There has been a lot of debate about paid links. Some have said that the websites that sell links will be the only ones penalized; not the websites that buy them. That's not what Matt Cutts has to say about it: See Matt's Blog Here Don't purchase links from other websites for backlink purposes. It won't help you.
Good observation. Currently ketv.com have the links as nofollow, where they probably were not back in 2005 when that Matt Cutts article was actually written. It is interesting to note that some people are actually buying those nofollow links, even though they are at the bottom of the page where they are highly unlikely to be noticed. One thing that Matt did NOT say was that those sites were being penalized for having the paid links. Nowhere did he say that. He said that paid links were no longer doing them any good. Basically, I interpret that as try buying some links. If it doesn't improve your PR or SERPs, then you are just out a few bucks. On the other hand, that article WAS from 2005 and there have been significant policy changes since then. But I cannot believe that it would be that easy and/or inexpensive to bomb a competitor's site in such a manner. But Zexy, you are more than welcome to run a test on my site! Go ahead, give me your best shot
I don't necessarily agree that buying links will do you no good, but one thing I do believe is that spotting many purchased links is extremely easy. Many of us are on the net seeing links, link strategies and everything else with the word link in it. Link buying is rampant whether it be for "purely traffic" purposes or search engine purposes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the link buying for search engine purposes is going on so the google guys/girls can certainly figure it out. That doesn't make them particularly insightful as placement is rather transparent. The most obvious example if the text link ads that are labeled "sponsors". Footer ads, and so on.
The search engines are still not good enough at finding paid links on their own. If they were, Google wouldn't be inviting webmasters to rat each other out for buying or selling links. Paid links still work, but you have to be more careful these days to ensure the links actually count. The links won't hurt you anyway.
I am only one person, but I am seeing a massive amount of link buying as I assume you all are as well. Takethat is correct in my opinion. The reason the "argument" over paid links continues is the internet is driven by paid ads, adwords, adsense, etc... These are the good paid links so sayeth Google. Yes, google can and will punish violations but Google can't, read can't change commerce as we know it. They can damage your website, perhaps ruin it from the standpoint of google serps, to be sure. What is equally sad is that some do and get away with it while others don't, out of fear or ethics, but still thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands use shady schemes like link baiting which is white had I suppose to circumvent the spirit of Googles dictates. When a site offers entry into a drawing for merchandise if bloggers place a link on their sites to the link baiting website, is that not a paid ad? Is that not paying for links to manipulate the serps? Come on, of course it is! It is just harder to catch, huh?
after more than 2 years Google has no idea what a paid link is they say they do but I see it every day how well works to buy links what is the point of this thread anyway? the article is 2 years old
So many websites buy and sell links and they don't get penalized, I don't think google has a good way of telling if links are paid for or not
Technically, most ad services are javascripted and therefore do not fall under the same category of links that are being discussed in this thread (ie anchored text links). Google, or any other SE, cannot interpret javascript to extract links from its output. These types of links cannot game the system, in other words. But you do raise an interesting point in organic vs paid SERPs. If you can pay money to be on every SERP page in the form of AdWords, why not be afforded the same opportunity to compete for page one in the organic results?
I agree that of course you can't game the system buying adwords or yahoo submit as they are not read in the same way as text links. BUT, the end result is indeed the same. If anyone buys the top adword on a term the effect is that it brings you the "number one" position albeit in the sponsored results vs. the organic. The vast majority of the public doesn't know, or care for that matter how a website gets to the top on page one, they just tend to click on that link. We all know that people rarely go to page two of the search engine results, likewise times 10 to the third page. Google has it wrong in that they are creating false distinctions in "paid" vs. paid links. One games the system to get on the first page of the organic results while the other games the system to get on the first page of the adwords results that happen to reside above or directly next to the organic results as we all know. You pay for either but one is declared gaming the system in a bad way while the other is gaming the sytem in a good way! There is a great class action lawsuit here some day and I think a jury of "real people" vs. googlers would not see the distinction google continues to draw as valid. Kind of like saying you can be guilty of libel only if you print it on the left side of the page? Print it on the right side - no problem What is the value of keeping the serps "clean" of manipulation if the general public doesn't know the difference? One is manipulated by how many $$$ you have while the serps are based upon "link popularity"? How many regular joes know the difference and why would they care?
I do not see how this can work in their algorithm because I do have the assets to buy $500-1000 in obvious paid links for the person above me in a popular keyword and that would be worth it because the niche makes easily that much in a day. I do not see how this can work because if it is the same I would also have people spamming the competitors link in spam directories where it is just dead and full of spam to get them penalized. I really do not think they can dictate a website by incoming link because a website who is known as a "red site" could write something bad about you and link you, and that would penalize you? I really don't think this could be true I think you would only be penalized for outgoing links on your website.
Why would anybody do that to your site, Dodger? I think you have a very sharp looking website with good content on it.