So, has anyone else been following along with yesterdays post over at SEOmoz? http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-google-payola-issue-isnt-going-away-anytime-soon The post got edited last night, but not before it was cached in Google, and definitely not before people like Matt Cutts got to read it. Rand Fishkin publicly listed a bunch of sites selling links, with their addresses, and screen shots to prove it. In my mind, discussing it is one thing, but actually going out there and naming names like that is a whole different ball game. These aren't even sites that were in the public eye at all... they were just innocently doing their thing, and here he comes and outs them all. Anyone actually think that was the right thing to do? -Michael
Well outing could be a 'competitive advantage' actually.... in the end it is great lnkbait ain't it? Worked... ha ha ha ha ha
Anyway people can always report competitors, and yes competitors are actually reporting your sites, but it was a totally different thing altogether to do that. I mean who don't buy LINKs... leave alone selling....
It may be a little simplistic to think that Google needs/wants people to point out to them that small time web sites are selling links. Seriously, if they care, all they really would have to do to find a plethora of sites is spider for the text "sponsored links" and check for nofollows. If they wanted to do it manually they could pay some high school kids minimum wage to Stumble sites randomly...they aren't hard to find. My guess is Google is mostly using the threat of what may happen if you are caught selling links to deter people, but they know they can't actually stop it.
You have to love the contradictory part that says: Yeah right, list the full URL's accompanied by screenshots with detailed info about the links along with source codes on a high traffic blog.. But really your honour, i just done it for fun. Who says some of these people didn't provide a free service, and receive a link from the site owner as gratitude? What because SEOmoz thinks they are paid. Two faced when SEOmoz has a PR6 page that's nothing more then a advertisement pimpimg out 4 dofollow links to SuperbHosting http://www.seomoz.org/dp/superb SEOmoz should look at themselves before taking on the role of internet police.
Exactly... yet because Moz highlighted them, not Google practically has to penalize them, since now people are watching. See, you're giving Rand WAY more credit than I do. The way you put it implies that they might be doing it out of a sense of doing what is right, like something Doug Heil would do, instead of simple self serving recklessness. -Michael
Google encourages you to report paid links. How they use it is within them. This guy went overboard in reporting paid links. Way I see it, he is badly in need of a job from Google.
The issue isn't whether they actually need help (they do), as much as it is those who volunteer to do so anyways. That site is very visible in the public eye. Since they outed those sites for selling links publicly, G pretty much has to penalize them in order to make an example of what happens when you break the TOS. -Michael
I just don't do things I wouldn't be comfortable with other people knowing about. If they feel a need to hide their actions, then they weren't as "innocent" as you say. If there's nothing wrong with paid links, there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch about someone else being named for something you don't believe is wrong.
How does he know they are "paid links", was he contacted to buy a link on these sites? No. Could these links be to the site owners friends and families sites simply because they like the site? Possibly Yes. He outed one site for nothing more than a PayPerPost badge (which isn't even a direct link), does he know for a fact they are currectly utilizing the service just because they are a member? No. He knows he way way out of line, the editing of the page indicates this. He's doing the same practice as the people he called out, just look at the sitewide link to an advertising page where he not only links to the site as Dofollow, he does it 4 times to internal pages with calculated anchor text in order to game Google's index for the particular site.
Forrest, you are going under the assumption, again, that Google can do no wrong. This is wildly incorrect. Your analogy is like a 5th grader kid hiding from a bully, and you pushing him out in the open, on the logic that if the kid did nothing wrong then the bully wouldn't beat him up. One just doesn't follow from the other. And even if you personally don't equate Google with the bully, it still doesn't give you the right to make that determination for someone else. Seriously. -Michael
google has created link sale sector and it is trying to kill that sector. focusing on the paid links was a stupid idea from matt cutts
Not 3 minutes after I read this, I happened to notice a PayPerPost ad being served up on my site by Google AdSense. So, let me get this straight... PayPerPost is bad because it is an attempt to manipulate Google's search algorithm, but as long as they are willing to pay Google...
Ummm, well, kinda. It's more along the lines that even though Google will penalize sites for using them, Google will still take their money. -Michael
micheal i dont agree with your statement, If they are doing it, they are not innocent they know what they are doing. Besides that Rand shouldn't have posted their details openly in public but thats what we call freedom of speech. It was his decision but perhaps was wrong i guess.
No, you're statement only holds true if you think Google has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong. Most people think Google has screwed priorities for their paid links crusade. -Michael
I find the whole thing to be unethical, and I think Google is crossing boundaries that it should not. If paid links, forum links, Wikipedia links, and (now suspected) blog links are all not Ok - what is?
I find the moral outrage surrounding this issue sort of amusing. Businesses have been making money without the assistance of SEO companies, paid directories, forums, Wikipedia, and blogs for a while now. This issue effects the pockets of the SEO industry which is an infinitesimally small sector in relation to all of the rest of the business on the web. So SEOmoz outed a few people and then retracted the specifics? There is a saying I've heard a lot in Philly, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." When relatively large sums of money are concerned and you've got a limited amount of pie, business ethics go out of the window. Whether or not this is morally wrong is irrelevant; business is business. If you choose to play ethically, then more power to you, but don't expect other people to play by those same rules. Just my 2 cents.