Who said Paid Links are bad?!?! New term please!

[wige]

Half of the new threads in the Google section are addressing Google's efforts to combat "paid links." There are discussions about how they must be avoided at all cost, how they can lead to penalties, even how Google has a double standard since they sell advertising. There are already innumerable misconceptions in the SEO world, and this seems to be leading to even more...

Nobody has EVER said that there is anything wrong with buying or selling links or ads on the web. There is no penalty for doing so. Never has been. You are free to buy and sell links all you want, free of consequence. This is a concept almost as old as the Internet itself.

The only issue that is related to the buying and selling of links, is failure to disclose, in a way obvious to the consumer and search engines, the fact that a link has been paid for. In the days before Google, all paid links were obvious. You moused over the link, and the status bar would show a different address, and you knew it was a paid or sponsored link. Nearby text would say something like sponsored links, etc. Now, however, these signals are gone. That is what is being penalized. And no, this is not just a Google thing. If you are in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, or many other countries, failure to disclose that a link is paid for is a federal crime.

So, to my point, can we please stop calling the links that are being targeted "paid links"? That terminology does nothing but create additional misconceptions that do not need to be added to this already confusing industry.

Some suggestions: "deceptive links" (used by the FTC), "undisclosed paid links" (used in Australia v Google), "spam links" or do you have any suggestions for a new term?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by wige

The only issue that is related to the buying and selling of links, is failure to disclose, in a way obvious to the consumer and search engines, the fact that a link has been paid for. In the days before Google, all paid links were obvious. You moused over the link, and the status bar would show a different address, and you knew it was a paid or sponsored link. Nearby text would say something like sponsored links, etc. Now, however, these signals are gone. That is what is being penalized.

Great. Agree. Affiliated links are an example. They should be very easy to identify.

Originally Posted by wige

And no, this is not just a Google thing. If you are in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, or many other countries, failure to disclose that a link is paid for is a federal crime.

Federal crime? Price of zero, isn't that a price? Does that imply thay you have to put nofollow on the links?

<copied from another related thread>

8 Things we learned about Google PageRank

5. NoFollow is a Sign of No Trust, We Trust Our Sponsors

"Why nofollow someone you trust and want to thank? Is that a slap in their face? Will I have to and will they continue to sponsor? Time will tell".

Why nofollow somebody that pays?

</copied from another related thread>

[cimmeronstudios]

when did it become a federal crime? Does anyone have some data on that or a link to send me to? This is the first I've heard of this....

[wige]

The idea behind the legal requirement that links that are paid for (in reality, paid for in any way - even a recip link could qualify the link as "paid" from a legal standpoint) be marked as such is that failure to do so implies to the consumer that the linked resource is endorsed by the linker. For example, Google was threatened with legal action in several countries for not sufficiently distinguishing paid links on the SERPs, because this could cause the consumer (or visitor) to believe that those links were there because they were more relevant than the organic links.

[cimmeronstudios]

isn't that more because Google is a search engine providing results and if you look at the results page and cannot clearly tell which are PPC and which are NATURAL then yes, it's completely misleading, I get that.

that, to me, isn't the same as webmaster A getting $10/month to put a link to website B on their site...

[wige]

I base the "federal crime" comment on an article in the Washington Post here where the FTC talks about extending the rules regarding word of mouth marketing to include editorial web content. Paying for a link creates a business relationship between the two entities, and hiding that relationship can cause a consumer to infer that the web site is an impartial third party. Some more information about web link disclosures required in the United States can be found in this PDF document, although the PDF predates the current move to consider web site links under word of mouth marketing rules. Also, several countries have taken or threatened legal action against Google for failure to properly disclose sponsored links, most recently Australia.

[cimmeronstudios]

ok, maybe I'm looking at this weird, but how is it any different than me placing a link to my friends site on one of my web sites? I'm no longer unbiased because he's my friend, right? But he's not paying me...

I'm all for regulations but when did we start treating people like idiots?

How about a little bit of personal responsibility -- like, if I buy a Camera simply because some wazzu on the street asked me to take a picture and I liked how it looked, well, that's my problem, isn't it?

[wige]

Originally Posted by cimmeronstudios

isn't that more because Google is a search engine providing results and if you look at the results page and cannot clearly tell which are PPC and which are NATURAL then yes, it's completely misleading, I get that.

that, to me, isn't the same as webmaster A getting $10/month to put a link to website B on their site...

If site A puts a "correct link" on their page, marked as sponsored (for the humans) and passing through an interstitial or nofollowed (for the bots) then yes, that is very different. However, if site A puts a string of text saying "Hey, check out this <a>site</a>", then no, that is intentionally misleading. That link is there purely to deceive either the search engine or the consumer, and it does decieve both. As a visitor to site A, you as the consumer have no indication that there is a business relationship between site A and site B, and neither do the spiders.

Basically, the complaint against Google is that the PPC ads look deceptively like the organic ones, as you said. Well, plain text links are now used in such a way that they look like part of the site content. And that is pretty much the same thing.

[cimmeronstudios]

I guess, but can you imagine the number of sites this pertains to? I would guess that there are countless web masters out there with nice, busy sites, selling a link here and there and not showing any type of 'sponsors' link.

also, how can you clearly distinguish this from advertising? I guess you'd still need the 'sponsors' information on that too?

not trying to be a PITA, just thinking that sometimes, regulations just get a bit out of control. Obviously, I don't want to be mislead, but you know? it just gets ridiculous sometimes.

[wige]

I don't think it is so much a matter of treating people like idiots, I think it is more pushing things to the extreme. Or more knowing what extreme things can go to, and preventing a problem from eroding consumer trust. A few years ago, there was a scandal where certain investment managers and advisors would give interviews and talk about companies that showed promise and might be a good investment. It was discovered that some analysts would invest in a company, then discuss the stock to affect the value of their investment. This scandal eroded consumer trust in the markets, and caused some analysts to be persued under the same word of mouth marketing rules that we are discussing being applied to links.

[wige]

Originally Posted by cimmeronstudios

also, how can you clearly distinguish this from advertising? I guess you'd still need the 'sponsors' information on that too?

I am not sure what you mean about distinguishing it from advertising. Any paid linkage is an advertisement. The same as television shows that are created by a company to sell a product have to say "Paid Advertisement" on the screen, and magazine articles written by an outside company say "Special Advertising Section", the same way that if an analyst on a news program talking about a product has to reveal any business relationship between the network and the maker of the product, links that are on the site because they were paid for or obtained through quid-pro-quo must be marked as advertising.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by cimmeronstudios

I guess, but can you imagine the number of sites this pertains to? I would guess that there are countless web masters out there with nice, busy sites, selling a link here and there and not showing any type of 'sponsors' link.

also, how can you clearly distinguish this from advertising? I guess you'd still need the 'sponsors' information on that too?

not trying to be a PITA, just thinking that sometimes, regulations just get a bit out of control. Obviously, I don't want to be mislead, but you know? it just gets ridiculous sometimes.

If you get a gift worth more than certain low limit, working for a Norwegian company it has to be reported to the tax Goverment. An unofficial joke among Norwegian economists is that there is no more capitalistic unit than Norwegian Government.

So a free link is a gift and if it is from a very important site, it should be reported, since it can be valuable. I wish US and Norwegian Goverment good luck on their road to the ideal utopia.

Penalize every directory giving away free ad through free links??

There may be a relevant argument on hiding a business relationship if that is the case? What about dmoz? You tell 100 friends about a good car company. Is that a business relationship? Is it free ad? Should it be reported?

[cimmeronstudios]

I guess I'm saying I take endorsements and other word of mouth marketing with a grain of salt unless I really KNOW the person recommending something. It's like thinking that Revlon is a great product because Beyonce says so...does it say in the magazine that she just got paid 2mil to do the advertisement? no, but we all know she did.

I understand the intent, I'm just saying that people need to make decisions based on real information, research and knowledge - and asking relevant questions. It takes away a person's need to be responsible if every piece of information they are handed comes with a warning, don't you think?

[wige]

Thats just the point though. There is a difference between an endorsement and an advertisement. When you provide a link only because you like a company/product/service, this is an endorsement, same as telling a friend. If you are given a free product, without the requirement to tell anyone about the product, it is still an endorsement. But when spreading word of mouth becomes one of the terms to receive the free product, then it is an advertisement. Legally, endorsements have no value, even if they are of immense value to the whoever is being endorsed.

[cimmeronstudios]

when a star has her picture taken wearing Revlon makeup and saying how great it is, it's an endorsement of the product. but that star has been paid BIG BUCKS to say that stuff.

I'm saying that people really need to be able to figure this out themselves.

If I go to a web site and see a bunch of links on the bottom of the page, am I really thinking 'oh, those are great sites because this guy put links there'? no, I'm not. I take that recommendation/potential paid link like I take all the other recommendations/potential paid links - as something to look at, take into consideration but by no means make a determination based solely on that information.

I understand the intent, however, I'm tired of being force fed this kind of stuff when it isn't necessary. We aren't all 8 years old and maybe, just maybe, we'd be a bit better off if we were forced to think for ourselves a bit more. That's all I'm saying here.

[wige]

Well, what about a blind user, visiting the site with a text-to-speech browser? How is that person going to know that the links at the bottom of the page are non-editorial without the spatial clues that you and I have? How does a search engine bot know? And if a webmaster can get away with putting paid links there, why can't the webmaster put them in the middle of the text so you can't visually discern that they are not editorial? And if some small blogger can do it, what will stop a major media provider that is trusted by a large segment of the population from doing the same thing? Under the principle of universal application of the law, you can't change the standard based on how reputable the source is.

[cimmeronstudios]

alright, clearly we're going to have to disagree. Like I said, I understand the intent completely.

I disagree with the assumed need to police everything for everybody - or even everything for 1 person. at some point, every little thing will be micromanaged, preventing people to need to think for themselves.

interesting debate though, but we are pushing the same things around. back to work for me.....

[wige]

I can agree to disagree as well. However, back to my original point, can we please use another term for the links that Google is targeting other than "paid links"? I am open to suggestions...

[incrediblehelp]

Well they are really targeting paid link sellers right now.

[DriWashSolutions]

So really, can someone explain to me the difference between a "paid link" and advertising?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by DriWashSolutions

So really, can someone explain to me the difference between a "paid link" and advertising?

Well, paid links may be advertising, but the paid links this thread refers to are paid text links that are bought to obtain the PR on the page where they are bought. They are not bought with the primary goal that surfers will see them, click on them and buy products or services. They are bought to get more PR for the site and to raise the site's position in the SERPs.

Hope that helps.

[wige]

Paid links are basically web ads that are a pure text link instead of a banner ad. Technically, these include Adwords and the ads that appear mixed in with search engine results. This is why I hate the term so much. It doesn't describe the problem. Everyone says how hypocritical search engines are to say that you can be penalized for having a paid link, when that is not what the penalty is for.

The problem is undisclosed paid links. Google wants paid links to be marked in a machine readable way, so the bot doesn't pass pagerank. I know it is an issue of semantics, but a lot of confusion can be eliminated by simply adding the word "undisclosed" when describing the issue.

[wige]

I gotta learn to refresh the page before hitting "post reply". Or learn to type faster.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by wige

I gotta learn to refresh the page before hitting "post reply". Or learn to type faster.

Why, because we both answered the same question? I think you added more clarity about the problem ... *and* you put the basic answer differently ... some people hear things more easily from different people, if you know what I mean ...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by wige

Paid links are basically web ads that are a pure text link instead of a banner ad. Technically, these include Adwords and the ads that appear mixed in with search engine results. This is why I hate the term so much. It doesn't describe the problem. Everyone says how hypocritical search engines are to say that you can be penalized for having a paid link, when that is not what the penalty is for.

The problem is undisclosed paid links. Google wants paid links to be marked in a machine readable way, so the bot doesn't pass pagerank. I know it is an issue of semantics, but a lot of confusion can be eliminated by simply adding the word "undisclosed" when describing the issue.

The problem in a nutshell:

1. That is why I like "The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost" But that thread is slowly drowning.
2. The chat goes on here ...
3. And here ...

I wish all of you that read this post a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year.