PageRank scores manually edited for selling links

[TrafficProducer]

Search Engine Land recently listed a bunch of sites that had their PageRank scores manually edited for selling links. Of course, if you are the publisher of one of these sites, you don't care about an algorithm relevancy score so meaningless that it is edited by hand. You care about traffic.

Read more : Google PageRank Update In Google Toolbars Worldwide!!!

Google PageRank Update in Google Toolbars Worldwide

Also, (Ive just found this):-
Google Slams Paid Links? Good or Bad? | WebProNews

I have to agree with this statement from Google Slams Paid Links? Good or Bad? | WebProNews:-

2. Google is Out of Control
Google sells links and should not penalize others for selling them too. Why should Google be able to tell me how to link and whom to link to? What is wrong with linking and why should I have to put a no-follow tag on a link when I genuinely like a site.? How does their algorithm know that I received payment for a link?

[dburdon]

TP,

in the short term the down turn in the green bar will depress advertising rates. No doubts that Google wants as much of the link value chain to itself.

[ctabuk]

David - the odds are there won't be a greenline after this debacle -if you download a new one now in the UK you have to and hunt for it as an ad on. I have deleted mine.

[full house]

Most of the changes in PRs are negative! I haven't heard of any positive change!

[ctabuk]

full house - you won't it's in it's death throws

[incrediblehelp]

Wait a minute. Who said these changes were manual in nature?

[ctabuk]

Jaan - Google did -I'll go and find the link - they are reading forum posts

[incrediblehelp]

So Google said somewhere that they are doing this? If not then we are just guessing that they are.

[ctabuk]

Official: Selling Paid Links Can Hurt Your PageRank Or Rankings On Google

Proof???
Google stressed, by the way, that the current set of PageRank decreases is not assigned completely automatically; the majority of these decreases happened after a human review. That should help prevent false matches from happening so easily.

[kgun]

PageRank, directory, internal or external is an important part of their SE algorithme. The paper we all know is about inverse links.

My comments:

1. Links are still at the heart of their algorithme. Then, it is natural that they have a battery of link metrics, where PageRank is one.
2. A SE's aim is to rank content in an objective way. Paid links skew this fact. Even if the algorithme can not always identify paid links or network links aimed at manipulating the SE index, I think they use advanced filters and pattern reckognition algorithmes, to identify non objective links. These algorithmes may be more advanced than most of us are able to imagine.
3. Manual intervention or adaptive filters are only supplementary tools. Most of it is done algorithmically IMO.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by TrafficProducer

I have to agree with this statement from Google Slams Paid Links? Good or Bad? | WebProNews:-

2. Google is Out of Control
Google sells links and should not penalize others for selling them too. Why should Google be able to tell me how to link and whom to link to? What is wrong with linking and why should I have to put a no-follow tag on a link when I genuinely like a site.? How does their algorithm know that I received payment for a link?

And I have to disagree with that. An ad on Google doesn't pass PR so that analogy fails. Google has no problem with anyone selling links; they simply want to prevent PR from being sold that way. Google isn't telling anyone how to run their business, but they are saying that they will do whatever they can to prevent that from affecting SERPs.

Can they adjust the algorithm to recognize a paid link? I don't know, but I would guess that they could see patterns in sites which do sell links and adjust the way PR is calculated to reflect that. I believe it could be unfairly applied to sites that have similar links that are not paid, but it is G's prerogative to adjust their algo in whatever way they choose.

Does it please me? No. But it is something I have to live with. And I support their right to do whatever they believe will strengthen the relevance of their SERPs.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding: if people continue to use Google, then they must be doing it right. We all get to vote by choosing the search engine that seems to provide the best results most often.

And I read Danny Sullivan's article and I didn't see anything to confirm that Google is adjusting PR manually. I don't know how else to explain a drop in PR for that Standford student rag, though. But proof? And so what if they do?

Cheers, MJ

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

And I have to disagree with that. An ad on Google doesn't pass PR so that analogy fails. Google has no problem with anyone selling links; they simply want to prevent PR from being sold that way. Google isn't telling anyone how to run their business, but they are saying that they will do whatever they can to prevent that from affecting SERPs.

My bolding.

Excellent. Quote of the century.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by kgun

My bolding.

Excellent. Quote of the century.

Well, thanks! But how about quote of the day.

MJ

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, thanks! But how about quote of the day.

MJ

So you have a better statement for the century?

[mjtaylor]

Well, no, not off hand ... okay, I will accept the accolade.

With a bow and a , MJ

[incrediblehelp]

Dave no where in that link do they say they are going to remove websites or change PR manually.