Matt Cutts and the paid links

I know for a fact that Microsoft have purchased link advertising on my website, but i wont show you my site
Statements should always be backed with proof's or else they mean pointless

 

http://www.directorygold.com/14460.shtml

http://www.directorygold.com/14479.shtml

 

1. that's not proof of anything other than that directory owner links to Colgate - it's certainly not proof that Colgate paid for that link

2. it's also not related directly to link buying - I am listed in several directories - some of these I submitted myself - some were just added by others, perhaps to give credibility to their directories

3. I don't see any PR on that page - it's very difficult for me to believe that Colgate paid anyone for a PR0 link on some small directory, and if Colgate paid anyone else to buy a listing there look for that person to be fired soon

 

True.

However, I do have PayPal receipts from the companies that submitted those links. That is where I got the iCrossing details from.

 

There's so much outsourcing of link development these days it's damn near impossible to tell who's buying links for who.

 

It's still not proof that Colgate is buying links. It may be proof that someone working for Colgate is doing online marketing but that's hardly the same thing, is it? And see my point #3 above: I wonder how long this guy will keep his job/contract - do you really think that link is going to provide Colgate with any significant benefit?

I also have a hard time believing that Colgate pays with PayPal...

 

I think you misunderstood me, Colgate outsourced some of their web promotion to iCrossing. Maybe Colgate didn't pay directly, but they still paid. And at what point can it be considered that Colgate is buying links? When the CEO signs the check personally?

 

Hey you guys, having read though most of your comments I am totally lost. So paid linking is going to be reduced, right? Could anyone tell me in general terms what this refers to. I understand it refers to google but will it effect us, as ad sense subscribers?

Steve

 

No one can proof it

 

I think you're missing the point.

First, we had Blobmaster claiming that "many Fortune 500 companies buy links".

Then, when we asked for proof, egdcltd claimed he had proof that Colgate was buying links. But what we find out is that he doesn't have proof of that at all. He may possibly have proof (or maybe not) that Colgate has outsourced some of its marketing to iVillage who bought a directory listing or subcontracted to someone else who bought a directory listing - on a PR0 page. How much value will that give Colgate? Do you really believe that Colgate signed a contract saying, "Please purchase links for PageRank on our behalf, preferably from a PR0 page on a no name directory"?

Get serious...

Bad idea.

1. the thread will likely be merged with this one
2. you may be penalized by moderators here for starting a duplicate thread

 

Maybe iCrossing is doing link building for a Colgate competitor and is throwing a few links for Colgate into the mix so the site they are really working for doesn't stand out in terms of link growth...

 

Hey minstrel, I'm sorry have I done something wrong? I was asking a question about this thread and just making newbies aware that I've started a thread for them. Is that against the rules? If so I am so very sorry I will get rid of it now.

 

iCrossing, not iVillage. I think iVillage is something totally different.

At what point does proof become conclusive? Colgate paid someone to do web marketing for them, included purchasing links. That firm spent a portion of that money buying links. Therefore, Colgate has purchased links, even if indirectly.

 

As iCrossing has Colgate described as a customer on their website, I think it's pretty certain they are a customer. Either that, or Colgate should sue them.

 

i am on google side

 

I had someone claiming to be a web designer and claiming in her portfolio to have designed my site at one point. That didn't make it true.

 

I hope you sued them then. Or something anyway.

 

It was someone in a third world country which made it difficult but the claim was eventually deleted (maybe I should try to find it again and see if it was returned ).

 

Deleted is what you want. It would be an idea to check up on it again though.

 

It was discovered and reported to me by a friend - and this was a few years ago now. But this is all way off topic by now - apologies to the thread.