Matt Cutts and the paid links

Webmasters get PAID for running those ads and there is no shortage of people wanting to be in the program. You know that webmasters are not going to opt out of something that makes money for them, high Google rankings or not.

To Google, webmasters are employees. Advertisers are their primary customers.

 

Yah, but their customers are also webmasters. Sounds like a conflict of interest and double dipping if you ask me, no matter how you look at it.

-Michael

 

Webmasters affect Adwords prices, they make so much competitions, that there is no other way sometimes, to get on first page in google other, thank by buying G's Ads.

 

This is politics by google in my opinion. "Don't be evil!" lol!

Notting

 

How is it double dipping?

You pay Google to run an ad. Google pays me to display your ad. That's not double dipping. That's called contracting.

 

I know a few other major companies and or forums are up in arms about Google's decison as well.
Web Pro News 7 reasons Google Paid Link Snitch Plan Sucks.

Sitepoint Editors note

Even Microsoft and At&t is catching down wind of Google Antics. Although it is a seperate issue. The company they acquired deals with links(Double Click) is the issue at hand. And I do believe Microsoft and AT&T are trying to push for an Anti Trust lawsuit against Google. And who knows better about monopoly and anti trust lawsuits than Microsoft and AT&T.

Everyone is catching wind of Googles antics and their flexing their muscles in the advertising industry.

 

I was referring to webmasters who use both AdSense and AdWords.

-Michael

 

I believe that Google is just trying to worry SEOs into changing their linking habbits. Most people in the real world have no idea about the no-follow tag. So don't use it.

 

Ultimately Google is trying to make more money thru adsense and adwords, by banning webmasters from selling/buying text links. And wants to rule the world of Advertisement!

If this is the case, I am sorry Google,
YOUR EFFORTS WOULD END UP ONLY IN VAIN!

 

Well as far as I'm aware of, google has not done any offline advertisemtents
except for a few pbs tv show "donations"

so it is more like they want to rule the world of online advertisement.

 

But PR is not advertising.
There is no problem in buying and selling text links
There is a problem in buying and selling text links to manipulate SERPs.

 

Are you serious? Do I need to remind you what percentage of the entire web traffic comes from search engines? As far as I know the definition of online advertising means precisely traffic generation. No matter how much you try to bend the reasoning these are the facts. Do you honestly believe that commercial sites have no place on the web and in the SERPs? Because this seems to be your mantra.

Regards, George

 

Absolutely. But there are quite a few pages out there which get targeted traffic. Many of them are link pages. If I buy a banner space for a furniture site on a page belonging to a home decoration site which in itself ranks for a lot of furniture terms, will I chance getting penalized just because the page also has a few listings to sites such as
4-dash-dot-info-directory.info ?
I cannot control why others buy a listing on the same page as I do. And checking the recent history of Google, throwing out the baby with the bathwater seems to have become standard operating procedure.

 

Ecommerce site has to buy text links for SERP , their success depends mostly on their online marketing activities., Mostly noone will link to an ecom site for free.,
If this step by google becomes popular, All the Ecom site owners will entirely have to depend on adwords which will increase the Min bid of several keywords , which will further increase the profit of Google

This will also increase natural SERP and traffic of small publishers site, Bloggers, who might mostly use adsense in their site., This will further increase the profit of Google.,

 

You still don't get it, geegel. Computer(Jew) is correct. Advertising is a process for generating traffic to your site. Buying or selling text links for this purpose is absolutely fine. Buying or selling links for the express purpose of trying to increase PageRank is not okay (with Google).

I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

 

So what is the point of page rank?

And if sites get penalized for 'PR' manipulation and 'G' eventully gets its way with people selling no follow links etc, wont sites start to sell links based on Alexa ranks instead (and therefore peceived visitor numbers).

Possibly, this in turn could lead to other more unscrupled webmasters buying traffic to artificialy improve their Alexa rankings - yet another step that is against Google Adsense TOS.

 

Good point. I highly doubt that selling links based on Alexa data will be something people will successfully pursue, at least in comparison to the sales based on PR alone.

 

No webmaster will actually consider Alexa rank above 5000 as an indication of traffic , simply because the demographic of Alexa users is very problematic, both geographically and in terms of interests .
For instance, when Alexa hit front page of Digg, the next day the traffic ranks of the ENTIRE IT(info.tech.) INDUSTRY sites nearly doubled, and have been declining slowly ever since due to toolbar uninstalls.

 

I laughed when I saw this comment on the blog:
"Cool! I will quickly buy some links for my competitors on text link ads and then denounce him. Good idea, thanks Matt."

I'm not sure if this specific approach would work, but I'd suspect that there would be similar strategies to mess with your competitors.

 

Quite true. And furthermore, Google cannot with all the technologie thay they say they have control that.

The fact is simple, Google cannot, under an coiscunstance, penalize you for inbound links. Period.