1. you haven't even read this thread - you don't have the attention span for that - you have no idea what the thread is about - that's the Blobmaster modus operandi - just jump in and say nothing, again... 2. you managed to use the words "authority" and "credibility" in the same paragraph rerring to me - thanks - but we can both be sure we'll never see those words used in a paragraph about you
You have a crapton of posts, and a reputation beyond repute, but your posts are seeming on the rude side the past few days. Just saying.
In the quench of success, google wants everyone else to give up on their bread and butter !! What we do on our blog is OUR business. I don't think google has got any rights to question what we do. Ask webmasters not to sell links? rubbish ... why wouldn't anyone. Thats one of the revenue streams. Will they listen if we ask them to shut down Adsense? .. Monopoly !
Google agrees, it's none of their bussiness and so the wont count your sold links when ranking their SERPs. Please continue to sell links, Google doesn't mind. They wont even think any less of your site for doing it. Google is only trying to improve their SERPs, if this will do that then can everybody just shut up and be happy.
Not Counting Even Highly Relevant and High Quality backlinks just because someone paid for that link is not gonna improve the SERP. What they should do to improve the SERP is improving their algorithm to concentrate on Relevancy and quality of a given backlink (For both sites the giver and the taker) regardless whether it is paid or not.
But if they remove all (or most, or just some) paid links from the ranking algo, the SERPs are going to improve, and if they don't they'll reinstate the links. Remember that Google lives and dies with providing quality SERPs, you can bet that they try to improve every day and that they will try anything and throw away every attempt that doesn't succeed.
Link selling and spam are those annoying things that Google can't control, but they can put a dent into it. The thing about people that buy links, they want a return on that money they spent. If things don't work out fast enough for them, then they are MUCH more likely to resort to black hat tactics. Most of the people that are against Google cracking down on paid links, buy or sell links themselves. Google doesn't have to catch even a fraction of the links, because they can say they are trying to which will convince many people that paid links might be a bad idea. So have fun with your spamming attempts after your paid links don't keep you at number 1.
I haven't read through the entire 26 pages of this thread, so I don't know if this has been said already, but I think a lot of you are misunderstanding why Google wants you to disclose paid links. Disclaimer: The ONLY affiliation I have with Google is that they index my website. Nothing else. I could care less about their profits or their stock value, etc. I just want to clarify this: Google's mission is to make their search results highly relevant to the keywords that you type in. So when you search for "how to train a dog," the first site in the results is the site with the most authority. Why? Because it has presumably received the most relevant links related to "how to train a dog." The problem with paid links: You can create a crappy website and buy a bunch of links with anchor text "how to train a dog" on dog-related web sites that don't disclose their paid links. That will influence the search results, so your crappy website will rank higher for the term "how to train a dog," and it will have NOTHING to do with what the Internet community thought of your site. Whereas the natural process would be that a lot of people like your website and link to it, thus boosting you in the SERPs, undisclosed paid links do it artificially. That will result in someone typing in "how to train a dog," clicking on your crappy website and getting pissed off because Google led them to a site that really is not the best site on how to train a dog. Sooo... Google DOES NOT CARE if you buy link advertisements on other web sites. In Google's eyes, you are completely within your right to buy and sell a million links with anchor text "how to train a dog" on high-traffic websites. However, those links should not affect the search engine results because they will make Google a worse place to search for everybody. This affects all of us, guys. Not just Google. If undisclosed paid links become abundant, the search results you get for things you are looking for will be of worse quality. I don't think Google is going to punish you for having paid links in your sidebar. They just won't count the links for PageRank purposes. Google asking us to disclose paid links is no different than asking us to disclose misused Adsense, hidden text, and shady SEO techniques. All these "best practice guidelines" are meant to better the Internet community. Would you like to read a magazine with an informative article about a new medicine, for example, and not be told that the article was sponsored by the drug company Pfizer? Would you like to see a list of "Books we recommend" in your local newspaper and not be told that all of the books listed were included there because publishers PAID the newspaper for the spots? Don't get me wrong: I've experimented with TextLinkAds.com, and in fact, I love their company. I even promote them in my signature because they are a great advertising medium. Text link ads are an unobtrusive way to advertise, as opposed to banners. But I think the links should be recognized as advertisements or else they negatively affect the quality of search.
If one is buying a link to a page they would buy a link that makes sense and is an accurate representation of what will be on the destination page. Paid does not automatically equal lower quality or "spam". ( no one paid me for the TLA link I just posted but if they had does that make tha link any less accurate/valuable? )
It absolutely does. It's called a conflict of interest. Your word means a lot less to me (and many others) if you were paid to say what you said. That doesn't make it WRONG to be paid to say something. But just like most blog readers, I would expect to be told when you were paid to say something.
I guess that's the whole point, no one knows besides me and an advertiser if I'm paid for anything I say/link to. Hell, my whole blog could be one giant paid ad and no one would know. I'm sure the debate will continue and there are many who can (and are) articulating my thoughts & opinions on the subject much better than I can.
Well, putting a header above links in a sidebar (where most text link ads go, although TLA's new Post Level TLA's will change that) that says "Advertisements" helps. Anyway, I make none of these arguments with hostility... only in the interest of a healthy discussion
And most of all, how do you know why I have purchased a link. Even in the contextual blog advertising program, a lot of webmasters pay to get links into their brandnew sites on a blog post. Their site won´t rank (too soon), but the blog post will if the blog has enough power in Google. And thru the text link they get business. Whatever the snitch program will turn out to be (talking about handing stones to residents of glasshouses), Matt has already accomplished with this post what his programmers haven´t. Let´s face it, whenever a newbie asks on a forum how to get ranked, the number 1 advice is ¨go get links¨, ¨don´t even worry about content, get a ton of links, here is where you buy them¨. The problem is that the link selling business has blown up to a degree that Google was NOT prepared for, and it´s created one big mess. Many Fortune 500 companies hire internet marketers who buy them links for their already well ranked sites. Matt is not the harmless little geek who has nothing better to do than blog about his work in his time off. The goal was to stop advertising link selling as openly as it has been done, I believe. And we can already see how the wordings change everywhere, from links to listings, suddenly there are no more paid directories, all are free services to improve quality of web searches (oh yeah, the reviews are 50 bucks). We all know that Google employees read these forums, and seeing how many new webmasters have been turned into link buyers must have been a main factor in their decision to send Matt out to make another one of his scare posts. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/member.php?u=31448 We should red rep him for that.
Right, that's fine. Google doesn't want to prevent anyone from getting business. That link that you paid for will just not count towards your search engine ranking. I think that's pretty fair. You shouldn't be allowed to pay your way into the search engines. Write/create GREAT content >> people will link to you >> you'll rank in Google >> Google will be a much better search engine for everybody
yeah, but in blog links, how do you determine whether a post is made to compliment a site or whether you got paid to post it.
Yeah, I'm not sure how you could determine that. I'm just saying that, in general, paid links that affect the search engines aren't good for the long haul because they interfere with the democratic nature of the link-based search concept.
No, paid link equals paid link, but if Google is trying to find sites people like, paid links corrupt the results. If I paid you enough you'd tell anyone I was your dearest friend, but it would not make you an actual friend of mine. That has never been the question here, I totally agree that actually distinguishing (sp?) paid links from natural is hard as hell. It is determining wether they should be included in the SERP ranking algo is a piece of cake. Paid votes corrupt the election.