Google Speaks on Links

I am hoping this is just Googles way of quieting down all the folks that whine about link selling. They seem to be just collecting data right now for testing purposes.

The biggest reason they probably can't de-value sites that buy links is because (as mentioned in the comments on Matt's blog) you could just buy some links for your competitors then report them.

But I am wondering if they might just go the route of punishing the sites that sell the links, thereby making their links less valuable.

 

Almost predictable, isn't it? But I didn't think G is so serious about it.

While Matt Cutts will not tell us all the inside stuff, this may not be a joke, so I won't take it lightly.

I am guessing the way they could handle is NOT by reading all the submitted repots. Initially, they may do that, but they will probably create a filter and update G algorithm. And this will take some time.

I am not sure if they will include Yahoo! and other big ones because.... well, they can do whatever they want!

They are probably targeting small sites

 

I don't buy links so i don't care about this

 

And we buy from you. Very Clever.

 

I am just coming back from Matt Cutts BLOG and threatened him and Google in general in my comments

But what I said there is really what I mean--

If Matt Cutts implement this policy and if Google looses its popularity in 1 months time ( Already signs are there ( only 60% searchers used G in the US last month compared to 75%)

I will report Matt Cutts to Google and make G fire him for his destructive policies.

 

This could very easily be abused by webmasters to hurt their competition.

 

That is what I pointed to Matt Cutts on my comment there. G will loose popularity if t takes this step.

 

Exactly. Can even build a site out of a PR5 with full of banners and url saying PAID LINKS and PAID ADVERTISING by www. SITES . com

EASY

 

Google should fire matt for idiocracy

 

What are they going to do if they receive 500,000 fake reports a day I wonder... It could happen in a revolt I suppose...

 

Can you show me any of your site ranking on the first page of Google for any keyword?
Don't challenge --as I will extract 100% of your backlinks and check each and every one of them --if they are bought or free!

If you rank high --thats very good --because you bought links for them .But do not lie around.

 

Your case makes no sense, but forget this anyway its not important, sig links don't equal knowledge, the same as you have proved neither does age

 

Ignored - Webmaster

 

Yahoo dir IMO does not give you a direct link and hence wil not affect your rankings or PR. Matt has talked about AdBrite and says the links on AdBrite are java scripted which is only for getting traffic. This means buying links for traffic is OK but buying links for rankings & PR is not.

Matt also talked about the nofollow attribute some time ago which I don't feel is working with Google. I still see sites spammed in wordpress comments ranking high in Google. As usual this is kind of a "request" from Google to avoid such practices as their algo gets confused and fooled all the time

 

It makes great sense to me --try to understand the irony of it.

 

Are you sure about that? what if i can prove otherwise?

Hahaha --I can see end of G's dominance. If their algo does not work--what can we do? We change our habits? There are millions of webmasters from hundreds of countries and backgrounds. Requesting won't help--

The best way to succeed is to toe the line.

 

Again...Webmaster Jabb

 

Yes i see that, but obviously myself is excluded from what i was saying.

 

I think most directories are clear about their policy for links (free or paid). I think Matt is especially after situation where it is not clear. Regardless of that, I do not believe this is something google will be able to police very well, nor do I believe google has the right to interfere in the business of others.

If Business A has a private purchase from Business B, it is really none of Google's business.

Google can rank a site based on publicly available information. Using private information such as reporting from other parties (when the information may or may not be true) could be grounds for legal action. Moreover, how can google judge what consitutes payment:
1) Party A gives Party B $500
2) Webmaster A requires a link back in exchange for work provided (which might be helpful for other who want work too)
3) Webmaster A requires link for use of custom designed template (which might be helpful for other who want a template too)
4) Webmaster A trades links with Webmaster B
5) Webmaster A buys a link on Webmaster B's site to help a charitable organization
6) Webmaster A writes an informative article but requires Webmaster B to add link in the footer to give credit
There are many more situations where people are doing business with each other and it is really none of google's business. I mean no disrespect to google. I like google. I met their staff at a cancer fundraiser yesterday in Atlanta. Here's another one...
7) Webmaster A adds a link to his site in exchange for company B setting up a booth at their event

In the end, google does its best to rank sites based on the quality of those sites. Because a site purchased a link or not, does not determine the quality of that site. I think more and more, google is going to need humans to help make certain judgements about the quality of a site. And one really great thing about directories is humans are involved in judging the worthiness of a site.

 

Google is the company that created the link market. It is a natural result of financial incentives created by Google itself due to it's base algorithms.

While I understand the desire to control this issue, because it degrades the value of Google as a search engine, it is VERY difficult to fight market forces in this way.

I think Google would be better served to work towards finding other methods of ranking or verifying page quality...