My post was deleted by Matt Cutts

oops, ignore this thread... somehow it's back now

just for the record in case it disappears again ..it said this


"Shouldn’t you concentrate on sites that demand reciprocal links first, before you attack those that sell links?
I know sites that demand recip’s that are now PR6 becasue of that, and their results are all over the serp’s.

If seems to me that paid links provide the most relevent results as they generally say what it is the website actually does and Google results are already the best because of that.

Why attack something that has put Google where it is? just because of a few comments at a meeting in London???
There are a lot more voices that are against this change then there are for it."

 

Isn't it kind of hypocritical that Google wants us to report sites that sell links, yet isn't having AdSense on a site the same as selling links?

And why is it OK for Google to sell links through AdWords/AdSense, but not for Joe Webmaster?

Maybe we should report all the sites that contain AdSense for selling links?

 

Its not possible that they could stop this .

 

I don't understand the Google Adsense comparison.

Google Adsense links are sold to generate actions, not to manipulate search engine results and rankings.

I do not agree with the assertion that paid links are better than forced recip but do agree that forced recip needs attention if paid links are going to continue to get attention.

 

Where do you post? In his blog?

 

This is More Impossible than Mission Impossible 3 ,,
Millions of links are propagated over the world wide web ...
Links exchages , parteners , inserting my own site link in my second site ....ect

 

The comparison is that both are selling links for profit.

Any differences would be by the buyer, not the seller, as the seller is only interested in making money. Their sales points may differ, but they are both selling paid links.

The thing is, PR is a commodity that Google feels it owns.

Plus, Google is a multi-billion dollar company. This "crud" that we need to subsidize Google for the "good" of the Net is bogus. If they are that worried about paid links, let them hire people for the job. There's plenty of folks that need work, instead of asking for snitches to report other webmasters for doing what Google does to make a buck: Selling links.

And if Google is too cheap to hire people, then they should stop publicizing PR. No PR in the tool bar, nothing to worry about when it comes to selling links for PR reasons. What do they gain from showing PR, anyway?

Yep...Poor, pitiful, helpless Google wants everyone to do their work for them for free and snitch on their fellow web masters, instead of taking matters in their own hands.

 

Can we touch you master? (joke)

 

Don't you know...on Matt Cutts' blog you are supposed to ask only those questions which he wants to answer .

 

May be the webmasters should get together and bring a "class action" against Google for anti-competitive behaviour. Namely that they are preventing webmasters from trading links but at the same time are selling adsense, the argument would be that this is anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Also perhaps we can put a website together in support of this, if webmasters then link to the site Google will soon get the message. ... just imagine a pr10 website voicing concerns about Google anti-competition ... all with free (not paid links)

Just a thought.

 

... if enough people are for this I will set up a website

 

Google-sucks.co.uk is available

Yep.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/

 

"My post was deleted by Matt Cutts"

That is why you never find any of my posts.

Another joke.

: )