Matt Cutts and the paid links

I am talking about accepted use of these terms, not MY definitions. And I'm talking about your refusal to or inability understand that simple distinction.

I already have. Several times. And I'm done with trying to educate you further. My recommendation is that you start by accepting the FACT that there IS a distinction and then going back to re-read this thread with that in mind. Otherwise, I'm done trying to break through this stone wall.

 

You're pro steroids are you? Revoking an unfair advantage is not a penalty.

 

Thing is, the link is suffering a penalty. By making it of less value than a different type of link, the link has been penalized.

Regarding the site in question, no it has not been penalized directly. But it has been indirectly, through the devaluing of a link that points to it.

penalty 2. a disadvantage imposed by an action or circumstances

That's not my definition of penalty, that's the Oxford English Dictionary's definition

 

I think sites should be penalized because they're irrelevant to the search being performed, before anything else.

 

Well, since Perrow is quoting movies, let me quote one:

"Total waste of ammo." ~ Arnold Schwarzenegger as The Terminator evaluating Axl Rose in a Guns'n'Roses video

 

I missed that, which one is he quoting?

 

You've missed a LOT in this thread.

 

No, I saw it but didn't recognize the quote. Come on, what film is it from?

 

Perrow identified the movie in that post - Top Gun.

 

Ah, never seen it. Thanks.

 

Minstrel says it best...

It would seem that the accepted use for penalty applies to revoking an unfair advantage. Google for Penalty for steroid use.

And how hard is it to understand that taking the value away from something is a penalty? It would seem that we both have thick heads which we are both pounding against different sides of the same wall.

 

Nothing is being taken away. It's merely that nothing undeserved is being given.

If you put a slug into a modern vending machine instead of a coin, you aren't penalized. You just don't get the product. That's a filter. If the vending machine reached out and grabbed extra coins from your pocket to punish you for trying to cheat, THAT would be a penalty.

 

They who paid for the links - is Paying Real money

And if they don't anything back, they are considered panalized for the money they have lost.

Like paying for AdWords and not getting a penny in return is getting panalized by google!

-- Basiaclly Google want you to lease the space to them.
-- And the link buyer has to go to Adwords.

-- Give them their share and it becomes Legal agian.
-- It is called licensed Gunda or a Mob with a License.

-- Just pay Google for every transaction you do online.

Thanks

 

Actually if G decided green links should carry no weight, that wouldn't be a penalty. It would be many things, unfair, strange etc but not actually a penalty. If G decided green links should carry a negative weight, that would be a penalty.

If you get something, it's a benefit. If you have something taken away, it's a penalty. If you don't get anything, you don't get anything.

 

They Do get something back. They paid for advertising and they're getting advertising. If they paid for PageRank, that's against Google's ToS and they won't get that PageRank.

If you are a criminal and you buy a house, a car, etc., with money earned from your illegal activities, the authorities can and will confiscate your property when they apprehend you.

Utter nonsense!

If you pay for AdWords, you get advertisements fed by Google to AdSense publishers. That's what you paid for; that's what you get.

Ooookayyyyyy.... just back away from the keyboard... slowly... before you injure yourself with the letter Q...

 

Thats pretty petty is it not? I thought you were better then that... guess, not.

That would mean that non-paid links are getting a bonus, which changes the line of reasoning almost completely.

Then I can agree that it's a filter & not a penalty, but there is no "discounted" and there is no "devalued" as both of those would imply something IS being taken away, and that IS a penalty.

I've always understood what's been said, it's just the terms being applied I have had issues with.

 

The statement in question was illogical and irrational. I was advising the member to take a break before things got any worse for him.

If you're going to unilaterally apply your own idiosyncratic connotative and denotative definitions of terms, of course you're going to have issues with them. Learn what those terms mean generally, to the rest of the world, and those issues disappear.

 

One thing I do find disturbing, which may or may not be relevant here, is the whole idea of "It's Google therefore it's good".

I do wonder what peoples attitude would be if Microsoft tried something like this.

Note, I am just making a general observation here.

 

The three people that use live/msn to search probably wouldn't even notice

 

Could have sworn they'd be at least in double figures by now.