Found this today in Matt's blog (GoogleGuy) and I don't see a thread about: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/text-links-and-pagerank/ Somebody would say webmasters are under Google's rule: So we must care about Google's rsults?
This is a snippet from something I wrote a while back now. Sorry about the length, but I wanted to give it in context, the reply is really in the second paragraph. If we as web marketers do not work with the search engines, we are cutting our own throats (as dibbler would say) The moment a search engine goes down the pan the money from the websites goes with it. Beacuse of this our job as professional web marketers is not just to get our sites ranking highly, it is to make sure they deserve to rank highly in the minds of the searchers. Then we can rest assured that people using the search engines are finding what they want and will continue to do so, earning us all money at the same time. Hs anyone ever told you this story http://www.familymanagement.com/literacy/grimms/grimms50.html
That is pretty interesting.. but I find it out that the line seems to be on paid-for links. Not sure how an algo is every going to effectively deal with that. So it sounds like other sources of links will be harmed in the process.
Sorry OWG - I disagree... If one SE falls, then another always takes it's spot - that's just what happens. And when it stops happening, there will be other ways for people to make money. Aside from that - generally - web users are stupid. They don't know what spam is... They think it's the SE's fault, not the fault of people who build the site (Both of which are kinda true), when they get bad results. When Affiliate programs finish their existance, people will stop using "BH" tactics to get their pages to the number1 spot. "Web traditions" will have to change dramatically before spammers stop playing SE's.
At some point inbound linking may turn as irrelevant as metatags. Making the system obviously weighted on any one characteristic really begs for abuse. It is not the responsibility of webmasters to "keep things clean" - although the community would at least have an understanding of what it takes to succeed if they did - you simply cannot trust millions of people to "do the right thing". SE's have to evolve their methods over time and while links=votes turned out to be a great idea, it isn't the only idea out there. I think soon enough linking will be a factor, but a much smaller one. Either that or their will be a new vote ranking system implemented. It's the nature of marketers to find the ways to work up to the top of the SE's and it's in the nature of SE's to keep putting them back at the bottom. These two diametrically opposed entities will never come to a "peace settlement". There's always going to be a newbie looking to put his junk of a site at the top of the SERPs and that guy will always find a way to be successful. When his newfound knowledge of how to do it becomes widely distributed the SE's will have to evolve. The SE's can manipulate us by putting pressure on webmasters to do things one way or face banning or a penalty, but that only works to a degree - not all webmasters are in it for the money or even care about search engine placement, and in fact I would guess that less than half of the webmasters out there do care so the "muscle" they have to change our way of doing things is limited. Really it's a question of finding new and better ways to rank. If they flex their muscle to make us do things one way or another it exposes an obvious flaw in their system that can be exploited. If they are saying "don't buy links" and "linking strategies are screwing up our results", then that's also saying "you can manipulate our results through a linking strategy" and asking to be exploited.
just curious but who is google to start telling people not to cash in on their sites the spawned a million scraper sites for adsense, and makeing billions but now we arn't supposed to cash in to make a few extra bucks off our sites
I can see I have totally answereda different question SEbasic you haven't disagreed with me have you? unless I haven't made myself clear again. well it is late and I have to be up in a few hours for the All Blacks v Australia I can not see how Google are telling anyone not to sell links. All they are saying is don't expect those links to help in the ranking algo! Plain and simple it is their ball and they can play whatever game they like. No one apart from adwords clients pay to be in Google. Organic traffic is just that, free traffic, and before people start having a pop at me about google using their content to make money, there is always the robots exclusion to stop them doing just that. I know it is shit, but as long as crap sites appear at the top, then Google will wage war on spam tactics. If the spam that was there was good spam then they pobably wouldn't give a shit. As long as people are finding what they want G is happy.
And some excellent comments here too. (As does Earl Grey). http://www.syndk8.com/interview_with_a_black_hat_seo.php I hear what you say OWG, I guess from my point of view, by google seeming to be so picky about the sites they choose to display, they are simply cutting the smaller site owners of of the bargian... Matt Cutts' comments in regard to paid advertising only should be using the rel=nofollow tag only echoes my previous points about google's ranking system.
Even that isn't really the issue. They have the right to set any rules they like for their site, just like anyone else. (as OWG says) Saying that, this has to be the worst idea I have seen from Google. When links were invented they became an instant commodity, when links affected rankings they became a more valuable commodity. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine accurately which links are paid and which arent (without some form of proof). Payment does NOT have to take a monetary form either. I am no expert when it comes to linking but even I can see this. Where do people pay for links ? People pay for links in blogs, off/on topic footer links, homepage/ sitewide, directory links, forum posts, link management schemes, donation pages, contribution pages.. the list is endless - who draws the line and where ? Can I buy my friend a beer and he puts a link on a site to me ? Is that paid ? will it help my ranking ? What is a link from a Web design company's site to its new client if not an NON RELEVANT RANK AFFECTING PAID link ? Unintended damage Many people regularly list friends sites and would rather it said "sponsored listings/ links/ resources" than "my friends site". Would Google have ever become popular if it wasnt for OFF TOPIC links ? Noone was searching for a 'Google' and not that many who were using yahoo were typing 'search engine' - which google probably didnt rank well for anyway, as onpage was the main seo back in the days of the millenium bug. An impossible task Rel nofollow - nochance - who is going to tie one of their own hands behind their back ? Everyone will just implement paid links IN content (It is appearing everywhere already). That will be 'even more impossible' than hunting down paid links in their current format. I doubt most adwords advertisers would want their budgets spent on hunting link buyers. Is that not where almost all of Googles current income comes from? Selling advertising (inc. text links) is almost essential to most websites business model these days, usually to pay for their adwords or SEO team (inc link builders) I cant see why this business model isnt embraced or left to grow organically at least. My view What bothers me is not the no paid links issue, but the fact that there is a HUGE difference between a Search Engine and a Create Engine. With autolink, adsense, nofollow.. Most sites will endup looking like they were created by Google. If Google tries to provide all the content and structure for the web it will become GOL and noone ever has anything good to say about AOL. (note, I dont *think* I have ever sold a link)
Well I certainly have. I have both sold a and bought links. It's called advertising. I don't know where you people get off being so holy about paid links. Have you looked at a magazine, newspaper or watched TV recently. Those ads and commercials are all "paid links". The great advantage of the Internet advertising is you can click on the ad and get right to the business or information. With all the rest of the media advertising you have to get in your car and drive somewhere, or call, or type the URL from the ad into your browser. Internet advertising is way more efficient and generally cheaper, which gives the small guy a fighting chance to make a living.
I don't see links going the way of meta tags because links actually have on-page value for sites and visitors. Before all this page-rank nonsense people put links on their pages because they wanted their visitors to go to these other sites. Meta tags have always been an internal mechanism that had no real bearing on a page's content nor on visitors.
Your spot on, and what Google are saying is. If your going to buy links then bloody well buy them from on topic resources so as to improve the web experience. <I am totally paraphrasing here> . As Bob stated, there is nothing wrong with buying links. but the savvy link buyer looks for taffic as the primary factor with everything else being a bonus.
just a thought... if everyone starts buying/selling links and ruining google's relevance that would leave open a big opportunity for someone new to start a search engine.
Bahahahahahahaha! Matt Cutts wants you and I to do his job. Matt's job is to keep search engine results relevant. My job is to keep my sites in the search engine results. My garage is a mess, I wonder if Matt will come over to my house and clean it for me?
We need to keep in mind that a paid link may also be a relevant link, and if Google can rank based on relevancy we don't have a problem, do we?
Absolutely true. How do people leap to the conclusion that all paid links are for non relevant pages. That really doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that the majority of Internet advertisors are going to waste their money buying links for something they really don't have for sale. That would be like General Motors taking the back cover of Time Magazine and advertising bicycles. How many buyer do you think they would convert with an ad like that. Advertising, whether it is paid links, or Pay Per Click, banner exchange or text links will only benefit the guy who is paying if the ad results in a sale. Eventually there has to be some positive ROI. If you do a search on bicycles and find General Motors #1 in the SERPs are you going to by a car from them? Can all you doom sayers show me one #1 in a SERP who is not relevant and who got there via "false and misleading purchased links"?
I'm #1 in Google's SERP for the keyword order medication online. Yes there are a ton of other sites from whom you can order medication online. My site is not necessarily more relevant than others, but it certainly is relevant. The explanation is that I do better Internet advertising than they do. Now based on the traffic from this keyword my site converts very well. But I don't want to be #1 for a search on "bubble gum". Even if I could attain a #1 ranking for "bubble gum" with a totally non relevant site, how many sales do you think I would make from this type of advertising effort and expenditure?