Paid linking loophole?

I did a search to check first and see this doesn't appear to have been discussed yet, so what's your views on the following extract...

Let's see if we can get a juicy debate going here then everyone, no crappy posts, no flaming, no self promotion. Please only post if you plan to stick to the topic at hand,. (Green for a good post always welcome and always given!)

More info on this blog HERE It would be better if you read the blog first as this will give you a better idea of what's going on with the hidden paid linking methods and whether Google can do anything to prevent them if they are not supposed to know they are there.

 

Google wont penalize it from my opinion but however the page will not be index. So what is the point of advertiser pay you at the first place rite?

As for me, Google still the king whom can decide what they supposed to index or not. By the way, if the paid posts pages is not index, it will hurt your blog also as most of you will write the paid post more than your original post.

Just my 2.5 cents

 

Hello...

Well that depends on the stance and position of the business at hand...

For directories that are indexed daily for new relevant info and whos links
help the sites listed and whom send traffic this might not be the best practice
to take at this time...

On the other hand for bloggers that could care less and already have a
powerful foothold who's business is well known like johnchow.com (whom
was de-indexed in the search results but yet people managed to find his site)
it really doesn't matter as they have already passed the traffic hurdle associated
with Big "G" and their name is already to big to be stopped by any SE.

I do have a question though...

After this whole "paid links" thing has anyone noticed any better search results?
or was this just a way to boost the PPC revenue and take the little guys lunch money?


thx
malcolm

 

And a good question it is, I can't give you green as I need to spread some around first, . t's an excellent question but let's keep specific to whether Google actually do take into acount this method of using robot.txt or not first and if we do get a general consensus perhaps we can move on to whether their actions have a; been illegal, and b; improved their search results as a consequence.

 

The idea was for you to read the blog that I linked to, and then give your views on whether Google are likely to play by the rules or let this sneaky method through?

I'll go make it a bit clearer mikey.

 

Well i must confess that i am a googler it is far superior then others and when i search for something i can 90% of the time find what im searching for though i often have to go into page 2-3 since by default only 10 results are offered (though you can change this to 20-100 in your personal settings ) but i see absolutely no difference in the results and if anything they lost some good sites that where relevant to my searches

I must agree that it serves no purpose to use the robots.txt as a directory unless your trying to hide something and then whats the real point?
or am i missing the point of this thread or not understanding whats happening?

UPDATE: now i understand better... WebProNews Or: Link-Laundering 102

LOL it utterly incredible what some people will do for that juice

thx
malcolm

 

I never even knew that this practice was going on so I either must be totall stupid or totally naive.

 

I never would have guessed somebody would go to the "extreme" of doing such a thing for "page rank" lmao....

Like i said before, whom really cares about it other then webmasters and SEOs still stuck in a time warp...
Business owners and submitters could care less and everyone knows that back link building is the foundation of any SE
whether the link it comes from is a blog, directory, forum or whatever. As long as the link doesn't have "no follow"
attached then its counted... and even more for its "relevancy".... period

But im fascinated on this guys sneaky approach to get that sacred "PR" lol

thx
malcolm