the general public even talk about it or know what it is... it is almost exclusively cared about only by webmasters.

[bogart]

Use a 'no follow' tag if you are worried that the link may violate Google's webmaster guidelines

[StarkReality]

When it comes to google, many things are double standards. Why are big adsense advertisers in europe paid in cents/euros per click while most get $ instead and have to take currency conversion risks themselves ? Why are sites full of spammy subdomains like ebay still in the index ? Why are big companies reincluded in the index after a short time, even after being caught with gazillions of doorways while others never see their domains return to the index after dozens of reinclusion requests and totally cleaned sites ?

General rule in life: quot licet jovi, non licet bovi. It's the same with google. Don't do evil...at least to those making you big $$$.

[bogart]

Advertisers are in Europe are probably charged in euros. Most of the ad revenue comes from North America and Europe.

[Doughboy23]

Google has it's ups and downs, but still is the best search engine

[bogart]

Google has it's ups and downs, but still is the best search engine

It really doesn't matter if Google is the best. They bring you the most traffic.

[ssandecki]

I'm not even going to bother to read another blog article written by someone who is crying about text link penalties, it's getting rather old now. No, Adwords is NOT like text links, they provide NO pagerank and NO serp weight.

[LakeCountry]

If Google is so against link sellers/buyers then why do they still show sponsored results for buying links? I guess it's ok to go after a site suspected of buying or selling links or to suggest webmasters become snitches but they do nothing about it when it's right under their nose...but then it's all about the money....hypocrites you bet!

[ruffnat]

If Google is so against link sellers/buyers then why do they still show sponsored results for buying links? I guess it's ok to go after a site suspected of buying or selling links or to suggest webmasters become snitches but they do nothing about it when it's right under their nose...but then it's all about the money....hypocrites you bet!

I agree, the whole "sponsored links" thing is really bad of google to do. It is hard to tell which one is a normal algorithm link and which one is put at the top just because they paid for it.

Google should smarten up and get rid of that placement for sponsored ads.... at the side is ok, but at the top where it becomes number one is really bad on google's part

[tramore35]

I agree, the whole "sponsored links" thing is really bad of google to do. It is hard to tell which one is a normal algorithm link and which one is put at the top just because they paid for it.

Google should smarten up and get rid of that placement for sponsored ads.... at the side is ok, but at the top where it becomes number one is really bad on google's part

I agree. It does say sponsored link but I think they should be them on the side as well.

[bogart]

If Google is so against link sellers/buyers then why do they still show sponsored results for buying links? I guess it's ok to go after a site suspected of buying or selling links or to suggest webmasters become snitches but they do nothing about it when it's right under their nose...but then it's all about the money....hypocrites you bet!

There's other issues involved. Google could face a lawsuit from linksellers if the refuse to allow them to advertise.

[LakeCountry]

There's other issues involved. Google could face a lawsuit from linksellers if the refuse to allow them to advertise.


I see but they don't have a problem penalizing the very same site(s). Seems hypocritical to me to say they are so against link selling yet allow you to buy a sponsored top spot for a site obviously engaged in the very thing they are trying to prevent.

So you're saying webmasters can do nothing about a penalization but can sue G for not selling advertising to a penalized site?

[rapwaydown]

me, just get over it, what can you do,
the best thing is stop using google search when you need to search something, use msn or yahoo.

[enous]

I never buy links.