Google and the paid links value chain

[dburdon]

The recent Google pronouncement on paid links opens up a whole can of worms. What we need from Google is a definitive definition of what is and isn't allowed.

I've spotted a rival website to a client of mine. They pay millions to sponsor a major TV show in the UK. Along with the TV bumpers (the sponsor slots pre and post ad breaks) they also get sitewide links on the pages that refer to the TV show on the TV company's website. ITV Heartbeat

After the BBC, ITV is the biggest media company in the UK with about 35% of the terrestrial TV audience. So you can imagine the benefits of these links on the ITV site. Now the links haven't been bought directly - they come as part of the TV sponsorship package - but are they paid links under Google's definition?

[Paul Brin]

First off, can you supply a link to this "Google pronouncement"?
My knee jerk reaction, without knowing anymore than having read your letter, is how can a company that is both a search engine AND and an advertising agency dare to cross the line and begin to dictate how website owners make money?
In my case I have a small niche directory and I offer ad space on my site to companies that don't belong to an affiliate advertising network.
If that constitutes a paid link and somebody declares that my site is no longer valid enough to be ranked by their search engine I smell something rotten in the guise of a Monopoly.
P.S.
Maybe the Google Content Blocker isn't so far fetched!
http://j-walk.com/other/googlecb/index.htm

[westie]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !

[urknighterrent]

LMAO @ the google content blocker.

Sorry this is the first you've heard of it paul.

Google is trying to identify and invalidate paid links in their PR results. It's a ludicrous proposition but it's true. Apparently YOU'RE supposed to do their work for them by adding no-follow tags to all your paid links. If you don't and a competitor contacts googles new snitch line they'll...

Well, they haven't said exactly what they'll do. Invalidate all your links perhaps?

We can't have you competing with adwords, now can we?

[skeert2say]

Just IMHO,
Imagine for a moment, in the googleplex, they set the algorithm to remove all power from links existing on pages containing the words "Sponsored Links" or "Our Sponsors" or "Advertise Here" next to the links.

They then do a search for "blue widgets" and get blogspam, blackhat, and Lord-knows-what at the top of the results.

Like it or not, being able to purchase advertising links (particularly the expensive ones) is one way that really does separate the wheat from the chaff on the SERPs.

Google is always looking to improve the product which is relevant search results, period.

Fly-by-night sites that can rank on the other search engines simply cannot do that (*as well*) on Google because paying attention to IBLs is what makes google results (*mostly*) better.

PRE-Google (I started SEO in 1999 when altavista was the big dog on the block) 90% of SEO was ON-SITE. What I said about my site - on my site was what counted.

Google changed all that, now 90% of SEO is OFF-SITE.

Google does not have the ability at this moment (knock on wood) to eliminate it's trademark difference of paying way more attention to what others say about you rather than what you say on your site about yourself.

Thats why they are only trying to spook folks, ask for reports on other sites and create more of a dog-eat-dog atmosphere trying to get the 'struggling-to-make-it' "Grandpa's Widgets" site to do backlink research on "WAL-WIDGETS", and snitch them off to google so the GIANT site will stop taking all the widget business.

like I said:
If they could they would and when they can - they will.

[John]

I must admit I have not spent too much time reading the request from Mr Cutts to do Google's work for no pay, but what is the difference between:

• a website that subsidises its existence by paid ads (Adsense or other)
  a magazine that subsides its existence with advertisements
  a TV station ...
  a radio ...

Get my drift?

What the problem is that there are websites without content that only make revenue with ads. Imagine

• a TV station with only commercials
  a radio station with only ads
  ...

Who wants that?

So, we keep creating websites for people, and hope that Google robots are tweaked to serve the people.
We refuse to tweak our websites to serve the Google robots. What's the world coming to? ;)

Certainly interesting reading over at Matts Blog: www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/

[dburdon]

Paul Brin,

here's the link I was referring to:

Matt Cutts - How to report paid links

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by dburdon

The recent Google pronouncement on paid links opens up a whole can of worms. What we need from Google is a definitive definition of what is and isn't allowed.

The “Matt Cutts blog” is just Matt Cutts personal opinion so yeah they need to update the webmaster guidelines with a clear definition.

Clearly google has some flaws in their algorithm or all those parasite .edu "paid" pages wouldn't have juice ... But that’s googles problem not mine.

So here's the question. I have one paid link costing me $25 a month. Should I cancel it and spend that $25 on adwords?

[John]

[quote="scanmonkey"]

Originally Posted by dburdon

So here's the question. I have one paid link costing me $25 a month. Should I cancel it and spend that $25 on adwords?

Well, did you pay for the link to advertise your website to real people, or to bots?
At least with a paid link you have control where it appears, not with Adwords.
If you did not pay for your link just to worship the big Google gods, but to inform the surfers out there about your website, then I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If Google thinks there is something wrong with that, that is their problem. The internet belongs to the people, not to the bots!

Humans, reclaim the net! Down with the bots!

[urknighterrent]

So here's the question. I have one paid link costing me $25 a month. Should I cancel it and spend that $25 on adwords?

It's real simple. If you're getting $25 worth of traffic from your paid link, keep it.

If not, go to the page where your ad is displayed and check the source code. If your ad includes a "nofollow" tag, pull it. If it does not contain a nofollow tag then you have to decide for yourself if the PR benefit of the link justifies the expense of the ad.

[incrediblehelp]

Adam Lasnik Speaks Up on Paid Links