Buying and Selling Links latest news

[ctabuk]

This just came in from Matt Cutts

More of the same basically

This Blog Google Blogs Web Blog News
This Blog


Google Blogs


Web


Blog


News


Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank

Saturday, December 01, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Written by Matt Cutts and Maile Ohye

Our goal is to provide users the best search experience by presenting equitable and accurate results. We enjoy working with webmasters, and an added benefit of our working together is that when you make better and more accessible content, the internet, as well as our index, improves. This in turn allows us to deliver more relevant search results to users.

If, however, a webmaster chooses to buy or sell links for the purpose of manipulating search engine rankings, we reserve the right to protect the quality of our index. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank violates our webmaster guidelines. Such links can hurt relevance by causing:

- Inaccuracies: False popularity and links that are not fundamentally based on merit, relevance, or authority
- Inequities: Unfair advantage in our organic search results to websites with the biggest pocketbooks

In order to stay within Google's quality guidelines, paid links should be disclosed through a "rel=nofollow" or other techniques such as doing a redirect through a page which is robots.txt'ed out. Here's more information explaining our stance on buying and selling links that pass PageRank:

February 2003: Google's official quality guidelines have advised "Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank" for several years.

September 2005: I posted on my blog about text links and PageRank.

December 2005: Another post on my blog discussed this issue, and said


Many people who work on ranking at search engines think that selling links can lower the quality of links on the web. If you want to buy or sell a link purely for visitors or traffic and not for search engines, a simple method exists to do so (the nofollow attribute). Google’s stance on selling links is pretty clear and we’re pretty accurate at spotting them, both algorithmically and manually. Sites that sell links can lose their trust in search engines.

September 2006: In an interview with John Battelle, I noted that "Google does consider it a violation of our quality guidelines to sell links that affect search engines."

January 2007: I posted on my blog to remind people that "links in those paid-for posts should be made in a way that doesn’t affect search engines."

April 2007: We provided a mechanism for people to report paid links to Google.

June 2007: I addressed paid links in my keynote discussion during the Search Marketing Expo (SMX) conference in Seattle. Here's a video excerpt from the keynote discussion. It's less than a minute long, but highlights that Google is willing to use both algorithmic and manual detection of paid links that violate our quality guidelines, and that we are willing to take stronger action on such links in the future.

June 2007: A post on the official Google Webmaster Blog noted that "Buying or selling links to manipulate results and deceive search engines violates our guidelines." The post also introduced a new official form in Google's webmaster console so that people could report buying or selling of links.

June 2007: Google added more specific guidance to our official webmaster documentation about how to report buying or selling links and what sort of link schemes violate our quality guidelines.

August 2007: I described Google's official position on buying and selling links in a panel dedicated to paid links at the Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference in San Jose.

September 2007: In a post on my blog recapping the SES San Jose conference, I also made my presentation available to the general public (PowerPoint link).

October 2007: Google provided comments for a Forbes article titled "Google Purges the Payola".

October 2007: Google officially confirmed to Search Engine Land that we were taking stronger action on this issue, including decreasing the toolbar PageRank of sites selling links that pass PageRank.

October 2007: An email that I sent to Search Engine Journal also made it clear that Google was taking stronger action on buying/selling links that pass PageRank.

We appreciate the feedback that we've received on this issue. A few of the more prevalent questions:

Q: Is buying or selling links that pass PageRank a violation of Google's guidelines? Why?
A: Yes, it is, for the reasons we mentioned above. I also recently did a post on my personal blog that walks through an example of why search engines wouldn't want to count such links. On a serious medical subject (brain tumors), we highlighted people being paid to write about a brain tumor treatment when they hadn't been aware of the treatment before, and we saw several cases where people didn't do basic research (or even spellchecking!) before writing paid posts.

Q: Is this a Google-only issue?
A: No. All the major search engines have opposed buying and selling links that affect search engines. For the Forbes article Google Purges The Payola, Andy Greenberg asked other search engines about their policies, and the results were unanimous. From the story:


Search engines hate this kind of paid-for popularity. Google's Webmaster guidelines ban buying links just to pump search rankings. Other search engines including Ask, MSN, and Yahoo!, which mimic Google's link-based search rankings, also discourage buying and selling links.

Other engines have also commented about this individually, e.g. a search engine representative from Microsoft commented in a recent interview and said


The reality is that most paid links are a.) obviously not objective and b.) very often irrelevant. If you are asking about those then the answer is absolutely there is a risk. We will not tolerate bogus links that add little value to the user experience and are effectively trying to game the system.

Q: Is that why we've seen some sites that sell links receive lower PageRank in the Google toolbar?
A: Yes. If a site is selling links, that can affect our opinion about the value of that site or cause us to lose trust in that site.

Q: What recourse does a site owner have if their site was selling links that pass PageRank, and the site's PageRank in the Google toolbar was lowered?
A: The site owner can address the violations of the webmaster guidelines and submit a reconsideration request in Google's Webmaster Central console. Before doing a reconsideration request, please make sure that all sold links either do not pass PageRank or are removed.

Q: Is Google trying to tell webmasters how to run their own site?
A: No. We're giving advice to webmasters who want to do well in Google. As I said in this video from my keynote discussion in June 2007, webmasters are welcome to make their sites however they like, but Google in turn reserves the right to protect the quality and relevance of our index. To the best of our knowledge, all the major search engines have adopted similar positions.

Q: Is Google trying to crack down on other forms of advertisements used to drive traffic?
A: No, not at all. Our webmaster guidelines clearly state that you can use links as means to get targeted traffic. In fact, in the presentation I did in August 2007, I specifically called out several examples of non-Google advertising that are completely within our guidelines. We just want disclosure to search engines of paid links so that the paid links won't affect search engines.

Q: I'm aware of a site that appears to be buying/selling links. How can I get that information to Google?
A: Read our official blog post about how to report paid links from earlier in 2007. We've received thousands and thousands of reports in just a few months, but we welcome more reports. We appreciate the feedback, because it helps us take direct action as well as improve our existing algorithmic detection. We also use that data to train new algorithms for paid links that violate our quality guidelines.

Q: Can I get more information?
A: Sure. I wrote more answers about paid links earlier this year if you'd like to read them. And if you still have questions, you can join the discussion in our Webmaster Help Group.
Posted by Matt Cutts

[thindenim]

The only problem that I can see with this is still the fact that if they are penalising for who is linking to you then what is to stop your competitors adding paid links in bad neighbourhoods into your site?

At the end of the day I guess google can do what they like with their index and I agree with penalising the sellers, which should hopefully discourage selling for pr purposes in the future.

I think the blog explosion in the last few years is really what has changed the entire world of SEO. As they add so many links on a daily basis, the number of quality links required to achieve good results is increasing all the time.

[Jomo]

There's been a lot written on this topic on the web recently. Most of it is anti-google. While i can see the majority of people's opinions I don't agree with most people on this. I think what google is doing is for the ultimate good of the web (and search results). They're trying to maintain the quality of SERPS.

However, there's one thing i don't agree with google about. They're suggesting that they're gonna penalise sites who sell links without including the nofollow attribute. That's wrong. There needs to be a distinction between sites advertising link opportunites based on PR, adn site's simply selling links with no mention of PR . Many site owners will not know about this new push from google, and just want to make some extra money. They may not even now about PR, but simply sell the links as advertising space. They should NOT be penalised. After all, their site isn't less relevant, and they haven't violated google's guidelines so they should be left alone.

I'm hoping that google will differentiate between these 'different' site owners.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by Jomo

There's been a lot written on this topic on the web recently. Most of it is anti-google. While i can see the majority of people's opinions I don't agree with most people on this. I think what google is doing is for the ultimate good of the web (and search results). They're trying to maintain the quality of SERPS.

However, there's one thing i don't agree with google about. They're suggesting that they're gonna penalise sites who sell links without including the nofollow attribute. That's wrong. There needs to be a distinction between sites advertising link opportunites based on PR, adn site's simply selling links with no mention of PR . Many site owners will not know about this new push from google, and just want to make some extra money. They may not even now about PR, but simply sell the links as advertising space. They should NOT be penalised. After all, their site isn't less relevant, and they haven't violated google's guidelines so they should be left alone.

I'm hoping that google will differentiate between these 'different' site owners.

Rep points awarded - good post and valid comments.

Google is in between that famous rock and a hard place - they created the scenario - they allowed it to roll on as long as it did. But you are correct there are (Thank goodness and I am referring to that bloody greenline!) some people who are unaware of this and will get penalised. Post it in Matt Cutts blog and see if he replies. He has gone on record as saying 'I would like to get rid of the toolbar pagerank'

[mjtaylor]

Rep points added for you, too, ctabuk ... good post .. as always you are on top of things and there before anyone else ... of course, you get up a lot earlier than I do! ;D

Originally Posted by thindenim

The only problem that I can see with this is still the fact that if they are penalising for who is linking to you then what is to stop your competitors adding paid links in bad neighbourhoods into your site?

I read quickly, so I may have missed something, but I really got the impression that Matt was saying that Google will lost trust in sites *selling* links and not in those that buy them ...

[ctabuk]

Gee thanks - my take on this is 'for the time being' - in other words they are concentrating on those selling - and then later start looking at who purchased - IF they can find them!!!

[mjtaylor]

Well, they might be able to identify sites that are selling links, but that doesn't mean that every link on the site was sold ... and it doesn' t mean it was bought for PR; it could have been bought for traffic.

And if they targeted the sites on the receiving end of the sold links, they would be opening the way to webmasters buying links to the competition to hurt the competitor's site ...

I think G is smarter than that ...

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Jomo

There's been a lot written on this topic on the web recently. Most of it is anti-google. While i can see the majority of people's opinions I don't agree with most people on this. I think what google is doing is for the ultimate good of the web (and search results). They're trying to maintain the quality of SERPS.

Sure they may want you to think this, but the bottom line now that Google is public is to make money. This is the true motivation of any company. With that being said it is true they want the best possible product out there, but it is not up to us to do it for them. We should not be required as website owners to code for the search engines to help with their spam fighting efforts. The reason for this is pretty simple. What do you get out of it? Nothing!! No where do they say your website will get rewarded for such actions. In fact we are seeing many innocent websites getting banged from this update. Rand lists a lot of them here. Spammers are here to stay Google. Find a way to deal with them YOURSELF.

Originally Posted by Jomo

However, there's one thing i don't agree with google about. They're suggesting that they're gonna penalise sites who sell links without including the nofollow attribute. That's wrong. There needs to be a distinction between sites advertising link opportunites based on PR, adn site's simply selling links with no mention of PR . Many site owners will not know about this new push from google, and just want to make some extra money. They may not even now about PR, but simply sell the links as advertising space. They should NOT be penalised. After all, their site isn't less relevant, and they haven't violated google's guidelines so they should be left alone.

Of course I agree here somewhat, but the problem as Google sees it is some of the best (most normal) and relevant links (bought or not) pass PR. So do irrelevant links right now, for instance those that buy hidden links in hit counters and such. This is a Google issue and they need to fix it. Now back to the issue of relevant paid links. If they are relevant what is the harm? The experience is good for the end users and webmasters. Of yeah I know what the harm. The idea that someone is manipulating the algorithm. Once again if Google has an issue with this then fix it on their side and stop perpetuating the idea that selling links on your blog is different than buying links in search results (AdWords).

I have commented and tied some of the recent blog posts together about this on my blog recently:

More On Paid Links From Google, BLAAAAAHHH - Jaan’s Search Marketing and SEO Blog from Cincinnati, Ohio

[ctabuk]

Jaan - Is Google penalising all or most adsense sites for this reason? I've been given the privilege of becoming a mod over at Warriors and I'm seeing loads of adsense sites getting knocked off Google

[incrediblehelp]

I think the clean up of AdSense website is LONG over do and probably doesnt have a direct tie to these organic changes. MFA websites are trash and should be demoted.

[espmartin]

I hope this is not taking this off-topic, but there is a discussion on the Google Webmaster
List right now, initiated by Google (including Matt Cutts) - on this whole paid link mess:
Buying/selling links that pass PageRank - Crawling, indexing, and ranking | Google Groups

Matt (and other Google'rs) are answering specific questions there.

[crankydave]

Nicely said Jaan.

How many publically available "ratings" can you think of that are not promoted and monetised by the recipients?

Motor Trends Car/Truck of the year? Nope.

The Good Houskeeping Seal of Approval? Nope.

Morningstar? Nope.

Honestly, I can't think of any, let alone any that would "penalize" you for doing so... except one.

It's not enough when a site clearly marks their "advertising" as "advertising" so that any man, beast, or alien life form can tell exactly what it is, webmasters are being required to "nofollow" the links (machine readable code) as well because the machine and algorithm cannot tell.

But it's okay, and suggested, that webmasters "blend in" their adwords. No need to make it perfectly and absolutely clear that those links are paid links.

Dave

[netndx]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It's not enough when a site clearly marks their "advertising" as "advertising" so that any man, beast, or alien life form can tell exactly what it is, webmasters are being required to "nofollow" the links (machine readable code) as well because the machine and algorithm cannot tell.

But it's okay, and suggested, that webmasters "blend in" their adwords. No need to make it perfectly and absolutely clear that those links are paid links.

Dave

and you have hit the crux of the issue for me here Dave. It seems mighty convenient that G is beating down grass roots competition (link selling) in favor of it's own link based platforms(adwords and adsense).

While they say that they are only interested in pagerank passers versus traffic, the effect is killing the entire link selling market over fear of losing search ranking.

An effect that just happens to benefit G

[Clint1]

Just how is G supposed to know which links at someone's site they're getting paid for, and which they are not?

The only problem that I can see with this is still the fact that if they are penalising for who is linking to you then what is to stop your competitors adding paid links in bad neighbourhoods into your site?

So G is now penalizing site owners for something the site owners cannot control??

[innominds]

Every webmaster can abide the guidelines set by Google, but it is impossible to control the bad neighborhood.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by innominds

Every webmaster can abide the guidelines set by Google, but it is impossible to control the bad neighborhood.

I know, so why is G penalizing for who links to you?

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Just how is G supposed to know which links at someone's site they're getting paid for, and which they are not?


So G is now penalizing site owners for something the site owners cannot control??

For this you have to go back about 4 years.

Google advertised in University rags throughout Europe for site researchers - thousands of students spent their summers looking at websites - forums - you name it.

Google is more than capable of using human resources to asscertain information on who does what - where - and when.

[wige]

As far as I know, the way Google penalizes you for buying a link is by making that link worthless. The new/modified algorithm tries to determine based on layout and context what links are paid/non-editorial/irrelevant to the content of the page, and simply stops the flow of pagerank through those links. In addition, the page containing the links may be penalized for having these links. In this way, if a competitor buys you hundreds of links on bad sites, it is your competitor that gets penalized (paying for links that are dead).

Part of this is because as you mentioned, links are not always under the control of the linkee - you have no way of knowing how competitors might abuse a system that directly penalizes the link recipient. Another part of the reason is that the algorithm is not foolproof. It is very error prone. However, this method of detection is believed by Google to produce the best results because the majority of false positives were also determined to be less than relevant to the actual content of the page.

[onlinetv]

Q: Is Google trying to tell webmasters how to run their own site?
A: No. We're giving advice to webmasters who want to do well in Google.

This is priceless double think. We don't tell you how to run your site but if you want to do well with us you will run your site as we tell you.

Is Google a search engine or an affiliate web farm site manipulating a monopoly?

It is so pleasing to see many waking up to the reality behind this farce.

IncredibleHelp you stated this very well. I would suggest that the rel="sponsor" tag that should be offered even though I know it will not happen. Why? Because it would bring them right into Federal anti-trust. They are hiding behind the spammer tag! And they tell you they are not telling you what to do, just do what you are told to get into their search farm site listings.. it is very transparent.

Matt Cutts Q&A is a staged event with hocus pocus fake questions tailored to avoid the realities and he needs to answer the real questions or Google should put back the sites it has screwed and stop this idiocy.

[Clint1]

I couldn't agree more. They want to be gods of the internet and want to re-mold the entire internet to conform to their own little twisited illogical world. (Notice how anyone that points out how screwed up G is gets a rep rank of -1. Now I guess I'll be "childishly punished again" and go back to -1 for agreeing).