Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[Tubby]

To webnauts.
John, I am perfectly happy to recommend you as the most meticulous SEO I know. ( I think probably incrediblehelp is a bit more in touch with reality though)


But I do see you as a vigilante (self appointed) on behalf of google's guidelines. I think nobody is corrupt, unethical, or dirty, because they simply do not follow guidelines from Google that say use a 'nofollow' tag. (You publicly say they are.)

You can sit there saying you do not do this John.
I will sit here all night saying you do. .

P.S. This would make anyone who creates a website using most wygiwys editors - "dirty" (unless of course they sent the html to you to clean it up....

[Webnauts]

Tubby if we would always agree, we would not have any chance to debate here.

Even if we do not agree at some points, I still love you man.

[Kate Lennon]

Oops. Apologies: please disregard.

[Tubby]

John said
"Even if we do not agree at some points, I still love you man."

That pretty mutal John. (you still give me the shits sometimes, my sons do that as well. . I love them anyway)

[dirtydavid]

Link selling is not unethical or unwise.

As many have already said on this page, it is how google itself makes its money.

Google is very broken, in almost any logical search terms users would enter the first few results offered by google bear little relation to the original enquiry. They are almost always dominated by lists not websites.

My first entry to prove this was pet shops in bedford - the first relevant item on the list was at position number 5. I have tried using google many times myself to find things and given up to use an engine that gives better results.

PR does not matter very much, my main site has a PR of 5 sometimes 4, I get over 5000 uniques a day, of which 80 come from google (on a good day). Many sites come out above me for my search terms most with lower pr.

Google does not address the things that matter sites using your site name to gain prominence, placing your site name on a landing page 100 times so it always rates above you.

I moved away from trying to please google 3 years ago, I gave up trying to please them after spending over $1000US a month for a year for SEO's to try and get a good placement on Google. (in this time my visitor numbers went down and my PR slipped - because we got rid of most reciprocal links (I have re-instated many of them, and they are again the main source of users to my sites, people follow links) I now only ever look at my placement on G or test their results when a message like the one from webproworld yestaerday lands in my inbox.

The stated aim of Google many years ago when they launched themselves was "To do no harm", by their actions over the years they have hurt many small businesses by listing the results badly, hurt many webmasters by changing the way they need to code their pages every so often, and hurt themselves now with their poor algorithms.

Ethics and google should not be used in the same sentence.

Unwise and google are a very good match

David

[edhan]

Originally Posted by dirtydavid

Link selling is not unethical or unwise.

As many have already said on this page, it is how google itself makes its money.

David

My personal opinion that I do agree with David that link selling is not unethical or unwise from business aspect. Building a website is to make money, whether selling a product or service. Before selling links, personally I will find out who and what am I linking to. I won't want to sell a link to porn site when I am doing something else like selling educational toys.

[Webnauts]

I just invited Matt Cutts to visit this thread. I hope he will have the time to express Googles point of view.

[Aviator]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

...They have a right to try and stop it, but how does that make buying or selling the commodity they released on the open market, a matter of ethics?

I'm listening, MJ

Google created this mess and now that it's falling apart, they are trying to save it. Simple as that. But it won't work, short of their current heavy-handed intrusion into the free market, nothing is going to impinge on the market as long as Google is the only game in town and they value back links.

We have three choices. Quit using Google so much so as to help diversify the market, fall in line with their rules or buck them and suffer the consequences if caught.

Or... come up with a better, more reliable method. That's what I've done and they are going to copy.

My toolbar reports PR (I call mine 'penetration ratio') using the total number of people actually bookmarking the website. Scaled from 0-100, this metric cannot be bought or sold or influenced by any trading schemes. Your site simply must be bookmarked by others or it won't receive a high ranking. It parallels Google's PageRank very closely where link-selling/trading hasn't been involved.

Now, in case you haven't figured it out. This will be the next thing that Google 'invents'. They are going to use the information from their 'free' bookmarking service for Firefox to copy this technique and add it in with their current technology as soon as they have sucked in enough users to give them decent statistics to work with.


For more info:
Sync2It - The BookmarkSync Toolbar

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

On another thread, The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?, there was a suggestion that selling links is unethical.

In the current climate of Google's war on paid links, I certainly see that selling links is unwise, but is it unethical?

Merriam Webster defines ethics as 1: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation and 2: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values.

Google based its search technology on an evaluation of site/page popularity (PageRank or PR), and then publicized the results through its toolbar. Webmasters capitalized on that information by first trading and then buying & selling links to help affect the PR of their own sites. Google's response: don't do it. And please help us stop it.

Fine. They have a right to try and stop it, but how does that make buying or selling the commodity they released on the open market, a matter of ethics?

I'm listening, MJ

I guess that it's not the product that is to be considered unethical, but the way that it's sold. If you make your client believe that he's going to get super rankings in Google because of the links you´re selling to him, then you´re being unethical.

It's like that song:

"It aint what you do, it's the way that you do it"

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I copy here what I wrote in another thread, so no one will blame me for hijacking this thread:

Some statements of Google. Please read carefully:

Source: Why should I report paid links to Google?

Source: Link schemes

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank

Reading all the above, I do not see anything unfair from the part of Google. It is a fair and an ethical requirement to protect the webmasters from spamindexers or black hat SEOs, and the searchers from manipulated and irrelevant search results, and above all that to improve their search engine quality.

I have observe this topic for a while, and I have noticed that they hit the PageRank of the pages where bought or sold links have been found, but reading the bolded in red marked phrases, whole site can be negatively affected in terms of ranking results.

I am not a fan of anyone, except of myself but still I think Mr. Cutts wrote something which this time I fully agree with him: Selling links that pass PageRank

After reading the above, I do not think there is any space left to blame Google for anything. If you want to hide links, just do. But do it clever enough that you can pass the PR. If you do that, you must know that you are already wearing a BLACK HAT!!! You are not doing anything else than cloaking or whatever you want to call it. to manipulate the search results! I am against such dirty practices and I reported several sites already to Google. Who's next please?

JUST MY LAST FEW DOLLARS...

As to the first quoted method...

I can see a reason why someone would report it.....
If they were my competition essentially spending to get ahead of me in page rankings instead of having relevant content on their own site and selling superior product.

I would report them as fast as I go after someone who has hijacked my content.
--------

Having an fair playing field is the only ethical thing in a capatalistic game.

Andrew Carnegie fell under Anti-Trust/Monopoly laws because US Steel bought up the train lines and then used them to get unfair advantage against their competitors.

MA Bell got broke up because no one could enter the phone market, now 30 years later we have a plethora of phone companies and services!

Microsoft had one of the longest antitrust lawsuits because of unfair use of internal codes on it's Windows operating system after saying to all it's developers of software (including the competition) that they were using a fully open API.

Companies are regulated all the time in specific industries against doing certain practices.

Would it be ethical to dump PCBs in the hudson river just because your factory was there and let the government clean it up? Oh wait that's what GE did and got slammed after 30 years.

For all of you who play the internet like the wild west, just understand that even that got tamed.

Is it unethical to buy and sell links for page rank? that's the question...

It should read "Can a large company spend lots money to get an unfair business advantage and crush smaller businesses in a sector?"

Take a look at what google them self does with ebay advertisng in Adwords already and you have your answer!

Darn tootin it is definately unethical... But then again so is most SEO!!!! LOL

[williemanillie]

Sure it's unethical. However, there's nothing that can be done about it other than Google knocking down the lists or page rank.

It's cheating. Simple.

[Feydakin]

Rich - each of your examples involve a company or person breaking a properly enacted law.. We are talking about a rather larger company telling you how you should run your business to make their business easier.. No "laws" being broken at all..

[puamana]

I think it really depends on what business you are in or focused on. If all your revenues come from paid links, and linking is your business, then how can paid links be unethical? They are certainly not unethical for Google. (See Rentalo, VRBO and others.)

On the other hand, if your website is an adjunct to your business, and you get your income from the services it advertises, and by some incredible luck, longevity (or hard work!) you've managed to gain a good pagerank on Google, you'll be inundated with emails daily asking you to exchange links with sites that are manipulating the Google pagerank results (or attempting to). I dump these requests into the recycle bin immediately, especially if they are asking for a link to several third-party sites, or even MENTION the word 'pagerank' in their request.

I provide a 'freelinks' area for people to submit links to, that allows me to review the site
and decide if it meets my qualifications for linking, and if it does, I approve it - if it doesn't, I delete it. (Basically, no gambling, phishing or adult content sites.) Just about anything else is fair game for my freelinks pages. I don't consider the freelinks pages to be 'quality' links, since they are held in a data file and displayed on the 'fly'. No return link is requested or necessary.

IF I am approached by a real siteowner for a site that has real, valuable content that I think my clients would like to visit, then I go to the trouble of adding the link to my ACTUAL links page (hard-coded), and I request a return link from the submitting site.

I've followed this policy for many years, and the result has been a good pagerank for my own site. I have no plans to charge for these links, though I probably COULD at this point... It just seems greedy to me. I've gained my pagerank status through years of ethical conduct regarding links. Why mess with a good thing?

Puamana

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I have a problem with Google if they would allow the rich and powerful to buy the #1 position of the ORGANIC (FREE) SEARCH RESULTS! If that would happen, that would not be anymore a serious business model. It would be if they would switch to paid search with bids, which would be absolutely fine with me.

And here is the crux of the issue. The SEOers view paid links as unfair. The feel like people are buying their way to the top. The Paid Linkers view SEOers as a bunch of holier-than-thou page manipulaters. Neither is right.

Google doesn't make you pay them, but they most certainly make you pay in blood, sweat, money (to others), time and/or tears.

You either follow their guidelines or you don't get ranked. You either spend your time or pay someone else to make sure your pages meet their guidelines (if you want to rank in their search engine). It is that simple.

SEO/SEM is manipulation. There are just certain techniques that Google has said are okay and others are not. It is their search engine. They can dictate their terms. They can change their terms, as well (and we all know they do). They currently don't like hidden paid links. You are free to continue your business, they are free to continue theirs.

The fact is they have to have a way of ranking sites. If 6,480,000 sites all have the term CD Rates on it, how do you suggest to the searcher which is the best. At this point, the majority of people use Google and believe they return the best answers. A big part being viewed as the best is links. Google wants those to be natural links. Trust given, because trust was earned.

I don't believe it is unethical to sell/buy links. I don't believe SEO/SEM is unethical. You do what works the best for you. I don't believe Google is unethical in their dictates. It is their search engine. If you don't like it build your own and then spend your blood, sweat, money, time, and tears getting others to believe it is better than what is already out there. It is marketing either way. Marketing is about making (manipulating) your message so that it is more attractive than others with the "same" message. It really isn't about ethics, assuming you aren't falsefying information.

If you want to toe the Google line, don't be surprised when they move it and you are on the other side.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

SEO/SEM is manipulation. There are just certain techniques that Google has said are okay and others are not.

I am an SEO and I do not attempt to manipulate search engines in anyway, and I do not care which techniques Google or other search engines like or not. All of them have to like my techniques. And I only have success. So please stop spreading such fairy tails.

[Feydakin]

Webnauts, I realize that English is not your first language so let me provide the definition for you from dictionary.com..

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ma·nip·u·la·tion /məˌnɪpyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-nip-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

Take a real close look at #3.. Manipulation in itself is not evil.. And to claim what you do is not manipulation is either a misunderstanding of what the word means, which I really think is the case for you, or you are being deceptive, which I don't think is the case..

You manipulate the pages you work on in an attempt to help them rank higher in the search engines.. Why are you so offended by that??

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Google based its search technology on an evaluation of site/page popularity (PageRank or PR), and then publicized the results through its toolbar. Webmasters capitalized on that information by first trading and then buying & selling links to help affect the PR of their own sites. Google's response: don't do it. And please help us stop it.

Fine. They have a right to try and stop it, but how does that make buying or selling the commodity they released on the open market, a matter of ethics?

Originally Posted by bruceclay

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.

Originally Posted by crankydave

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".

I posted this on my blog...

What Google does can be very simply boiled down to 3 very basic things...

1. Gather data
2. Interpret that data.
3. Provide results based upon that interpretation.

Now, when that interpretation does not meet expectations, you go back to #2 and change the means of interpretation. What you do not do is go back to #1 and "forcibly" change the data to meet the desired interpretation. The latter, automatically builds failure in right from the start and is exactly what they are doing.

I do not pass PR. Google does. They decide how much, if at all, PR passes and to whom or what.

They are more than welcome to do this in any way they wish. They are more than welcome to use PR for whatever they wish. They are more than welcome to declare PR obsolete and use an entirely different model altogether if they wish. The choice is entirely theirs.

Anyone of you reading this can "buy" the #1 spot for any given term you want provided you have a relevant page. Any term at all. You can buy it from Google. It's called adwords. Pay enough money and the #1 spot is yours.

Quite frankly, whether or not I agree or disagree with Googles stance on paid links doesn't matter. What matters is that they have decided they don't want particular links to pass "value". That's fine. Don't allow them to pass value. But that's not what they're doing. They are going to the web and saying...

"Hello web. Our machines and algorithms are not working the way we want them do. We are not going to change what we are doing so they will. Instead, you are going to change what you are doing so they will or else..."

Sorry, but I have a bit of an "issue" with this approach.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

So, what I hear, Dave, is that Google created PR and passes PR and so buying and selling links to receive benefit from PR has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a commodity that is available in the market.

I'm not saying you said that, and please correct me if I am wrong, but that's the logical conclusion I reach when I read your post.

This was my reaction to the above post:

Originally Posted by kgun

My bolding.

Then the answer to this question Re: Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise? is simple.

Follow the producers guidelines if you want to sell or buy that commodity.

1. Or is it more complicated?
2. Doesn't that commodity exist in a market with a supply schedule crossing the demand schedule, in other words a cross clearing the market?

This was crankydave's reaction to my post:

Originally Posted by crankydave

Except that what is being sold, is "advertising" and not the the producers commodity. The fact that the producer places "value" on what is being sold (advertising links) does not make it their "commodity".

Links are not their commodity.

The automatic assumption that it is their "commodity" that is being sold is presumptuous to say the least. Especially in instances where it is clearly labeled to anyone visiting the page as to exactly what it is... "advertising".

They do not want people selling their "commodity" but happily accept advertising money, big money, from people that do.

Dave

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Is it unethical to buy and sell links for page rank? that's the question...

It should read "Can a large company spend lots money to get an unfair business advantage and crush smaller businesses in a sector?"

Take a look at what google them self does with ebay advertisng in Adwords already and you have your answer!

Darn tootin it is definately unethical... But then again so is most SEO!!!! LOL

All of the above cites are important, but I will draw your attention to the bolded and red text.

May be that is the reason why this tread:

The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?

is more relevant.

Questions

1. Can Google change their algorithmes as they want, especially if they mean that the new algorithmes are better than the old, even if it implies that webmasters have to put an attribute on some links? There is no obligation to do so, but you run a risk by not doing it if the link is identified as a paid link. See point 3. below for further explanation.
2. Does Google decide the position of hits on the SERP's? Are Google free to decide how they will directly handle links they identify as paid, that are reflected fully or partly in a "paid" (note the quotes) position on the SERP's?
3. Imagine link A (paid) and link B (free). There is no other difference. How shall Google be able to differentiate between the 2 if it is not done by the webmaster? Can a site that is consistent on putting nofollow on paid and ad links increase credibility in the Google index / reigster?
4. Who decides how pagerank is passed to a page / site?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Webnauts, I realize that English is not your first language so let me provide the definition for you from dictionary.com..

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ma·nip·u·la·tion /məˌnɪpyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-nip-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

Take a real close look at #3.. Manipulation in itself is not evil.. And to claim what you do is not manipulation is either a misunderstanding of what the word means, which I really think is the case for you, or you are being deceptive, which I don't think is the case..

You manipulate the pages you work on in an attempt to help them rank higher in the search engines.. Why are you so offended by that??

Correcting a web page's code and its logical (semantical) structure so it can be rendered and perceived efficiently by a browser, a screen reader, or any other kind of software application, has nothing to do with manipulation.

I know manipulation is not to be met that is evil.

For example:

• Writing valid HTML code is that manipulation?
• Using properly heading tags in your pages, is that manipulation?
• Using properly the alt attributes, is that manipulation?
• Using properly lists, is that manipulation?
• E.t.c.

I do not do any search engine a favor. I do not use alt attributes where they are not appropriate. I do not use strong tags where are not appropriate. E.t.c.

As an SEO my technique is: I repair the web sites content accessibility, implementing semantical tags on a logical semantical structure. For users with disabilities like for example blind? Yes! Doing that, I did every spider equally happy. And do you know why? Because spiders are blind.

I hope I will not need to go any further. If you think that is not explicit enough, let me know and I will go further.

The best example is my web site Search Engine Optimization Company - SEO Workers

Have a very close look at my code and overall practices, and tell me what do you see that I have done for search engines. I tell you in advance: NOTHING!

P.S. Have a look for example how I implement the alt attributes: Alt Attribute & Search Engine Optimization - SEO Workers
The techniques there are not written for Search Engines.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

SEO/SEM is manipulation. There are just certain techniques that Google has said are okay and others are not. It is their search engine. They can dictate their terms. They can change their terms, as well (and we all know they do). They currently don't like hidden paid links. You are free to continue your business, they are free to continue theirs.

The fact is they have to have a way of ranking sites. If 6,480,000 sites all have the term CD Rates on it, how do you suggest to the searcher which is the best. At this point, the majority of people use Google and believe they return the best answers. A big part being viewed as the best is links. Google wants those to be natural links. Trust given, because trust was earned.

I don't believe it is unethical to sell/buy links. I don't believe SEO/SEM is unethical. You do what works the best for you. I don't believe Google is unethical in their dictates. It is their search engine. If you don't like it build your own and then spend your blood, sweat, money, time, and tears getting others to believe it is better than what is already out there. It is marketing either way. Marketing is about making (manipulating) your message so that it is more attractive than others with the "same" message. It really isn't about ethics, assuming you aren't falsefying information.

If you want to toe the Google line, don't be surprised when they move it and you are on the other side.

My bolding. Great post.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am an SEO and I do not attempt to manipulate search engines in anyway, and I do not care which techniques Google or other search engines like or not. All of them have to like my techniques. And I only have success. So please stop spreading such fairy tails.

I have to repeat this:

"Marketing is a type of drama.

Traditionally advertising, ad for short, was about information. Advertising was the the language of the product, the products spoken competence if you want.

Ad can differentiate similar products like Coke and Pepsi. The first is often related with exclusivity, with successful people. Among ad people, it is accepted that the brand is more kown on the earth than the American flag. You find empty bottles in inner Mongolia, on Greenland, in Moscow, in Cartagena, in the Redwood forest, in the Goldswim Water and in the Thames. You find it on Norwegian claciers, on the Chinese Wall, at the top of the Eifell Tower and in the Leaning Tower of Pisa. There is no wonder if you find it on the moon or even on Mars. A bottle with the brand may have been forgotton in a mars vehicle by an engineer. I am sure that you find the bottle in the stomac of sharks and other animals. The brand is worth trillions and the world's best investor, Warren Buffett, likes to be related to the brand and his company has invested a lot of money in the company, that is, in the brand. How is it possible to differentiate Coke and Pepsi? Is there a magical secret formula? Isn’t both brown water with sugar and gas? Is there a difference in colour? Is there a difference in taste? Ad is the answer. If you aim at being exclusive, buy Coke. SAM'S choice is definitely not for persons like Warren Buffett.

Ad has never been objective and is very subjective in nature, in short, it is subjective sell propaganda. In that respect, ad is cunning, treachery and reduced to the least common denominator, trickery.

Humor is very important, since it reduces your ability to think critical. Very often ad appeals to your sub consciousness. Soap operas, where ad is shown in milliseconds. You do not register the message or the brand, but your subconsciousness does. Ad does not reflect reality. It reflects your dream about reality and that is quite another story. It is possible to sell nearly anything if the ad message is good enough. It is told that you can not buy luck and success. That is the exact purpose of advertising. It tells you that it is possible to buy luck and success.

When a company buys ad it buys a public. It buys the exclusive part of the population or young people. It buys you who want to be in, it buys you who want to be successful. It buys you who want to be obeserved with a coke in your hand or have a nearly filled green indicator on your internet site. You do not need to use words. The whole world can see that you are successful. You drive on the left side of the road. You are from UK and part of the Commonwealth. The rest of us other idiots drive on the right side. Now, Norwegian research, has even proved that for one reason or another it is more safe to drive on the left side. Did you say ad is information? It can be proved that the rest of the world is wrong and UK and some countries in the former British Commonwealth are correct. It may save lives if the rest of the world change their stupid practice of driving on the right side of the road.

In my left brain there is nothing right, and in the right part there is nothing left. Yes, you can sell expensive air or more precisely, smell with ad. You find some of the strongest brands in the smell industry. You may have the best product in the world. Without ad, you have no chance. Removing the Coke brand from the earth or Google’s little green indicator (unless Google wants it removed) is more difficult than tearing down the wall in Berlin. Only idiots fight Mr market. He is the worst dictator you ever meet, and he is always correct (at least in the long run). The Iron Curtain fell. Coke and Google's little green bar will (depending on Google's agenda) be there decades after this story was written in Moss, Norway 20th august 2007.

Did you say that the Queen of England buys ..."

(C) kgun WPW member and owner of RedCarpetRank.com, PurpleRank.com and OrangeRank.com.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Have a very close look at my code and overall practices, and tell me what do you see that I have done for search engines. I tell you in advance: NOTHING!

Use nofollow on anything?

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

As to the first quoted method...

I can see a reason why someone would report it.....
If they were my competition essentially spending to get ahead of me in page rankings instead of having relevant content on their own site and selling superior product.

I would report them as fast as I go after someone who has hijacked my content.
--------

Having an fair playing field is the only ethical thing in a capatalistic game.

lol

Maybe we should make a law on how many hours you're allowed to work on your site.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Questions

1. Can Google change their algorithmes as they want, especially if they mean that the new algorithmes are better than the old, even if it implies that webmasters have to put an attribute on some links? There is no obligation to do so, but you run a risk by not doing it if the link is identified as a paid link. See point 3. below for further explanation.
2. Does Google decide the position of hits on the SERP's? Are Google free to decide how they will directly handle links they identify as paid, that are reflected fully or partly in a "paid" (note the quotes) position on the SERP's?
3. Imagine link A (paid) and link B (free). There is no other difference. How shall Google be able to differentiate between the 2 if it is not done by the webmaster? Can a site that is consistent on putting nofollow on paid and ad links increase credibility in the Google index / reigster?
4. Who decides how pagerank is passed to a page / site?

Point #1...
Part of the problem is that one has to tell all SE's who support the attribute in order to be "compliant" with 1.

Point #2
Google has likely decided that the very top of the SERP's get the most hits. It's why the folks that pay them (adwords) get to be there. Which in turn, moves other links below the fold.

Point #3
If links were not weighted as Google chooses to weight them, then it really wouldn't make a difference if they could tell or not.

Point #4
Since pagerank is "owned" it can only be passed by the owner in the way they choose, if at all. Last I checked, that would be Google. Didn't they reduce the TBPR of "select" sites just recently?

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Have a very close look at my code and overall practices, and tell me what do you see that I have done for search engines. I tell you in advance: NOTHING!

Ethical SEO is charging money for SEO and doing nothing. lol

[chrisJumbo]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have been a part of. And mostly civil.

Kgun, great marketing info.

Webnauts, I'm not trying to insult anyone or spread fairytales, however....

If we lived in a perfect world than proper tags, attributes, code wouldn't be necessary or everyone would inheritantly now how to do it. But it isn't a perfect world. As soon as you have added a tag (correctly or not), you have manipulated the page. I went and checked out your site. You bold certain words that you want to draw attention to. Why do you bold those? Why not let the reader decide for themselves what is important on your page? Why, because you are trying to lead them to a conclusion that they need your services. And most people out there, I'm sure can, and I'm sure a lot have benefited. Nice glossy graphics and images, too. It is marketing. We all do it, one way or another or we won't be successful. You also say you don't do anything for Search Engines, but yet your site's title is "Search Engine Optimization Company - SEO Workers". Aren't you in fact helping people make their pages better to rank higher in SEs? If they don't make the changes you suggest, they won't rank as high. Why not call it Site Optimization or Page Optimization? Why because the term everyone is after is Search Engine Optimization not Site Optimization. And that is what you want the search engines to tell people who are searching.

If I raise an eyebrow or crack a smile, I have manipulated the moment.

Choosing the best words to get my point across is manipulating the message. It isn't negative, it isn't a fairytale, it is life. :O)

[weslinda]

Unethical? Manipulating? Lots of tough words flying around here.

I think this discussion comes down to quality / value. Lets say you do restaurant reviews, but you only do them for $$ and you charge some large amount for the review. Well, the value of that review goes down, substantially, versus an organization like Consumer Reports that is 100% independent in their reviews.

If I find out your reviews are paid for, then I don't feel they are quality reviews. Same goes for links, If I find out links on your site are paid for, then I can't possibly trust those links, I can't think of them as quality links you or your web site really believes in.

Google has simply chosen to devalue those links, and it is 100% fair of them to do so. If you choose to sell links, that is your choice, and you have to accept the consequences if your web site relies on Google for a majority of the traffic on the site.

Obviously we are all interested in achieving the best performance for our web sites, or the web sites of our clients, and each of us has to choose how we go about achieving those goals. For some of us, it means staying away from an activity like selling links. For others, it might mean believing in valid, semantically well structured code. Finally, for others, it might mean ignoring these types of concerns, perhaps even participating in what might be considered "black hat" SEO. All of us will make our choices, and all of us will make those choices based on our own concerns. Google is an important piece to my business and my clients business, therefore, I'm going to listen to their concerns on topics such as selling links.

Just my choice, does it have to be yours, of course not, and certainly no need to get outraged over ever side of this subject.

[RichAtVNS]

Actually each sample I sited did not show them breaking a properly enacted law if they were not a large company or amalgam of companies working together.

Google, SEO and Paid link services have reached a level were they have the majority control of search traffic.

That is the exact situation where through monopoly laws kick in (by definition unethical practices)

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by janeth

lol

Maybe we should make a law on how many hours you're allowed to work on your site.

I like the idea...

But how about forcing them to actually put useful information like specs of products on the site instead ...LOL

One other question, does this mean that because I sponsor someone if they give me a thank you.
Google wants a nofollow tag..... after all isn't it a paid link ...LOL

Oh what a slippery slope we go down.....

I find this all very amusing because I would never sell a link on my site, but most certainly would give links to those I work with freely.....

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Unethical? Manipulating? Lots of tough words flying around here.

I think this discussion comes down to quality / value. Lets say you do restaurant reviews, but you only do them for $$ and you charge some large amount for the review. Well, the value of that review goes down, substantially, versus an organization like Consumer Reports that is 100% independent in their reviews.

If I find out your reviews are paid for, then I don't feel they are quality reviews. Same goes for links, If I find out links on your site are paid for, then I can't possibly trust those links, I can't think of them as quality links you or your web site really believes in.

If you pay a home inspector to "review" a home for you is that "review" less credible simply because it's paid for?

Knowing a few restaurant reviewers, I'm aware that free meals etc. are not uncommon. Is that review less credible?

If I contact someone who I respect and value their opinion to "review" something for me, and compensate them for their time, effort and opinion, is their review less credible because I agreed to compensate them for this?

Is the Yahoo directory less credible because they are "paid" for "reviewing" a site?

Are the Google adwords listings at the very top of the SERP's less credible because they are paid for?

You make a very important distinction... It does come down to "quality"/"value".

Paid, free, or editorial does not automatically imply "quality"/"value" or lack thereof.

Dave

[crankydave]

One other thought weslinda...

Let's run with "restaurant review"...

A Google search returns 2 paid listings as the first 2 results on the page.

The first one redirects to a folder (subdirectory) on another site. A site that just happens to show up first below the paid listings.

Who's buying and selling what?

Dave

[weslinda]

Uhhmm...the home inspector concept is a really poor one Dave. His is the product, a review at a restaurant is a review of the skillset of the cook. If the person doing that review is getting paid, it is a less worthwhile review in my opinion.

Similar to when I see some sports star saying how great a product is, then you see the "paid for participating" text at the bottom of the screen. The credibility of their "review" is certainly lower than one where they aren't paid. If that does not make sense to you, I have no idea how to make that more clear or understandable.

The Yahoo Directory is a poor example as they don't "review" a site, and they don't "rate" the site, they simply include it, and with my past experiences with the Yahoo Directory, they don't do a great job with that as well. I think that discussing the value of the Yahoo Directory should be handled in a completely different thread.

Regarding the Google Adwords listings at the top of their results, obviously they have less value than the natural results and I believe that the click through rates at Google show that. If they held the most value, they would get clicked on more than the natural results.

I hardly ever click on the Adwords listings on Google. Mainly because 50% of the time, they are not what I'm seeking. But that's just me.

Overall, I definately rate a "paid" review or link at a discounted rate to an unpaid review or link. It's a simple one for me to see.

While I'm not a huge fan of Google, as I think they are becoming way too powerful, I think that what they are doing is fair and just. Yes they created the fact that links rate, but they are now improving to take out some of the manipulation that folks have chosen to partake in because they have money to spend. I'm not sure why people think that Google ads on their own results are issues, they aren't trying to rank in another engine, they aren't concerned with people linking to them. They are into building more links for their search engine. They are interested in raising their brand to increase income, that is it.

Everyone always gets upset when someone comes along and changes the nature of the game, and this is what is happening here. Take the shortcut by buying links versus earning them and well, the results are the consequences.

But I presume no one can see that point and no one can see why buying links is at a minimum in poor taste.

[weslinda]

I don't even understand the example you are making Dave. I can only guess that you feel the advertiser has purchased the right to first in the organic listings? A far reach don't you think?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

Google doesn't make you pay them, but they most certainly make you pay in blood, sweat, money (to others), time and/or tears.

You either follow their guidelines or you don't get ranked.[/quotes]
If you don't follow their guidelines you don't het ranked?
So you are claiming here that Google have found the web markup languages and guidelines? :lol

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

You either spend your time or pay someone else to make sure your pages meet their guidelines (if you want to rank in their search engine). It is that simple.

That is not true at all. You probably pay someone to make sure that your pages meet the W3C guidelines.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

SEO/SEM is manipulation.

SEO is not manipulation. SEM is.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

There are just certain techniques that Google has said are okay and others are not. It is their search engine. They can dictate their terms. They can change their terms, as well (and we all know they do).

Can you tell which techniques Google said that are OK and which are not? There is the point which we should begin with. Who is Google that is going to tell me how I should code my pages. Do you think I would screw a site which already meets all web standards requirements if Google would require me to do so if I want to rank or least to be in their index? NO WAY! PERIOD!

So if they ask me to do so, I promise you that I will wear my big Black Hat and show them that they are not the only one who rule in the game on the Web. And I mean that very seriously. That I am strictly an ethical SEO professional does not mean that I am not qualified in black hat SEO. Just for an example, I can implement techniques which Google would be only able to spot if they would hack my servers.

This is not a joke. Our mod and co-member Incrediblehelp can confirm that I am not kidding you.

[quote=chrisJumbo;351984]They currently don't like hidden paid links.[/url]
What do you mean with hidden paid links. Can you be more explicit?

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

You are free to continue your business, they are free to continue theirs.

That is the same obvious as my name is John.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

The fact is they have to have a way of ranking sites.

Well so far we all know, there are on-page and of page factors. I would stick to the on-page factors. Based on what does Google rank us when it comes to on-page optimization?

Maybe the appropriate implementation of markup and overall semantical tags i.e <h1>, <dfn>, etc? Then Google does not require anything that is not already obvious and natural. Meeting the W3C Markup and Web Content Accessibility guidelines. Please take a minute and have a look at this: SEO Is About Accessibility | iface thoughts

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

If 6,480,000 sites all have the term CD Rates on it, how do you suggest to the searcher which is the best.

They cannot achieve that 100%, because they are screwed up from people who buy rankings (bribery techniques), but who they are trying to eliminate. That is what the whole discussion is about here.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

At this point, the majority of people use Google and believe they return the best answers.

If the majority of people believe so, there must be a certain degree of truth, or? Otherwise Yahoo, MSN and others would have been already a threat for Google. Or do you disagree?

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

A big part being viewed as the best is links. Google wants those to be natural links. Trust given, because trust was earned.

Exactly! So do you think it is ethical to manipulate those results with bribery techniques? Ethical would be to go AdWords or so ever.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

I don't believe it is unethical to sell/buy links.

I do not believe so either, if they are purely for advertisement purposes and not offending/abusing the end searchers though negative manipulation of the search engines results quality.

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

I don't believe SEO/SEM is unethical.
You do what works the best for you. I don't believe Google is unethical in their dictates. It is their search engine. If you don't like it build your own and then spend your blood, sweat, money, time, and tears getting others to believe it is better than what is already out there. It is marketing either way. Marketing is about making (manipulating) your message so that it is more attractive than others with the "same" message. It really isn't about ethics, assuming you aren't falsefying information.

If you want to toe the Google line, don't be surprised when they move it and you are on the other side.

I fully agree except of your point: "then spend your blood, sweat, money, time, and tears getting others to believe it". You don't need to spend blood, sweat, time and tears. You only need to spend money. And that is natural if you want to be in business. Pay a professional SEO, sit back and enjoy.

Sincerely,

John S. Britsios

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Uhhmm...the home inspector concept is a really poor one Dave. His is the product, a review at a restaurant is a review of the skillset of the cook. If the person doing that review is getting paid, it is a less worthwhile review in my opinion.

You make my point. Do a bit of research.

Originally Posted by weslinda

The Yahoo Directory is a poor example as they don't "review" a site, and they don't "rate" the site, they simply include it, and with my past experiences with the Yahoo Directory, they don't do a great job with that as well. I think that discussing the value of the Yahoo Directory should be handled in a completely different thread.

Except that Google has said that they are "quality" listings and not subject to their latest published guidelines.

Originally Posted by weslinda

Regarding the Google Adwords listings at the top of their results, obviously they have less value than the natural results and I believe that the click through rates at Google show that. If they held the most value, they would get clicked on more than the natural results.

You might want to do a bit of research on this as well. See if you can find how many "random surfers" don't actually realize the very first results presented to them are paid for.

I'm also a bit surprised that you don't have a problem with the very first result presented to a random surfer, a paid result, for the phrase you yourself suggested, and I followed up on, redirects to another site.

Originally Posted by weslinda

But I presume no one can see that point and no one can see why buying links is at a minimum in poor taste.

I don't have to presume, but can see that the approach being taken by Google when it comes to paid links won't work. Anytime you have to rely on a "whole bunch" of people to do your job for you, you invite failure from the start.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Use nofollow on anything?

Dave

OK Dave. To be honest I was using nofollow on my site links:

• Feedburner subscription;
• SEO Workers Toolbar (residing on an external site);
• RSS Feed;
• SEO Book Affiliate link;
• Search Engine College Affiliate Link;
• Social Bookmarking Links;
• Some external links I did not really wanted to pass PR;
• Markup Validation Links.

That was a temporally quick and dirty work, as myself and my team did not have the time to fix all that.

Since you mentioned that, I decided to get all that stuff fixed.
I fixed them all (except of the social bookmarking and markup validation links) without using the "nofollow" attribute, I do not pass PR!!! And search engines will never be able to follow them, even if they would like to.

I will also fix the social bookmarking links too, hopefully within the next 72 hours.

Anything else my teacher?

[weslinda]

CrankyDave...at this point, I don't even understand what you're saying, and I'm unsure you know what you're saying. I personally think you're simply looking for something to fight about.

Regarding reviews, if you think paying someone for a positive review or a link from their site to your site is the same as someone inspecting a home, we'll never be on the same page. Regarding the "phrase" I suggested, are you speaking of "restaurant reviews"? If so, your statement of the ad redirecting to another site is untrue, at least with the results I'm looking at.

Regarding Yahoo's Directory, they aren't randomly placing "paid links" just anywhere on any site. They are placing links into appropriate categories within their directory for the web sites.

At some point, everyone who keeps getting slapped around by Google should learn how to do business in a well structured and proper way, versus trying to rely on loopholes that you find in someone's system. Google has a full right to decide how to do business, and suprisingly everyone is upset with them because it might change your income stream.

You've come out as fully against the whole Paid Link issue at Google Dave and we're glad for your opinion, I for one think you're wrong, and I think that you and I need to agree to disagree. Google isn't perfect, and none of us think they are, but I think that wiping paid links however they can figure out how to do it is not a bad idea, and one that eventually will improve their results. It's obvious that they think so or they wouldn't have decided to make this move. I'll put my money that there are a few more heads who have thought through this at Google than you have thinking on your side of the argument.

[Webnauts]

Cranky Dave,

I got rid of the "nofollow" tags for the affiliate and other links, and I still do not pass them PR.

Just FYI.

Is there anything else to be done?

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Cranky Dave,

I got rid of the "nofollow" tags for the affiliate and other links, and I still do not pass them PR.

Just FYI.

Is there anything else to be done?

You seem to spend a lot of time trying to prove you're better than everyone else..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You seem to spend a lot of time trying to prove you're better than everyone else..

I do not need to spend much time with a great team like mine. Are you probably jealous? And as a professional I want to be better than others. That is ethical marketing.

Anyway, why do you worry if I spend so much time? Would you pay the bill?

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You seem to spend a lot of time trying to prove you're better than everyone else..

He doesnt have to prove anything. Just look at the seoworkers web site lol. He's trying to help you lot to understand that there are no guidelines (apart from this nofollow issue) that Google have set to improve rankings in their search engine. We and google want to have better quality search results. If you create your web site correctly and validate it then it will do better in the search engines naturally. These guidelines were set by the W3C, not by Google. Or do you still not get it yet?? Paid links screw this all up.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by weslinda

CrankyDave...at this point, I don't even understand what you're saying, and I'm unsure you know what you're saying. I personally think you're simply looking for something to fight about.

Regarding reviews, if you think paying someone for a positive review or a link from their site to your site is the same as someone inspecting a home, we'll never be on the same page. Regarding the "phrase" I suggested, are you speaking of "restaurant reviews"? If so, your statement of the ad redirecting to another site is untrue, at least with the results I'm looking at.

Regarding Yahoo's Directory, they aren't randomly placing "paid links" just anywhere on any site. They are placing links into appropriate categories within their directory for the web sites.

At some point, everyone who keeps getting slapped around by Google should learn how to do business in a well structured and proper way, versus trying to rely on loopholes that you find in someone's system. Google has a full right to decide how to do business, and suprisingly everyone is upset with them because it might change your income stream.

You've come out as fully against the whole Paid Link issue at Google Dave and we're glad for your opinion, I for one think you're wrong, and I think that you and I need to agree to disagree. Google isn't perfect, and none of us think they are, but I think that wiping paid links however they can figure out how to do it is not a bad idea, and one that eventually will improve their results. It's obvious that they think so or they wouldn't have decided to make this move. I'll put my money that there are a few more heads who have thought through this at Google than you have thinking on your side of the argument.

Again you make my point.

Now you are qualifying what kind of links beyond simply being paid...

paying someone for a positive review

randomly placing "paid links" just anywhere on any site.

I pointed out, you made an inportant distinction. It comes down to "quality"/"value". Go back an reread the new Google guidelines and don't make any assumptions.

I'll address this comment directly...

You've come out as fully against the whole Paid Link issue at Google Dave and we're glad for your opinion...

I have said no such thing. Not once. As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly said here and elsewhere I don't have a particular issue on their stance when it comes to paid links. I have an issue in how they're choosing to combat them and why I believe it will fail.

You seem to think that sometimes"paid" = "bad" and sometimes "paid" = "good" and twist that notion to whatever suits your position.

If someone, anyone gets paid to do a review that review IS their product. That product can either be good or bad. In your case, "paying" makes it good when it suits you and bad when it suits you. In mine, I don't make the assumption that paying for something makes it good or bad. It makes it paid.

As far as your restaurant analogy, go back and reread what I posted a bit more carefully before coming out and telling me I'm wrong. Take particular note of the exact phrase I posted and don't twist it simply so you can say "you're wrong".

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Cranky Dave,

I got rid of the "nofollow" tags for the affiliate and other links, and I still do not pass them PR.

Just FYI.

Is there anything else to be done?

John... Isn't this exactly what you said you do not ever do?

Have a very close look at my code and overall practices, and tell me what do you see that I have done for search engines. I tell you in advance: NOTHING!

Not allowing links to pass PR, no matter how you do it, is strictly for an SE.

I've made it known publically and directly to you privately what I think about high level of quality you produce and insist upon. When you come out and forcibly make such unequivocal statements, I have to challenge you on them buddy.

Nobody can build a page or site and do nothing for SE's. Even a site that prevents all SE's from crawling it at all are doing something strictly because of the SE's.

Chris stated it quite appropriately IMO...

It isn't negative, it isn't a fairytale, it is life. :O)

Dave

[Tubby]

muNKy said

Paid links screw this all up.

That is a very broad brush you paint with MuNky. I could probably live with "buying links from high PR sites just for Google PR, screws this all up"

[MuNKyonline]

Thats exactly what I meant, thanks Tubby

[erikko]

this thread made me understand the pros and cons of buying links and how it greatly affects rankings

[khurramali]

there is very little difference between paid advertising, like selling banners etc. and selling links for seo.

however the fact remains that Google wants to increase the life cycle of its current algorithm product (page rank) so they are advertising the idea, that buyers and sellers of links beware.

The only problem is that Google needs to evolve with the industry, but for now, it is dictating the rules, or stretching them. They are able to do it because they are the big boys on the block.

another problem is that most website owners and designers for the most part, are still un-aware of the no-follow tags, i can safely assume that almost 75% of the website design industry is un-aware of these facts.

or even if they are aware, but they are no longer working on the clients websites because they are no-longer employed with them or do not have a maintenance contract with them.

Take my example for example, I have been designing websites and putting advertisings on them as well, but once the project is complete, I move on to the next project, I can safely assume that most developers do the same.

So who is going to pay me to change all the legacy code that does not contain the no-follow tags, certainly not google and it would be very hard to sell the idea to the company, they would just see it as another bait to get more money out of their pockets.

what do you think ?

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you tell which techniques Google said that are OK and which are not?

Sure, hidden text, paid links :O) , door-way pages for the purpose of redirecting to another site are not okay.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

What do you mean with hidden paid links. Can you be more explicit?

Google wants you to mark paid links with the nofollow tag. If you aren't using that tag and you have paid links, you are hiding them. I wasn't implying the link itself isn't visible. That would defeat the purpose of a link. :O) Google doesn't mind if you have paid links as long as you tell them. Although, they don't really seem to care if you are telling the searcher. The searcher doesn't see the "nofollow" tag afterall.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

SEO Is About Accessibility | iface thoughts

I tried to go to the link but got an error

Originally Posted by Webnauts

They cannot achieve that 100%, because they are screwed up from people who buy rankings (bribery techniques), but who they are trying to eliminate. That is what the whole discussion is about here.

And they have every right to do so. But as you pointed out, webmasters have every right to not let Google dictate how they build a website. But if everyone used the same perfect words, had the same perfect mark-up, even had the same links, how would you rank them? So, site owners make the decision to put their money in the areas that will benefit them. Again it was Google that indicated links were a big part of the ranking.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If the majority of people believe so, there must be a certain degree of truth, or? Otherwise Yahoo, MSN and others would have been already a threat for Google. Or do you disagree?

It doesn't make it "truth" in the sense whether they are truly the best or not. It only makes it "truth" in a business since that more people use their product. The others marketing efforts have not conviced people otherwise. Coke or Pepsi?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Exactly! So do you think it is ethical to manipulate those results with bribery techniques? Ethical would be to go AdWords or so ever.

I don't believe buying a link is a bribe. I believe it is a business decision. I don't believe this is about ethics. And from your argument, then Adwords itself would be unethical. Many people aren't aware of the fact that those first listings are in fact paid for. But it isn't about ethics. It is their business model, their search engine.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I do not believe so either, if they are purely for advertisement purposes and not offending/abusing the end searchers though negative manipulation of the search engines results quality.

The "end natural searches" you mean. Because Adwords is about paying for placement above natural or along side the natural results. That seems like bribery.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I fully agree except of your point: "then spend your blood, sweat, money, time, and tears getting others to believe it". You don't need to spend blood, sweat, time and tears. You only need to spend money. And that is natural if you want to be in business. Pay a professional SEO, sit back and enjoy.

As this was about building a newer, better search engine, it will probably take more than just money if the quest is to unseat the King, Google. And I think the founders of Google spent a lot of the above. So there is a challenge for you, John. Using pure "Site Optimization" and doing nothing for search engines, build us the best SE, unseat Google, and make all of our troubles go away. :O) BTW, tell us exactly how to rank #1 in your SE.

ChrisCD :O)

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by khurramali

So who is going to pay me to change all the legacy code that does not contain the no-follow tags, certainly not google and it would be very hard to sell the idea to the company, they would just see it as another bait to get more money out of their pockets.

what do you think ?

That is an angle I hadn't thought about. We all know John will help with this. :O)

I guess Google's ultimate argument could be, get it fixed or lose your traffic. Oh wait. they already said that. :O)

So the SEOer just needs to provide their client some extract from Matt Cutts and they have some work for the month.

This is sounding like a conspiracy between Google and the SEOers. Just kidding...

ChrisCD

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by khurramali

Take my example for example, I have been designing websites and putting advertisings on them as well, but once the project is complete, I move on to the next project, I can safely assume that most developers do the same.

So who is going to pay me to change all the legacy code that does not contain the no-follow tags, certainly not google and it would be very hard to sell the idea to the company, they would just see it as another bait to get more money out of their pockets.

what do you think ?

I think that you have hit on an excellent point that I think a lot of us missed.. If web design clients are anything like my architecture clients back in the late 80s/early 90s this could be a very interesting issue going forward.. The only difference between now and then is that this is a corporate move suggested by a large corporation and we had to deal with actual law when the ADA compliance issues were finally put in to effect..

We were forced to go back and tell clients that they now had to spend thousands, and in a few cases millions, of dollars because the rules had changed around them..

Of course this could be a great marketing opportunity for some developers as well.. Market yourself as being able to help bring their website's in to compliance with the official Google Commandments and get put on a retainer to keep their code up to date as Google continues to offload algorithm work on to individual website owners..

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

That is an angle I hadn't thought about. We all know John will help with this. :O)

I guess Google's ultimate argument could be, get it fixed or lose your traffic. Oh wait. they already said that. :O)

So the SEOer just needs to provide their client some extract from Matt Cutts and they have some work for the month.

This is sounding like a conspiracy between Google and the SEOers. Just kidding...

ChrisCD

For fun, let's just "suppose" and take it a hypothetical step further...

Google invents and developes "google script", changes all their ads over to it and starts following java. Now what? "Request" all ads be recoded to "google script" or all java have "nofollow" added or be "punished"?

Dave

[khurramali]

Originally Posted by crankydave

For fun, let's just "suppose" and take it a hypothetical step further...

Google invents and developes "google script", changes all their ads over to it and starts following java. Now what? "Request" all ads be recoded to "google script" or all java have "nofollow" added or be "punished"?

Dave

a dooms day synario