So many are getting penalized by Google for selling text link ads, etc. on their site. It screws with their search engine rankings and they don't like that. So many bloggers in my niche have gotten removed from search results or had their PageRank manually dropped by Google. Google is a tyrant, but I do not want to run the risk of getting penalized by them for the direct advertising on my site. I don't think it is worth it. Currently I sell paid reviews, where I will write about and link to the site being reviewed. I also sell 125x125 banners and text link ads in the sidebar. All this is direct advertising, done by me, via my blatant advertise page, email, and Paypal. I know that someday, eventually, I will get blasted by Google. So should I make all my advertising nofollow so that does not happen? I know I would not be able to make as much money but is it worth it? I'm stuck in the middle here...
Personally, I would say don't put nofollow to present advertisements, as I would not add nofollow to links I sold. If you do decide to go through with adding nofollow, you are responsible to tell your advertisers/customers. Also if any advertisers decide to leave, it only ethical and your responsibility to refund any money of the remaining time period since you will be the one to change the terms on the customer after they already paid. Now if you decide to add nofollow to all future links, reviews, etc that would be fine, as long as you don't try to promote that advertising on your site will help their serps. You can always just grandfather past advertisements, leave them as is, and add nofollow to any future ones.
Of course I would not cheat anyone out of their money. I'm running a responsible and trusted blog and a lot of the advice I give is to NOT do things like that. On my advertise page I would write in bold that the link is nofollow and will not help increase your PageRank or search engine rankings, but is for traffic and exposure purposes only. If I started adding nofollows, I would do them to all future advertisements and leave the current ones alone. All of my ads expire within less than month to three months so after that amount of time everything would be the same. But anyway, I am still debating it. Courtney Tuttle, a big name in my niche (http://courtneytuttle.com) is big on SEO and has added nofollows to his advertising. His PageRank was already bumped down several numbers, but after he made his ads nofollow he contacted Google via their Webmasters service and they changed his PageRank back. He cannot risk losing his search engine traffic. I don't want to take the risk either.
I also get nowhere if I lose all my PageRank and get banned from Google's search engine, thus losing all my search engine traffic. Google is the king, whether we like it or not. I don't like it, but I don't want my site ruined because of that.
Don't worry, they won't be king for long. Altavista came and went, Google is here now, but for how long before it too is replaced. The internet is changing everyday and soon Googles day will come when it is replaced by the next big thing. I look forward to this change and wonder what it will be.
I guess you are probably right but it just seems so impossible. Google offers dozens of great services and they have a lot of tools under their belt. Right now I don't see anyone who could surpass them and in the meantime I don't want to lose my traffic my rankings. I'm still pretty unsure, but maybe I will not make advertising nofollow anyway. Maybe Google won't notice.
I'm personally trying to work away from depending on Google. They don't send me an over abundance of traffic anyway. Of course if you do this then you are probably going to have to lower your advertising rates. A lot of people by links not so much for the potential traffic, but also for the benefit of having a link. The strange thing about all this is that Google's entire business model is built on selling links. I guess with Google it do as I say not as I do.
I know, that is the only thing holding me back - I really doubt anyone would want to purchase my nofollow advertising even if the price was reduced. I guess I will hold back on making this decision. I think I'm pretty easily convinced and everyone who has responded to this thread has made me realize that maybe I should not make my links nofollow. I agree with you anyway. Google are hypocrites. =/
Playing devil's advocate - if you accept that people are only paying for links on your site because of PR (as you say, otherwise they might not advertise) - then you have to also accept that you are selling links / selling PR. And presumably accept the risks that go with that, which so far don't sem to be a SERPS impact, only a PR impact. Having said that, I think there is a big difference between 'advertising' - which tends to be in a reasonably prominent position - and 'link sales', where the links are hidden away and clearly not designed for traffic. My guess is we are OK with 'follow' advertising but not with 'follow' link sales. At least, I hope so, because that's what I'm doing!
Where do people get this bizarre and stupid idea from? Google sells advertising - it is called Adwords. And Adwords are NOT links
People are not only paying because of PageRank. I was selling links on my site even when I had a PageRank 0. The biggest thing the advertisers get is traffic. However, how does this disclaimer sound: "You will not receive any PageRank or search engine benefits from this advertising." If I was buying a link, would I buy it from the nofollow site or the dofollow site? That's pretty obvious.
Best answer here!! Google will not penalize you for selling links if you clearly label the links as advertisements. "Sponsored Links", "Advertisements", "Paid Links", are all acceptable. However, you still don't want Google to know that you are selling links because instead of dropping your serps or stripping your page rank they will strip your link value and it your links wont help advertisers. It would be the equivalent of Google putting the no-follow attribute to all the links on your site. What you do is sell your links and clearly label them as "Sponsored Links". However, you don't display it in text, use an image. Googlebot can't tell what's in an image, so as long as the file name is random and there is no alt text Googlebot will not see "Sponsored Links". You will however be covered in case an actual person visits your site to verify that you aren't complying with their terms to know weather or not to ban your site. Hope this helps
Er - this does not make sense - if people are paying for meaningful traffic they would not care if the link was nofollow, or even a javascript redirect. The fact is most link purchases have been done for PR in the past - not the traffic - and that is what Google is clamping down on I agree with this theory 100%
*sigh* People are paying for BOTH. They want two-in-one. Let's say I'm buying a text link ad on a site, but I have two to choose from. Site A's links are nofollow, meaning I get no PageRank or search engine ranking, but I do get traffic. Site B's links DO pass off PageRank and other rankings, and I get traffic as well. Which do you think I'm going to pick? It's the same for all potential sponsors. If they can get equal traffic between my site and another site, but the other site offers a link that counts as well, of course they're going to go with the other site. It makes perfect sense.
Google will penalize you for selling links because they don't want people to have higher rankings in the search engines for keywords they bought, instead of rightly earned. Google wants their rankings to be real, not forced into. If you say, "Advertisements", it just alerts them even more that you are breaking the rules. Several sites in my niche have gotten penalized, whether they let you know the links are sold or not. You're still selling links, and that's what Google doesn't want. However, thank you for the advice - using an image is an excellent idea.