Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

I think John is just using the wrong word here. His English isn't always perfect, maybe he means bribery or something like that?

Oh my God!!! I know what bravery is, and that is not what I met. Thank you so much Darren. I met bribery! What can you expect after 30+ hours without sleep and upon that my horrible English?

Ladies and Gentlemen my apologies for that. Please don't give a negative Rep for that. Pleaseeeee....

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Nope, you got it dead right.. Google said early on that PR could be looked at as a sign of the quality of a website since people won't link to bad websites.. Great.. They even added a 1 to 10 scale to it and made the number public so that everyone could see it.. Great..

Compare that with Motor Trend.. They review and rate cars and trucks.. Get a 5 star Motor Trend rating and things are great.. Get a 1, no so much.. When you see ads on TV for Toyota it's not uncommon to see, 2007 Motor Trend 5 star car of the year..

Motor Trend loves this. Google, not so much.. Toyota uses that 5 star rating to sell cars.. Some webmasters use the PR number to sell links.. Toyota isn't selling the 5 star rating, they are using it as a metric for the value of their car.. Motor Trend assigns that rating on it's own.. Webmasters are not selling PR, they are selling links and using the PR number as a metric for the value of that link..

Can you imagine what would happen if Motor Trend told Toyota, "Hey, we don't like you using our name, and our rating system, to sell your cars.. You are unfairly influencing car purchases by advertising the fact that we like you.. Slap this nofollow sticker on the rear deck of all of your cars from now on or we will stop rating your product.."

I cant see the link here, and I think you are missing the point. In your example if Motor Trend have rated the car as being good quality then surely its a good idea to promote their rating and influence buyers. Wouldnt that encourage companies to make better cars?

Google have indeed said that it is a value based on the quality of the web site. If someone buys a link from someone with a site that has high PR that wouldnt normally link to them, then they are improving the PR (quality rating) of their own web site. This then makes google think they are therefore more relevant and ranks them higher.

If they were linked to for being a good quality web site as they believed the content was relevant and useful then the increase in PR would be justified.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

So you dont think that people with poor quality web sites using their money to jump ahead of better quality web sites is wrong?

Morally wrong? No. Do you believe it's wrong for a company with an inferior product to buy enough TV spots to become a household name?

I believe the buyer must beware; that a number 1 position in the search engines or constant ads on Prime Time does not mean the product is right for me or that it is high quality.

I believe in a free market. Anyone may buy ads or put up a website and market it , and the market will dictate their success. If the product is poor customers will stop patronizing the company.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Morally wrong? No. Do you believe it's wrong for a company with an inferior product to buy enough TV spots to become a household name?

I believe the buyer must beware; that a number 1 position in the search engines or constant ads on Prime Time does not mean the product is right for me or that it is high quality.

I believe in a free market. Anyone may buy ads or put up a website and market it , and the market will dictate their success. If the product is poor customers will stop patronizing the company.

If that is not morally wrong, why don't you do Black Hat SEO? Or do you do already, and I have not noticed yet?

[Feydakin]

Define black hat seo.. This particular issue has always humored me.. Business is not about "morals".. It is about risk vs reward.. Is the risk I am taking by doing what I do worth the reward I be get if I am successful??

Just like you manipulating the search results by doing what you do.. You do it in a manner that has very little, if any risk.. Other people may choose to risk more by hiring a link submission company, or even paying for links and reviews.. Or even hiring someone like you to help them.. In all of those cases they are using their money to outrank someone with less money..

If someone buys a link from someone with a site that has high PR that wouldnt normally link to them, then they are improving the PR (quality rating) of their own web site.

Except, of course, Google isn't saying put nofollow on paid links to sites you wouldn't normally link to, they are saying put nofollow on every single link that is paid for regardless of how good it is.. Big difference in the two..

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If that is not morally wrong, why don't you do Black Hat SEO? Or do you do already, and I have not noticed yet?

I am asking whether it is ethically (morally) wrong to sell links. I would like to hear where actually right or wrong is addressed here ... not about whether it's fair that someone can afford to do so. Fairness is not a moral question.

Yet, it sounds as though you are suggesting that the unfairness of one company not having the money to buy the same links makes link buying a Black Hat practice. And that would make it equally unfair and therefore unethical for the same company to buy Prime Time ads.

This is an academic discussion, not an examination of anyone's practices. And while we might have strong feelings here, I would prefer we stick to logical rather than emotional conclusions.

[incrediblehelp]

The nofollow, uggghhh I hate it. The reason it was created was for comment SPAM and now it is being used out of original context of its creation.

I ask one question, why put a link on website if you don't want the SE's to follow it? And dont give me the controlling/funneling PR crap. Google needs to get their act together and handle these issues themselves.

The whole concept stinks if you ask me. If I am linking to a website then I want the SE's to follow it.

[Feydakin]

Agreed Jaan.. At least they could have created a new tag instead of corrupting the nofollow..

Also, if selling links is so morally wrong, why are there so many "sponsored Links" on Google.Com for the phrase link selling?? If it's morally and ethically wrong to sell links, isn't it morally and ethically wrong to accept ad revenue from the people selling links??

[mjtaylor]

Now, it was not on this thread, but on "are we slave to Google" that I saw an excellent point from wige that I believe speaks to the point of ethics and fairness:

Originally Posted by wige

<snip> ... links are viewed as testimonials/endorsements. When you link to a site, you are endorsing that site to visitors. If you fail to disclose you are being paid to endorse the other site, that falls into the "deceptive advertising" category. Google's argument is that machines browse the web also, and work on the same concept of endorsement to prevent spam and gauge the quality of a web site, so failing to disclose that an endorsement is paid is an unfair business practice.

I am also impressed by what Michael Lineman says on LED Digest - the topic was the legality of buying and selling links, but his answer speaks more directly to the ethics involved, in my opinion.

Cheers, MJ

[SemAdvance]

I doubt it's unethical to sell links as plenty of people sell links to drive traffic.....why I pay Google for this service.....

What is unethical is buying links to boost PageRank.

There is a big difference between the two noted above. But then you have to determine if Google is the arbiter of all things ethical.

There are Ethical Society's.... and I do not see Google as a member there... so I think it is hard for them to determine what the ethics of other companies are.

The puppetmeister has even gone to say that buying a listing in a Paid Directory such as Yahoo is fine, since paid directories weed out spam.

The link from the Yahoo Directory, would seem to pass Page Rank and ergo do exactly what Google the greatest propaganda machine ever run, has made something forbidden....or is it???

Overheard in Google Board Meeting

"Oh my... what a tangled web we weave.... when at first we try to deceive".

Peace!

[bj]

Google has and continues to say, build your website for your visitors. Now they say, build them for "our" SE and algorithym or be "harmed".

Exactly. I think it really backward of Google for them to make webmasters write code to please Google and Google alone. This is a problem with their algorithm, not our websites. So the onus SHOULD BE on them to fix their own damn broken algorithm, not on us to code our pages so they don't have to fix it.

Having said that, I don't buy links, and I don't sell links so none of this affects me either way, though I do give better placement in terms of a featured link in the webgeek directory, which hasn't seemed to hurt it any. Maybe because I only have a very few featured links.

That being the case, it doesn't stop me being totally PO'd at Google for this "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude of theirs. They sell links all over the place and don't use the nofollow attribute on any of their own stuff. Yet they expect us to code for them and squeal to them? A$$holes.

[bruceclay]

I am generally lurking and not posting, but I seem to have missed what I think is an important distinction in the consideration of ethics.

My take on ethics includes the "do no harm" commonly accepted "rule" as applied to most ethical debates. I do not believe that buying links is evil or unethical, nor do I believe that it is my responsibility to help any search engine detect what they do not have the ability to detect themselves. But if their stated objective is to detect and punish those that deceive them into granting ranking that is not based upon relevancy and I tell my clients that (even though I know they will eventually get caught and punished) that this act is okay, then I believe I would have harmed that client and it is thus unethical for me to do that.

It is totally ethical to intentionally do it to yourself if you knowingly accept the risk with full disclosure. It is unethical to do it to someone else that does not know better.

It is always unwise to tug on Superman's cape.

Back to lurking...

[pauliii]

Selling links is no more unethical than shooting a gun. The issue is what you are pointing the weapon at.

If you are trying to deceive people, then link selling is unethical. If you are trying to attract the largest market of qualified buyers, then link selling is ethical.

Google only changes its methods when a particular technique is dominated by unethical practices. Regretably every change affects some ethical users, but its just one of those things in life that good people have to deal with.

A suggestion is all is to stop being so judgemental . . . there's nothing in the bible about link selling. In general, in a free economy, each individual should look after his own best interest . . . but remember, collapsing a good system by weight of poor practices is in non ones interest.

[Sheezwack]

I was wondering....

Is selling 'Advertising' space on your website (where a business can display a logo which links to their site for example) any different to selling/buying links?

Essentially the person buying the advertising space off you is buying a link from your site. Does google treat it differently?

I'm assuming it's more the pages of link farms that they are worried about and will detect, but is it really any different?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by bruceclay

I am generally lurking and not posting, but I seem to have missed what I think is an important distinction in the consideration of ethics.

My take on ethics includes the "do no harm" commonly accepted "rule" as applied to most ethical debates. I do not believe that buying links is evil or unethical, nor do I believe that it is my responsibility to help any search engine detect what they do not have the ability to detect themselves. But if their stated objective is to detect and punish those that deceive them into granting ranking that is not based upon relevancy and I tell my clients that (even though I know they will eventually get caught and punished) that this act is okay, then I believe I would have harmed that client and it is thus unethical for me to do that.

It is totally ethical to intentionally do it to yourself if you knowingly accept the risk with full disclosure. It is unethical to do it to someone else that does not know better.

It is always unwise to tug on Superman's cape.

Back to lurking...

Thank you! Excellent point. It is unethical to buy links for my client without disclosing the risk we are taking when doing so.

[bj]

Cranky and Tubby you are completely correct. Google messed it all up. They should sort the mess out. But really, they provided a pretty simple solution to improve the quality of the search results using the nofollow tag. How else are they going to determine if a link is paid for or not?

By fixing their own broken algorithm, and not expecting people to jump through hoops so they don't have to. It is not "a pretty simple solution", it is an irresponsible solution, since it puts the onus where it doesn't belong.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by bruceclay

It is totally ethical to intentionally do it to yourself if you knowingly accept the risk with full disclosure. It is unethical to do it to someone else that does not know better.

Welcome Bruce. Thanx for "unlurking".

Excellent point. This is really the only place where I'll consider bringing "ethics" discussion as an issue. Not disclosing to a client the risks associated with practices that are/will be employed on their behalf is indeed unethical as far as I'm concerned. Apprising them of precisely what the risks involved are and could be and allowing them to make their own decision is not.

Originally Posted by bruceclay

Back to lurking...

Pop in any time!

Dave

[jackit_chick]

BruceClay?! BruceClay as in bruceclay.com - Internet Marketing: Search Engine Optimization, PPC, Analytics, Design, Email, Branding Services and Tools!

I totally respect you for your tools man. SERIOUSLY if no one has checked out his side you gotta check it out. AWESOME!

If you are in fact this BruceClay, can I have your autograph?

*is not worthy* /bow



P.S. If you are not this BruceClay and I have just made a fool of myself, and perhaps embarrassed you, then just go back to your lurking and how dare you get my hopes up! just playin, still nice to have you