Matt Cutts Says It's Illogical To Penalize Sites For Buying Links?

Google want to display relevant search results because - the more relevant their results are, the more market share they gain. The more market share they have, the more profit they make.

 

yahoo supply results for other huge search engines like alltheweb.com and many more, so in total yahoo does supply more results than google, though not on yahoo its self, but if you include all the other search engines yahoo supplies, then yahoo beats google hands down

 

Google has over 50% market share, so even if Yahoo supplies the results to EVERY other search engine on Earth Google's market share is still higher. Here's one image of the market share -

 

Surely both sites buying and selling links for pagerank purposes should be penalised? At the end of the day, both parties know it's 'wrong'.

 

Not everybody purchasing links would know that it's wrong, but most that sell them would. It's just like drugs, the penalties are worse for distributing than buying.

 

Google could care very little about SERPs other than to be the most relevant search engine that when somebody searches for a brand name like Pepsi that Pepsi Cola comes up # 1

Othwerwise the organic SERPs are merely a justifiable expense so that Google has the inventory to display their paids which is where Google earns over 70% of their revenues.....

The results pages are nothing other than a canvas for Google ads to put it simply... without the Organic SERPs Google would not be much more than Northern Lights or Tecoma

 

People use Google because the SERPs are highly relevant. If Google increases SERP relevancy they will gain market share, if they allow link buyers to trick the algorithm relevancy drops and so does their market share. Because Google makes its money from displaying ads in the SERPs they want to maximize their market share to increase the amount of searches.

Relevance = Higher Market Share = More Searches = More Profit = Stopping Link Buying

 

Ahh no, Google nailed the sites because they were junk with virtually no inbound links.

 

Google may not have found it yet, or it could be an old domain they bought, or they've found a clever way of bypassing the algo... who knows...

 

More or less, its (google's new updates)the other way of making the market more quality than just buying and selling links for PR or SERPs gain. Hopefully this gives everyone of us the opportunity to strategically promote the websites rather than just relying on buying links. Which is simply a win win situation for the deep pocket owners.

Regards

 

I just think it's funny that Google is fighting all spam, link sellers/buyers and enforces rules left and right, screwing a lot of webmasters over in the process, and still Google is the SE with the most low quality crap and spam sites high in their search results. For highly competitive niches I find overall higher quality search results with for example Yahoo.

 

Google has the highest search engine market share because it provides the best results, and usually the webmasters they screw are the illegitimate ones...

 

*Usually*, just that an awful lot of high quality sites get screwed in the process.

 

Why paid links only? Why not all links, link exchanges etc... Its all the same, all designed to manipulate results!

I think some paid ones are useful to customers such as yell.com and yellowpages.com, so who decides what ones are like them and what ones should be penalised? I consider my sites to be a far more acurate version of them and so much so that yell have just signed a deal with us to supply their listings to our sites, which we will filter and display.

 

Bingo

Im glad not everyone believes everything they read on the internet...or in the papers.
Google may be clamping down on visible link sellers. but it is impossible for them to find the clever link sellers who do it very quietly and with no fanfare....

Because then they would have to discount all links even if they were organic. Because 'that webmaster' *just might* have sold a link to 'this' webmaster...meaning we should penalise them all just in case

 

The penalty on YellowPages means that they have no linking power, if somebody purchases a link they don't receive a SERP boost. What's wrong with that?

 

As i told Matt Cutts, the honest webmasters with good quality sites are the only ones who will obey the Webmaster Guidelines and Nofollow links which mean no SERP boost.

If you disregard the Webmaster Guidelines and Buy/Sell links there's a "chance" the links will be nulled. Most people would rather take that chance than have no chance from the onset.

 

I think you misunderstood me "yellowpages.com/New-York-NY/Plumbing-Contractors" is not being penalised. So why am I?

 

Well I say most are just easy to rattle their cages, I don't think that makes them 'honest.'

 

Oh lets not forget Yahoo Directory of course. It a blatant SERPS boost. Why are there dofollows there? PR is still being passed. Tut Tut. This is unfair in my opinion.

Your thoughts please