Yes, fine, call me confused, and call them equally confused. If we made a club Matt Cutts would be our president and his blog would be our internet headquarters. And if Matt Cutts blog is not a reliable source for getting "common usage" then mind telling me where I should look? The terms are not listed in a Google glossary that I could find. These terms are not discussed in the official webmaster blog. Is this thread the industry standard, or just your posts?
Thank you for only reading ONE of my posts in this thread. I've already said a filter is not a penalty. Now give me the link that explains how a "discounted" or "devalued" link is not a penalty.
Q, you have already had your questions answered... repeatedly. Just give it up. You have no point to make now except to confirm your absolute refusal to acknowledge error and/or ignorance.
No, previously I asked for a link or YOUR version. Now I'm asking for just a link, as I've already seen that you refuse to acknowledge your own error and/or ignorance. I've shown that the posters in Matt Cutts blog are using the term "penalty" and you called them all confused. So, again, if that source is not a reliable source for a standard, what is? I mean, THIS thread is based off THAT blog after all...
This is pointless and you are hopeless. Good luck with your progress toward total unenlightenment, Q. A closed mind is a dead mind.
Thanks for backing up your claims for knowing industry standards. Your insights to enlightenment are also eye opening ( ) especially how they relate to penalties and paid links within the confines of this thread. It truly seems to me that I've given my burden of proof via dictionary links, and proof of 'common usage' via the very blog entry this thread is based on, where as you resorted to prattle about enlightenment.
Matt Cutts is not an SEO, he's a PR person for google. If you choose to make him the president of your club then go for it (actually i believe there is already a club called the cutlets ). Theres alot more to understand about SEO and Google than that which comes out of his blog. You clearly share the same short sighted view of people that post on matt's blog crying because their 2 day old Texas Holdem Poker site isn't ranked #1 even after they submitted their site map to google.
I understand that I am not an expert on the topic, and that I have much to learn. But how can I learn if no one is willing to back up their own claims about the correct usage of terms with anything other then their apparent opinion? I've linked to the source of this thread (which, if it's not reliable, why are we even discussing it?) and have given a link to merriam-webster. The only outside source I've been shown in return has been to show that a filter is not a penalty (which I've shown I already understand). Where do I look for a definitive source for common usage? Look right here on DP, search in the Google forums for "penalty" in thread titles and you'll see that it crosses over to "discounts" and "filters" as well. If I am wrong, and I am confused, then the 'industry standard' is so elusive, that it's amazing that anyone is correct. Mr. Cutts is wrong because he is not an SEO, all the folks posting in his blog are incorrect because they all own gambling sites. I'm sure all the folks that mention it here at Digital Point are newbies. So, if Google is not source, if employees of Google are not worth listening too, and if the DP is incorrect, then where, oh where can I find a reliable source?
Paid links are against the quality of web. After all there is not much different between paid link directories and ffa link pages. Also the Google has to promote it own ad service(adwords), and the first step to achive this is to stop ad sale by individual sites. After that more webmasters will have to get their ads on adwords.
It's just that the word penalty implies that something negative has happened as a result of something you did or did not do. Filtering paid links when ranking site is not something negative that's happening towards your site, it's something positive thats not happening. You really have to make a difference between "no benefit" and "penalty", otherwise there'd be a lot of penalties happening in your world. "Didn't win the lottery? Thats a penalty."
You are making an incorrect distinction there. It is a penalty, because a previous benefit has been removed. That is something negative. If, however, both paid and unpaid links had had the same original benefits, then unpaid links had an advantage added to them, you would be correct. That would not be a penalty, merely a benefit that hadn't been received. That is not the case though. Yes, not winning the lottery is not a penalty, but a benefit that hasn't been recieved. If, however, two people won the same amount on the lottery, then one of them had the prize reduced, that would be a penalty.
I agree that junk sites need to be eliminated from the results. I doubt that such sites are using a paid linking program though.
Hey minstrel, do you enjoy arguements like this one? Not being rude or anything, it's just your fun to argue with (I like these sort of arguements).
You signature is silly btw. Buying links "revenue model" is caused by Google, this model is based upon google's way of ranking sites. Moreover, links' value is usually determined by the site's PR, which is also a Google parameter. Erm.. so what do you mean by Boycott Google ?
What amazes me is the blind stubborn complete disregard for logic demonstrated by certain people in threads like this one. At times like this, you have to laugh or cry... and laughing is more fun.