Matt Cutts and the paid links

Enough of the thread already, it has been discuss, Google has not released a public statement about this, therefore it mostly goes down to opinion, logic, and matt cutts info, I think Minstrel has made it clear, and if its not clear for you, read the thread although i got it after the first 2 pages.

And Qryztufre, you have proved you like to argue, and really dont have anything better to do, dont mean to be harsh, buts thats the truth.

 

So lets sum up

Google will probably not penalize a site for buying links
Google will probably not penalize a site for selling links

What I'm guessing they will do is remove all the ranking benefits asociated with links that they believe have been paid for.

In other words paid links will have the same effect as nofollow links. They will supply traffic but not pass pagerank. This has been Googles plan from the start.

 

Exactly!! Thank you!

Honestly, I cannot understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for so many in this thread, other than what I suggested above, viz., that those in the business of buying and selling links simply don't want it to be true.

 

In my own little mind of the aspects of this vile practice. What I'm taking from this is, keep on doing what you're doing, just don't market the link purchases based on PR. (sigh)

 

Sometimes people do not want to understand good words. No doubt what you said is true.

Quite right. This would keep you safe indeed

 

I have posted in many threads, but this is the only one where I've found the need to argue in. Why? Because I found the use of a few terms inconsistent with what I was used to, so I questioned about them. Getting no actual answer I took it upon myself to find the answer. I posted that answer (along with links backing up my claims) and was told I was wrong, that my sources were confused, and then I was mocked and belittled. So I asked for the correct answer and for proof of such an answer.

What did I get?

Links that had nothing to do with the question, and a lot of avoiding the question itself, as well as insinuation that I think the world is flat and that I buy and sell links to my sites. I'd have shut up 40 posts ago in this thread had I been given anything other then the run around.

Am I being stubborn about it? You bet your ass I am...and sadly, all this would have ended pages ago in this thread had I been given a simple link or two.

 

Rewriting history now, Q?

What actually happened: You were given the facts. You disputed them. I showed you how to go and do your own research so you could see for yourself - and explained to you the difference beyween dictionary or denotative meaning and "accepted use" or connotative meaning.

You decided all that was too difficult. Then you whined for another 25 pages.

 

I showed that the use of the terms was consistent with the dictionary by pointing to both Digital Point and to the very blog this thread was based on.

You called both sources "confused" and to find a real webmasters source...which you ultimately failed to provide, other then google-watch, which did nothing to back up what you were saying. So the only thing you showed me was opinion backed up with personal attacks and insinuations that I still didn't understand.

And again, simply give me a link or two to show I am wrong, and I'll leave this thread...it's always been as simple as that.

 

And Ministrel (and the Gang) Answer this if you have any, as you clearly avoided the question first time..

 

No. Go back a few pages, Q. It's abundantly clear that you're not going to accept any explanation that doesn't agree with your preconceptions. It's also abundantly clear why that is so: When you're in the business of buying and selling links, it's hardly good marketing to admit that those who buy them are wasting their money.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish for himself and he'll whine for days because you didn't give him another fish.

Bullshit. See above. Nobody said that the filters are perfect. In fact, that was the whole point of Cutts' post, the one referenced in the first post of this thread - it's not perfect, which is why they continue to work on refining it.

 

Yes, you've explained it to me time & time & time & time & time again, that is not the question, nor the answer to the question. I do not want it to be any more clear then you've already made it...all I want is for you to back up your explanation with something other then your post count.

The trouble is you've given me explanations, but you've not backed them up with anything. If I am to believe you at face value, then you have to accept that all those Fortune 500 companies are buying the listings in the directories shown in this thread...I mean, another member DID say it themselves, and you are credible, then surely they must be as well.

If I should believe you based on your reputation here, or your post count, that's absolute bullocks....but seemingly that is all I have to go one because you are unwilling (or unable) to back up the things you've said.

Give that man proof what you say and he'll STFU.

Either back up what you've said enough to counter the links I've given, or admit that you've really no idea what you are talking and that you can't do as asked. I mean, you can either give a simple link or two or carry this on another 50 pages...

Is that really that hard?

 

You've had your answers repeatedly, not only from me but for others. You're either a moron who simply can't understand the answers, or an argumentative buffoon who has no iinterest in listening to the answers, or someone with an ulterior motive who is simply refusing to understand.

I'm not sure whether it's option A, option B, or option C. But frankly I don't really care. "Conversing" with you is a waste of breath.

Oh, and here comes Blobmaster now... I can hardly wait to see his "contribution"...

 

Its not the question of refining the filter.. its about eliminating the filter to judge paid link, instead working on Algo to improve the judgment of relevancy of link and content. who is asking about the perfectness of filter??

 

Nah, not today. Too busy to argue with someone who argues for the sake of arguing.
Have the DMOZ editors gotten tired of you as well, Minstrel? Maybe you should ask webproworld if they allow you to post there again. Just in case you're really as bored as you look that is.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Blobmaster. Always a pleasure.

 

It is quite entertaining to watch someone who wants to look like he is right by any means necessary.
Leave Minstrel alone, guys or he might die of a heartattack trying to "explain" to us what Google really thinks.

 

I hope everyone here realizes you're all making fools of yourselves?

33 pages of bickering about who has superior bickering skills....

 

Looks like Minstrel left and closed the door behind him.

 

My prediction is there will be a future thread titled:

"I think my site was penalized for buying/selling links"

That will make a lot of link sellers/buyers cringe just at the title.

 

wow-- i cant believe I just spent 15 mins reading all this!!! Yikes!! Time to go buy more links.