Matt Cutts and the paid links

It's not relevant because nobody's saying that.

Who are the other two?

 

Not directly, no. But there seems to a general attitude of Google can do no wrong.

 

Where? I don't see that in this thread, or anywhere else at DP, or anywhere else people discuss Google.

There are lots of valid complaints about Google. This issue isn't one of them, any more than all the threads with people whining about how AdSense won't allow them to cheat AdWords customers out of their money is valid.

 

And up till yesterday I had a link in my sig with the text "the letter Q" which led to my blog. Q is also how I sign many of my posts.

Was it illogical and irrational to think you could be implying something about me?

I mean, how often is that phrase used to denote your meaning?

Then I will be assimilated? It's good to see you are the spokesperson for the collective.

The link will lose value if it is paid. So in a way, this fits within 1, 2, and 3a (3b if advertising was a sport). Whereas, if you applied the word "discounted" to paid links, that would imply Google having a sale on text links...at least when using general usage of the term.

So am I forcing my terms on the people in this thread? maybe, but my main goal was to get people to stop using terms and phrases like like "discount" "deduct" "take away" and others, when apparently "filter" is the correct word. As if something is "taken away" that would put the link at a loss due to some action (being paid)...which is a penalty!

 

Perhaps not but it is still incorrect. I've never looked at your signature and wasn't aware that you ever had a "Q" there. The reason I selected that letter is because it is the far left top letter on a QWERTY keyboard, located where the typically weaker little pinky would strike it; it has that little tail looking like some sort of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles weapon; and the name "Q" sounds sort of aggressive or harsh when spoken aloud - hence the reference to "hurting yourself on the letter Q".

 

And finally you've arrived at the essence of the issue, non paid links is da s**t.

And now we know you're not a lawyer If you pay for advertising and don't get ranking, you've not been punished.

 

Read though my posts I've never disagreed with that....

Are you wanting me to pull my dictionary back out or are you just trying to increase your post count?

 

I'm wanting you to understand that advertising has nothing to do with ranking. I'm wanting you to understand that sites that advertise should not be ranked better than sites that don't. I'm wanting you to understand that paid links is advertising. I'm wanting you to understand the difference between not being given anything and being penalized.

And that's just off the top of my head what I want you to understand.

 

hmm mroflo... this is amazing *** grragrg

 

Read through my posts in this thread, you should see I actually understand all those things. It was the wording and terminology that was being used by others I was having issues with. Go through the posts I was replying too and count the times words like "discount" and "devalued" were being used. Read my replies to them and then tell me who was not understanding the difference... Now, do YOU understand these things? Should I check to see if you were saying "penalized" in the past?

I mean, up till a few posts ago the entire thing was being explained that something WAS being taken away, and if something WAS being taken away, that IS a penalty. And that was the only thing I was trying to clear up.

Also, advertising does have something to do with ranking. That is something Google is now wanting to change. Hence this thread & the blog post by Mr. Cutts.

 

That is simply not true. Read MY posts again.

 

I don't think I've ever said penalized about googles attempt to ignore paid links, at least never meant it.

As far as advertising having something to do with ranking, that was just an unfortunate mistake. Google are now trying to correct that.

Let's have another go at the whole penalty discussion. Imagine a newspaper that every week lists the top ten companys ranked by the number of times they've been mentioned in the newspaper. At some point it's discovered that ads has been counted and the company adjusts its list, and from there on ignores ads when ranking. Is this a penalty against the advertising companies? Imagine for the sake of argument that theres some value in being on the list.

 

I shouldn't need to... you are the one I was replying too for the better part in most of my previous posts.

You've used discounted, devalued, and filtered ~ but never penalized

 

All of which is true with respect to passing PageRank. And none of which implies a penalty.

And please don't show me your dictionary again. Read the literature on PageRank and linking and examine common usage. I'm sure you're aware that, in any industry (and even in society at large), words and phrases take on a special meanung through common usage, in many cases leading to revisions of dictionaries. The dictionary is an evolving and sometimes controversial entity, not something carved into tablets at the top of a mountain.

 

In the search world a penalty does have a different meaning to discount, devalued or filtered. For example duplicate content is filtered not penalized.

 

Exactly. Q seems to be having trouble grasping this.

 

I'm not the only one...
http://www.google.com/search?source...&q=site:www.mattcutts.com+penalized+paid+link

From what I can tell, that's page after page of people using penalize like i have been, and no one ever bothering to have them corrected.

it's a search for filter + paid + links and has 105 results
It is beat out by filter + paid + links as that has 129
discounted has 39 and devalued has 20

Compare those numbers to the usage in this thread "filter" has been used the least here. And I've been saying that "discounted" and "devalued" are penalties (which is the second most used there).

So as you can see, it is rather easy to be confused. Especially when the only people consistently using the correct terms would be, ummm.... no body.

 

Okay. So you can rest comfortably in the company of other equally confused people. Congratulations.

Sort of a support group for the stubbornly confused. Perhaps I should add that information to my directory...

 

Rofl - The support group for the Google Confused. Omg that was great. Question though. Will you lead the Google confused group to sort out them out? You need to include Matt Cutts maybe to clarify any misgivings to the group. (sarcasm - nothing intended)

 

well the people who post questions on matts blog don't tend to be the most informed, thats why they are posting question's on matt cutt's blog.

please read this page

http://searchengineland.com/070315-100022.php

it should help you to understand the difference between a penalty and a filter.