Matt Cutts and the paid links

I see the point you are trying to make Minstrel. I think I read this in one of your earlier posts. Matt Cutts comes out and says that in 1 to 2 minutes it was easy to tell if a site was buying/selling links.

I completely agree that there are many sites out there that could and will be detected. I was just saying that they will not be able to tell which links are bought on my site. Unless google hacks into my e-mail account and my paypal account, they won't find any evidence of any sales.

But tell me how in the world anyone could tell if a link was bought unless there was either some documentation of the link sale in some site/forum somewhere or unless the link was accidentally (stupidly?) placed under the ads/paid links/sponsors section of a website?

I don't mean to state the obvious but the key component to finding who is buying is some evidence of a sale. Without evidence, it is impossible to tell.

 

Matt was spreading a little fud there. It's much, much easier for a human to identify paid links (especially if you're in the industry and familiar with a few paid networks) than it is for an algorithm.

 

its a complete CROCK! theyre saying paid links are bad... people PAY to have websites created, they PAY to submit them (to selected search engines) so WTF should paid links be seen as bad?

theyre saying that only free, unsponsored information is good? if so then say goodbye to advertorial, article sites, news sites and every damned branded website out there... its completely unrealistic.

mark

 

Another one totally missing the point...

 

Google runs a business as do most of us.. Now isn't using Adsense buying links in a sense...I personally believe that purchasing links should not be an issue. I also believ that it is not that much of an issue either...Google is in a business to make money just like the rest of us...I think thqat purchased links are not much of a priority.. More of a priority would be keeping adsense and adwords going this is the bread and butter of Google..I can't prove it and can't say for sure but if I was in Googles shoes and I had customer X paying $500.00 per day to advertise via adsense would i want them to come up naturally and stop spending that money??? I think that is why you are seeing things such as more and more different types of content coming up with this new change...More places for people to advertise and spend money with Google.. So do paid links really cause much of a concern with Google?? I dought it but I could be wrong..

 

There is a huge difference between buying and selling advertising, and buying and selling PageRank.

It's really that simple.

 

Well it's simple for some. For other's it's just a starting point for a "yeah, but ..." type of discussion.

And whoever has been paying to submit to search engines ... you got robbed. If you build it with good content and white hat SEO, they will come. Goodsearch, Comcast, dogpile, msn, etc. I never submitted to anything, but Google and Yahoo FOR FREE, and the other ones just found me.

 

By the way, for those who have been complaining that Google should be targeting MFA sites and leaving paid links alone, here's good news: they are doing both.

See http://www.jensense.com/archives/2007/05/google_adsense_16.html.

 

Hey menstral,

have u ever thought about running your own forum, u've got like a million posts,

 

I already have a forum (see signature). I also co-admin a couple of others and moderate at a couple more.

 

O for real,

Hey, I have a directory forum, but no time to moderate it.

Would you be interested in moderating it?

 

Thanks but no... I'm already overextended.

 

Ok,

If your ever interested just give me a holler.

take care

 

It must make you feel big when newbs back down when you call them names...how does it feel when they stand strong? I've backed up what I've said, and you called my sources bogus, then used those exact sources to back up other claims. if it's sooooo easy to back up those other claims, then why is it so hard to back up the one I keep asking you too?

Could it be that I am actually right? Could it be you actually can't back up your claims...is that why you keep saying I'm wrong but are SO unwilling to back up me being wrong?

How many times in this thread have you pointed out that people are selling links, what was the point in such a post? If those people do not understand because they are "another link seller" then I guess that makes you right because you sell links?

Are your text links clearly labeled for both humans and robots as sponsors? Are they potentially leaking PR because they are not? Could humans mistakenly think they are a part of your site, could a bot mistakenly think that that your links to a spa and pool place actually have anything to do with mental health.

Show me how me pointing out your links was any different then you showing that so many others in this thread sell links. Go for it, I'm all ears...

Again, you have not answered the question, only tried to turn it back onto me. Is it really that hard to show me how I am wrong with anything, ANY THING other then your own opinion? Show me I'm wrong with something other then a link to an irrelevant site and as I've said time & time again, I'll back down. If you can not, drop the issue...as there is no way I am backing up my claims with relevant sites only to have you call them confused and then use the exact same sites to back up your other claims.

IF...I...AM...WRONG...PROVE...IT​

Is it really that hard? Page after page after page after page after page in this thread I've asked and re-asked and the only response I've gotten thus far is "I've already told you"... well, you've said a lot, but it takes a bit more then saying someone is wrong to show they are actually wrong. See, I said that you are wrong, I've pointed to several 3rd party sources. You've claimed I was wrong, and gave opinion to back up such claims.

It took me maybe 10 minutes total to back up my claims in Matt Cutts blog, the Dictionary, and here on Digital point...now how long has it taken you to keep telling me my sources are bogus while still posting here on digital point, to continue to use Matt Cutt's blog as a point of reference, and to claim that the dictionary is an invalid point of reference when looking up the meaning of words. The only answer you've given is to SAY I'm wrong...now back up your claims. The lack of doing it will show that I was in fact correct and you just can't handle being wrong....

Actually don't bother... This has been going on for like 40 pages now. It's likely clear enough that you can claim I'm wrong for another 40 pages while not delivering anything to back that up. It's also clear that I can go on another 40 pages asking you to back it up. I think the answer is obvious, so I'll unsub from this thread and just let you gloat in feeling victorious that I've gone away. Though I do hope that people now see you for what you are, someone with great knowledge on the subject which can actually be wrong now and again, but unwilling to admit that, EVER!​

No one ever choked to death by swallowing pride....

 

I do think that's best, Q. I can almost feel your humiliation. You can see it in the desperate projection in that last post of yours.

 

I admit it, I'm humiliated. I'm humiliated that I asked 30 times for you to back up your claims knowing full well you could not. I'm humiliated that I didn't point out that you using Matt Cutt's blog post as a reference was OK for you, but when I did it you said he was confused.

I apologize to the rest of the members reading this thread. I'm sorry I carried on the way that I did trying to get someone to prove something that the person could not, or would not.
Q

 

Surprise, suprise. You said you were leaving (unsubscribing) but you're still here... and still going on about how other people refuse to define things the way you think they should be defined.

And as a parting shot, Q leaves this additional bit of projection, in the form of red rep:

Now THAT is comedy.

 

This is an important topic that affects many webmasters.
I hope that may you two can exchange some private messages.

It seems that google is going to be trying to find out which links are natural and which are sold. I'm sure they will find many of them.

 

Exactly and I think too many people are confusing themselves.

Its quite simple really and I do understand why Google would want to implement this.


Buying advertising is mainly about obtaining leads and hopefully making a sale and a new customer; like any traditional form of advertising.

Buying page rank is about trying to influence your sites PR to in turn influence your sites SERPS.


I still can't beleive this thread is still running hot.... its not rocket science.

 

I'm glad I checked back.

That wasn't me.

I'll chalk that up to another blind assumption on your part, I'm sure you know it was me because you have amazing Admin powers and can see who it was that left rep ~ oh no, wait... you don't have those powers. It must just be blind assumption.

I'm glad you can do math good enough to figure out my rep power, to bad you don't know me well enough to know when I actually use that power.

I also have never stooped to petty name calling, especially hidden behind something as insignificant as a reputation system.