Matt Cutts Confirms Paid Links & Google PageRank Update

Yes, as they have devalued SERPS by not providing the most relevant
results because of their penalties.

 

no syted from what I understand SERP has not been affected, so it either makes Gooogle look bumbling or toothless.

 

You can laugh at me for this but maybe this is the real plan.

Google decided it wanted to do away with PR, but realised that they couldn't just announce it one morning that they will be scrapping it.

So have had to literally create a massive situation where it drags on for a bit, then they say bla bla bla and it wont work anymore and eventually do away with the bloody thing.

When they do, you wont be pissed of at them doing away with PR because by then you will be glad to see the back of it.

Result Google off loads what it wanted to anyway, and everyone stays happy with google because it appears they done you a favour at the end of it, when really it was their plan in the first place to end it.

Sounds messy? sounds over the top? it wouldn't be the first time that a company would create a situation.

 

That's precisely my point. Any link may appear to look like a paid link in Google's eyes. In stead of the threat of penalties and everyone looking over their shoulder or using the stupid nofollow why not simply do away with PR? As long as it exists, people are going to look for ways to increase it and Google will continue to penalize sites in one form or the other.

 

Unfortuanately this does not solve the bigger problem of folks buying links to improve their SERP and not spending 10 times that amount on adwords.

 

I was referring to the serps penalties which came in early September, where directory sites don't rank for their own name or relevant search keywords. Google may also be penalising itself by not providing users with the most relevant results.

 

Good point.

Here's something that really stick in my craw. Google will penalize sites yet these same site will show up high in searches for Adwords. Seems like a double standard...we don't like your site but we sure like your money. Guess the bottom line is Google's bottom line. They sure aren't some benign company trying to make it a better world but rather a better place for Google to increase their business.

 

Thanks,

I read all the posts at http://www.searchenginejournal.com/8-things-we-learned-about-google-pagerank/5897/

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/015129.html

and http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/10/24/google-web-traffic-tech-cx_ag_1024google2.html

These sites all saw a drop of about at least 2 points.

But according to the articles they didn't lose their google traffic even with the lowered pagerank.

I guess what there trying to say or what I perceived from it is this

Google's got this pagerank to show on the outside along with an internal pagerank or something which they keep for themselves.

Seo roundtable flatly said that were not going to use the nofollow

 

its all about the MONEY!! the saying"Dont Be Evil" does not apply when it comes to stock prices and shareholders

 

Yes in the end thats all its about...

 

Google wants you to spend more money on adwords instead of buying links thats just it.... They will find anyway they can to squeeze a penny out of you. I think the whole web needs to teach there asses a lesson and just stop spending into there pockets for a while and go to other search engines like yahoo and msn.. then maybe they will stop all the stupid crap they are doing.

 

I'd like to nominate this for 'POTY' Award (Post of the Year)
That's one of the best I've read in a while! Hilarious, yet true on so many levels.

 

Damn, I almost made a similiar post, but I couldn't of put it like. I want half of that award. Great Post, Jay. Greenie material!

 

ROFL....That's such an excellent point. It's all about money. Not our money. Google's money.....LOOOOOL

 

As usual from an experienced campaigner like Jay he is not CONFUSED he understands that they G are skewered

 

Is it really about Google increasing revenues? They hardly need more advantage there. This is a very complex issue; on the one hand a "paid" link may not increase relevance for SE results, but on the other hand, it seems that any site owner willing to pay for links must have something of value to offer visitors, else why pay for links to the site?

Google do have quite a quandry in hand on the entire issue of PR and paid links. Will be interesting to see how things play out, but ultimately, I do believe Matt Cutts and many smart people at G are interested in continuing to provide quality, relevant search results, which is why the algos never cease to evolve.

 

So...let's analyze this a bit closer.

Site owner A advertises to sell links on his site. Site owner B takes up the offer and pays Site owner A a sum of money. Google detects Site Owner A has paid links and penalizes his site.

Site owner A advertises to place affiliate links on his site. Site owner B takes up the offer and pays Site owner A a commission for all sales derived from links clicked on his site. Google detects Site Owner A has affiliate links and decides to do nothing to his site.

Am I missing something here??

 

aha
because of tha youtube got a PR3,etc