Yep and like you said earlier in the thread all somebody has to do is do a little coding and write a script to automatically send in reports on other sites that are competing with yours. Even my little brother could make that in php in a few hours.
I posted another comment on his BLOG after analyzing he one site that he knows and respects. And guess what I found -- I found that site was not using what Matt thinks white-hat SEO (natural link building) and I said it to him. But I'll never reveal the URL to him because it would embarras him and his BLOG being a public place -he would loose credibility.
I have put up the brief on Netscape 6 hrs back. But due to lack of support it is still not moving. I used strong words on my article. So think before you vote. But if you think I am right --you can vote here-- http://www.netscape.com/member/jodiac/public
This is really the sickest thing google has ever done. Trying to attract more people into Adwords, by just banning Selling links.
First thing tomorrow, I will report Yahoo. They are selling links for $300 a year!!! Not to mention business.com and jaydee. *** Anyway, if the mighty one wants to stop all webmaster money circulating around in link sales who the hell will build websites which they can scrape and archive and make billions $????
Great point above. Given the new guidelines google is using, every submission in the yahoo directory is in violation and should be penalized. If they aren't then that opens up a whole other can of worms. Will they give preferential treatment depending on who sells the links? Doesn't seem very fair!
This is true, but then that leaves the door open for all paid directories. Where do we then draw the line between paid links and paid site inclusions which result in links. Couldn't we then say that paid link exchanges aren't really to gain links, but to have our site reviewed and included by a third party?
In this case we can all say the same I am getting paid to review your site and decide if it's going to suite my site's visitors
Yes, Yahoo charges $300 to "Review" a site prior to inclusion. I believe most people selling links on high PR sites also do some "review" and don't link to crappy sites. How would you ever determine the proper amount of "review" ??? I think it's all a big bluff to try and scare people
my first post here, so i want to say to everybody (and sorry for english mistakes, in case ). i have many things to say about this topic: - i never bought links and i don't think it's a required step to rank well. - Matt Cutts is asking something different (in comments: sorry but i'm not allowed yet to post link on this forum): "I’d be most interested in the “I’ll pay $X for a link that affects search engines†type of stuff right now, whether it be via a link that passes PageRank or a paid post/article that isn’t disclosed as paid. That’s the data that would be most useful right now.". it means all worries about "how do they know if that link is paid or not" don't make much sense right now. - but this is hilarious, isn't it? they are asking link buyers to confess (or they are going to get tons of false alarms...) - they want people stop buy and sell links? well, the best way to get this is removing pagerank from toolbar. - i know, Matt Cutts says many people (not webmasters or SEOs) like to see pagerank. but do you believe it? i don't. - "paid/not paid" is the wrong point of view of the problem. even if this spam report works, they can just get a pattern. but will people stop buy and selling links? no way. they would just change the way they do, avoiding that pattern. - after Google acquired Doubleclick, which adv market they miss? link market - i already wrote this on matt's post, so it may look like a deja vu but Google is not Internet. it's an important part of Internet, but they cannot pretend webmasters add this tag or that attribute just because their pagerank is flawed. google invented pagerank, considering every link a vote, but if link cannot be considered a vote anymore (anymore? ), it's pagerank's problem, not links' ok, long enough as first post
http://digg.com/tech_news/Don_t_Let_Google_Tell_You_How_To_Run_Your_Website Shared and shown to us by mad4, excellent article, must read. 99 DIGGS So far.
oops, sorry, forgot one thing: - "adwords sells link" is off topic. adwords links doesn't give pagerank, of course
I can't stand paid link directories, including yahoo. It get's so annoying when looking for a directory to submit to when they wait till you are almost done submitting to say "oh by the way you have to pay". There are plenty of free directories out there, but they are hidden behind the mass of paid ones. Google fighting paid links is like fighting the war on drugs, they can't win. The thing that really gets link sellers nervous is the fact that it now puts doubt in customers minds. Many will now think twice before buying links and that will hurt business. Adwords is paid advertising that doesn't pass page rank (of course we wouldn't be surprised if Google gave sites using adwords a little nudge in SERPS). I don't remember Google saying anything specific in their TOS about paid links, but they did say things about manipulating Page rank. A paid link on a directory passes page rank, so that IS manipulating. There's free ways as well, but they take more work than paying for a link. I have never bought or sold links, so I'm happy that Google is pretending to take a stand. When Wikipedia was throwing around the nofollow like crazy I was happy as well, but only because I had no links on that site. Now if buying/selling links was my everything, then I would be livid. It's time to diversify.