Quit being clueless. He posted it 4 days ago, no one noticed, and it is something he has never said before. -Michael
As it is not everyone who pays gets into Yahoo and as such it is a trusted resource to Google and they say so in Webmaster Guidelines. Matt said the samething for other paid directories as well. You should go back then an re-read his blog look back a couple months ago where he says the same thing. It has also been published on WPW and WMW. In addition write my friend Rand Fishkin and ask him how old this news is. And mikey .... anytime you want to have an SEO competition for keyword rankings between lets say 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 let me know,,,,, We will truly see who is the clueless one then won't we???? Otherwise take the insults and shove them up where only your boyfriend will find them...
Now I have heard it all.. Comparing internet hyperlinks to drugs.. Argh... Why on earth these goofy discussions about link selling/buying and google/penalization every get started is beyond me... The only thing penalizing those selling or buying links are those who keep spouting this crap... My 2 cents..
Interesting that you would quote Matt Cutts talking about a logical fallacy and then immediately commit a logical fallacy yourself... I get that you want to promote hits to your blog - pretty obvious link bait there - but no, of course that's not what Cutts is saying at all. He's warning people that buying links is very likely a waste of money and he's warning people against simple-minded conclusions based on short-term ranking changes in Google. And no, he didn't saying panalizing link buying is illogical at all, not even close. If you've actually read the blog post and the other when he referenced (and which you rferenced in the first post), he makes a point of saying that it IS old news, that he's been saying this repeatedly. As for the debate about whether link buyers will be punished as well as link sellers, in several places including in the two referecned articles there are pretty clear statements that Google will do both: Selling links that pass PageRank By Matt Cutts Sat, Dec 1 2007 Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank Saturday, December 01, 2007 by Matt Cutts and Maile Ohye
minstrel, you need to go back and read his comment in context. He was talking about non-compliant text links, not no-followed or disclosed ones. He was reply to something Rand said about a site that was ranking well and had tons of text link ads pointing at it. He was saying that as long as there are other links to support the rankings, there is no reason to expect it not to rank just because it buys paid links. -Michael
Since you seem a bit focused on it.... Kindly tell everyone how Google can determine a paid link other than . 1. Following all links from obvious link selling sites. 2. Patrol all webmaster forums for link sales. Other than that,, Google cannot tell a paid link from a non paid link, unless there is a tag applied. DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE PEOPLE!!!!!! This is no different than seeing a site at # 1 with keyword spammed title or description tags. Google filters out the spammy junk.... and whats left determines the score. A site can have a few spammed elements, and still be a better authority on a subject than a site with no spam elements. And finally this is reason why people need to read less of Matt Cutts, and spend more time learning how Google uses propaganda like links selling / buying BS to keep webmasters confused.
They cannot.. They have no idea, and no way to tell.. I think they have better things to do with their time and resources.. I doubt they even care... Agreed... The hype is what is creating all the pandemonium and paranoia.
I would also like to add another thought following on from what Sem-Advance said up there ^^ If you have an established, trusted site, there is likely more leeway to get away with a thing or 2. Of course, a blog set up purely to sell review posts will be at the opposite end of this trust status
Keep in mind that Google's algorithms to detect paid links do not have to be anywhere close to 100% accurate. Its not their goal, and their methods will naturally have to evolve over time anyway. If they can initially find even 20-30% of paid links on a totally automated basis and flag another 10-20% for manual reviews, they can have a significant impact on the paid links marketplace. If they can reduce the cost effectiveness of text link ads that are sold for their ranking benefits to a point where they approach the cost of conventional web ads, they will probably consider the program a big success. As small sites that got into selling text link ads for the quick money start to see their rankings taking a hit, many of them will certainly stop selling them. This will reduce the availability of ad slots and likely drive up prices as the risk of selling these ads increases. Text link ad sellers will modify their methods to avoid detection, the search engines will adjust, and the process will doubtlessly go on and on. But overall, it will make it more difficult and expensive to buy links that affect rankings, and much riskier to sell them.
Exactly. Yahoo has an higher alexa rank, but has nowhere near the searches of google gets. If anything, these will hurt the webmasters selling links, but then again; you can always learn other various means to make money rather than selling links.
I seriously doubt anything like this even exists.. Tell me how the algo can tell a paid link, vs. one that occurred naturally?
No, not "bingo" - "bs". Look, it if gives you comfort to believe that Google can't detect paid links, then go for it. Then explain why so many sites lost PR and rankings in the past few months. Hint: Yes, some of those were manual penalties but not all of them. Pure coincidence? Magic?
OK ...lets take your statement and teach a little lesson As you said Google went after those sites by hand. Do a Google search for 'buy links' textlinkbrokers.com/ PR 3 [SIZE=-1]linkadage.com[/SIZE] / PR 5 Text-link-ads.com / PR7 All selling links that will effect a site's Google rankings and each with Google PR. Again Google can not track link sales by algorithm, since algorithms work based on averages. Nice try however wrong you may be
I long ago gave up any hope of educating you, Sem. You don't even get the basics, as this posted quote from you illustrates. As I said, if it gives you comfort to stick your head in the sand and believe that crap, go for it. For the rest of you, read what I actually posted, not Sem's distorted version of what he thought he read.
Anytime you want to compete for SEO rankings between 500,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 just man up like your buddy mikey.... You sit and say that google can use the algo to trace paid links and yet when shown factual evidence that they cannot you revert to being a child. For others please do not listen to the shrink without proof...... Google cannot detect paid links via the Algorithm, since the Algorithm works based on averages.
I'll ignore the rest of your sad rant, but let's address this. 1. the statement makes no sense and betrays a misunderstanding of what an algorithm is or does, and 2. the statement is incorrect.
lol of course you will ignore it because you know little to nothing about SEO other than some luck with your shrink site. And we won't go there about how shrinks are simply quacks overcharging clients while sitting on a couch doodling and thinking about how one can reply to Sem-Advance 2. The statement is not incorrect.... having helped build initial algorithms in the mid 80s I know quite a bit about how they work and I would say it is why I have over 1,000 keyword terms on Googles front page for client sites. 3. And yes those are rankings with quite a few in the 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 competing pages range. Step up whenever you want to try and see if you are right....otherwise most of what you post is psycho babble