Everyone seems to be against paid links. I am new -- first post, and I must say that I agree with what Google is doing. The whole idea of using links as a measure of a website's relevance is by having them occur naturally. Organic search is designed to put the best sites up at the top. The best sites will garner their links by having great content. I don't agree with the theory, but I do believe that paid links give an unfair advantage to sites with deeper pockets. They already have the advantage in paid results. If these sites want to spend money for clicks, adwords is the way to go. I am not defending the decision as much as understanding where they are coming from.
Show me where anyone from Google has said you'd be penalized for buying links to your site. What they actually have said is that they'd like to be able to exclude them (the bought links) from their ranking algorithm. What they're saying is "if you advertise with anyone (including us) we will not like you more for it". The important thing to note is that they wont like you less either, less than they did before excluding paid links, but not less for you buying links. I could say see above, but here goes: Would you say that theres a difference between ads and organic search results? Should organic search results be based on any kind of advertising? Look at it as a real world election. What votes should be counted? Should it be "one person, one vote" or should we count election posters as votes too?
I really wish that people would stopping trying to say that Google wants them to stop advertising with anything other than adsense. There is a huge difference between a paid advertisement that doesn't pass PR and a paid link that does. It's in Google's best interest to eliminate the latter. Not just for the sake of adwords, but, more importantly, for the SERPs. How is a poor site with the best content for a given keyword, supposed to compete with people that will just buy more links?
Thing is, and as you're a member here you may find it hard to believe, a lot of people don't realize the top results are links that people have paid Google for. They don't realize they're at the top because someone paid to advertise there, as they don't realize it's an advert. Now, the majority, if not all of DP members will know this, bu we're hardly a cross-section of the internet public. I have found that the majority of people I know who use the internet just for leisure, who may know how to search etc, but aren't up on internet marketing, don't discriminate between Googles paid results and the organic ones. The paid results therefore outperform the organic ones every time. If the results are skewed like this anyway, it seems wrong to potentially penalize non-Google forms of advertising. EDIT: On a side note, I have used Google to search for things in the past, and I have, in the majority of cases, found the top results to be relevant to the search. If the results are accurate, what's the problem with the fact that some of them will have almost certainly purchased advertising. EDIT(Again, sorry): I remembered this post from earlier in the thread To me, that suggests that any actions by Google regarding paid link advertising will not actually affect those sites they're targeting. Would it not be better, if you're going to have a report to Google system, to just report sites that are not relevant to the search performed?
I'm sorry, I'm just going by what you said earlier... So I do not know why the burden of proof should be on me...when the very point of this thread is links getting "discounted" (which by definition is a penalty...or a sale, but we are not at wal*mart)
But by penalizing - however subtly - such links, Google is basically making them worthless - which will cut off a non-Google source of revenue for the link seller over time. So, no, Google isn't directly telling webmasters they can't sell links - they're just making the situation economically untenable for them. It's like the federal government withholding highway money from states who don't toe the line on certain issues, like the minimum drinking age: they can't force the states to do as they want, but by nudging them in the pocketbook, they can still get the outcome they want.
So you think it's wrong of G to ignore links you bought from other vendors while they rank your site. You just go ahead and start a search engine that encourages people to buy ads from others so they can rank better in your search engine Sorry, I might perform well in most english language test, but it's not my native tounge (which is swedish by the way). What I meant to say was that they'd ignored obvious ads for a long time. Again see my answer to egdcltd above. And I'll quote myself again: ps. egdcltd and Qryztufre, could your parents read and write?
Please learn the difference between a PENALTY and a FILTER. It is a big difference. And until you understand that, all of those who believe Google is "penalizing" advertisers are just never going to understand how ludicrous that belief really is.
I'm very sorry to hear that. It was off course not meant to offend anyone. I think you can understand what the pun was meant at. Again my apologies.
Thanks. I realize you didn't mean anything by it, it's just something that I'm a bit sensitive about. Thank you.
Isn't filtering some sort of penalty in itself? I don't think either side of this debate is going to change the others opinion of the matter, but it is interesting hearing what others think.
I honestly don't think the literacy skills of my parents play a part in whether or not Google penalizes links. It seems that you have resorted to "yo mama" jokes to get your point across. When it gets the that point, any actual point is generally lost. I ask again, please give me a link to Google's glossary of terms, or explain how a filter is not a penalty against the links.
I already have, more than once in this thread, with examples and analogies. One last time: If you buy a text link as an advertisement, you are NOT penalized by Google. There is nothing wrong with advertising. What you gain by that text link is the potential of increased traffic and increased site awareness (brand recognition). All you lose is the money you paid for that link. However, when Google identifies that text link as having been purchased, the link in essence is filtered to a "no follow" status as far as PageRank is concerned, to ensure that the paid advertising does not artifically inflate real PageRank or Google ranking. See my analogy of herbal remedies earlier. This is not rocket science, people. No. See above.
I would disagree with that. By filtering the value of a link, I would say that Google are penalizing that link. Second, Google has paid links at the top of the listings - their own. As I said earlier, there are a lot of people who don't realize those links are paid for; if anything, they think they are better. I have no objection to Google turing a profit from advertising, but it would appear to me that they object to anyone else doing the same thing, unless Google are in some way involved. EDIT: Also, the real idea here is to get rid of search results that aren't relevant. At least that's my opinion. I believe that Google should instead concentrate on removing spam sites from the top of their listings (not that I see that many). If a site is relevant to a search, does it matter if it bought links?
All of this tells me that you just do not understand the disctinction. Whether you "agree" with it or not is irrelevant. And the reason you "don't agree" is that you don't understand it.
I would say rather that I have a different definition of a penalty than you do. Still, would be boring if everybody agreed on everything.
That is the main point I have been trying to make. I think we are actually on the same page... What you are saying time and time again is that "Google does not penalize paid links, what they are doing is <insert synonym for penalize> paid links." Explain how a "filter" "discount" or "devaule" or any other word that means penalize is not a penalty. And if you still insist there is no penalty, then you have to admit that a paid link equals a non-paid link and that there is no value taken away. Because as soon as you take something away, a penalty HAS been applied.
For it to be a penalty you should be refused something that you should rightly have had. What this is is a loss of something you should never had had. ps. A quick (good) joke can liven up any thread, I'm sorry if I offended anyone but remember, this is a DP thread on page 18 that's still on topic, those are about as rare as diamonds. If anyone's interested it was an attempt to paraphrase Top Gun: pps. No offense meant towards anyones mother