Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by weslinda

... the whole Paid Link issue at Google...

In reading this very long thread on the ethics or wisdom of selling links, I have examined my own opinion at some length. I do see that there are some ethics issues - bruceclay's earlier post about informing clients is a powerful point, and there are others ... but I have shifted my perspective on paid links vs. Adwords.

I have always been quick to point out that Adwords is not a related issue because when Google sells an ad, there is no PR being passed. However, (and I feel a little chagrined that I never saw it this way before), since one *can* pay Google for a listing that comes alongside or even above top ten organic listings, I can see now why it can seem a little unfair that they object to link buying that does the same thing in alongside the ads. Of course, there is a difference ... because we know that ads are bought and there is a presumption that the organic listings are based on the quality of content ... but I did want to say that I understand the frustration some feel about this.

And as CD pointed out, there are many users who do not really understand that the listings above the organic listings are paid. Yes, it says 'sponsored' but there are lots of people who don't know that. I talk to them all the time.

Great discussion, guys ... we really hit a nerve here ... and even got a famous lurker to make his first post in two years as a member!

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

In reading this very long thread on the ethics or wisdom of selling links, I have examined my own opinion at some length. I do see that there are some ethics issues - bruceclay's earlier post about informing clients is a powerful point, and there are others ... but I have shifted my perspective on paid links vs. Adwords.

I have always been quick to point out that Adwords is not a related issue because when Google sells an ad, there is no PR being passed. However, (and I feel a little chagrined that I never saw it this way before), since one *can* pay Google for a listing that comes alongside or even above top ten organic listings, I can see now why it can seem a little unfair that they object to link buying that does the same thing in alongside the ads. Of course, there is a difference ... because we know that ads are bought and there is a presumption that the organic listings are based on the quality of content ... but I did want to say that I understand the frustration some feel about this.

And as CD pointed out, there are many users who do not really understand that the listings above the organic listings are paid. Yes, it says 'sponsored' but there are lots of people who don't know that. I talk to them all the time.

Great discussion, guys ... we really hit a nerve here ... and even got a famous lurker to make his first post in two years as a member!

You´re forgetting one important factor. Google is not against link buying and selling. All they are against is paid links that pass PR. They simply ask that you do a paid link in such a way that it doesn't pass PR. You can do that by using a nofollow or more advanced by using javascript or something like that.

Somewhere down the line that little fact seems to be forgotten by many. I guess it doesn't fit with their conclusions,. Selective evidence gathering that is called.


I'm not a big fan of what Google does because in my opinion they should be able to figure out if a link is paid for without the webmaster telling them it was paid for. But that's another discussion.

[Feydakin]

It hasn't been forgotten at all.. What seems to be forgotten is that most people have never heard of the search engine guidelines and will be punished for something they are unaware of.. And again, most people are not professional web developers, so even if they are aware of the rules, their WYSIWYG editor of choice does not have the nofollow attribute as an option, so again, they will not be able to become compliant.. It's easy for professional web developers and SEOs to become compliant, not so easy from the millions of mom and pop operations out there trying to earn a living..

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with their stance if they did several things..

1. Not corrupt the spam fighting nofollow and instead using an rel="advert"
2. Move the paid links from above the natural search on Google.Com.. If I can't use paid links to push my page to the top of the serps then they should not take money to put links ABOVE the natural results..

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

2. Move the paid links from above the natural search on Google.Com.. If I can't use paid links to push my page to the top of the serps then they should not take money to put links ABOVE the natural results..

You´re forgetting it again.

You are allowed to make money of selling a couple of links in your site. But if you do that based on PR then Google doesn't like that. And probably you´re right that some people have no idea. But it generally is pretty obvious under what assumption a link was sold.

So put your links in a javascript or use the nofollow and Google won't have any problems with that.

But obviously when you sell it with PR passing, the value is much higher. So I can understand you´re upset with not being able to sell PR anymore.

Google in their SERP's don't sell PR by the way. The reason people pay them is that a lot of people use Google.

[Feydakin]

Uh Peter, I don't sell links.. I don't even buy links.. Just thought I'd point that out before you make more assumptions about why I feel the way I do..

No, they don't sell PR.. They don't have to. .They can sell you the #1 spot directly..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

You´re forgetting one important factor. Google is not against link buying and selling. All they are against is paid links that pass PR. They simply ask that you do a paid link in such a way that it doesn't pass PR. You can do that by using a nofollow or more advanced by using javascript or something like that.

Somewhere down the line that little fact seems to be forgotten by many. I guess it doesn't fit with their conclusions,. Selective evidence gathering that is called.


I'm not a big fan of what Google does because in my opinion they should be able to figure out if a link is paid for without the webmaster telling them it was paid for. But that's another discussion.

Peter if you followed the thread from the beginning, I was telling exactly what you said repeating myself again and again, but my voice was ignored, until suddenly Bruce came over and his voice was heard. Forget it man.

Bruce said its unethical if you do not warn the client about the risk of buying/selling links for boosting PR, which was nothing new or obvious. Discussing about buying and selling for boosting PR is ridiculous anyway, as I do not think anybody who is interested to be ranked in Googles organic search would take that risk, except if that Rambo would try to implement black hat techniques or something like that.

After all I regret that I have spend my very valuable time joining this discussion. I honestly learned something out of this experience. You have to be a famous in the SEO industry if you want your opinion to be accepted without any doubts or so ever.

Ladies and gentlemen I would like to apologize for taking your valuable time to read my crappy posts.

Once again, after mentioning many times again and again in this thread:

Selling or buying links for boosting PR is unethical and unwise. PERIOD!

[Feydakin]

unwise maybe, not unethical, unless you let your ethics be set by some corporate interest..

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

After all I regret that I have spend my very valuable time joining this discussion. I honestly learned something out of this experience. You have to be a famous in the SEO industry if you want your opinion to be accepted without any doubts or so ever.

I understand your frustation Webnauts. But what you just learned is in fact the exact same way the PR algorithm works and is meant to work.

(though the "without any doubts" part isn't as true as you think it is, even though it may seem to be that way.)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

I understand your frustation Webnauts.

For God sake Peter. Thanks buddy.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

But what you just learned is in fact the exact same way the PR algorithm works and is meant to work.

I am sure you are kidding, or?

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

(though the "without any doubts" part isn't as true as you think it is, even though it may seem to be that way.)

If it would have been the first time, I would be able to agree with you. Anyway... who cares after all.

[Tubby]

webnauts said
"Ladies and gentlemen I would like to apologize for taking your valuable time to read my crappy posts."

John you are funny.
If it is any compensation. I agree it would be unethical if an SEO used this practise on a customers website, without advising them. (properly)

That is about my only concession on this topic.

I suspect you only suggested you were wasting our time because you knew somebody would stand up and say. . "Your posts are never a waste of time Mate"... I am happy to do this.

[Tubby]

John . . On the other hand, If I get an email from an upholsterer that repairs classic car seats that has just finished building his website, and he asks me for a link on some early Chevrolet pages. I will tell him I only list free ads in year make model format. and his ad would not fit that format, It would cost him. (I need to cover the costs to deliver free ads that supply my traffic)

If I place a nice link to him on a couple of chevy pages... Google (and other search engines) would find this Classic car upholstery site without problems. and anyone searching the net would find him for the term classic car upholstery

I think this is a useful service, not intended to destroy search results. rather to enhance them.
two inbound links from a PR2 is all this site needs. ad to that the fact that my users will find him.
I think this paid link is perfectly ethical...... Tell me if I am wrong.

My site neds the $100 and his site needs to get listed. Thats all good - (I think)

How would google find this site for its searchers otherwise?

P.S. that is my business model. it is very effective and I have many thousands of loyal users.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

I suspect you only suggested you were wasting our time because you knew somebody would stand up and say. . "Your posts are never a waste of time Mate"... I am happy to do this.

Hey Tubby, I am very sure you and many others here know exactly what I was about. But at this point, just to make things clear, the only compliment I can take for serious, is the success of my sites and of my customers.

Now I need to go to my forums. The discussion I started there some hours ago, indicates clearly that I am not a Google fan as many claimed here.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

My site neds the $100 and his site needs to get listed. Thats all good - (I think)

How would google find this site for its searchers otherwise?

There is for sure a way to ask for $100 if a site needs to get listed, without anybody being penalized. Think about that twice. I am pretty sure you also know how.

[better]

I agree that selling links is unwise but not unethical. These kind of things are happening in many companies and they are doing the trade ina legal manner so i dont think it is unethical at all.

[Tubby]

John, where would an upholserer that specialised in early Chev cars get a good link, or possibly more important, how would early chev car restorers find his service. He could try any number of the thousands of web directories out there and simply get listed under "Automotive". These site might get 500 visitors a day, maybe a dozen visiting the automotive section. maybe one Chevy owner a week.

If a searcher is looking for 1928 Chevrolet parts, the chances are he will find one of my sites. This is where the upholsterer should be. I decide if it is useful for my users, My link should tell Google where the site is located, and should simply tell them I think it is usefull, it has my nod of approval, . Google can Still make the ultimate decision about wether site is worthwhile.. My link should tell Google I think it is worthwhile, take a look at it.
Google guidelines say. Google does not care if this site is any good, they do not want to see it anyway. put a nofollow tag on it or we will devalue your site. . This link gives my site more value to my users. . Google can go get Fu***d

John this is plain stupid. If everyone did that, no new sites would be found. They would simply bypass Google and go to specialist site. (I do not mind that) This would make any 'nofollow' link worth twice as much. because my site would be the only place to find the early chev upholsterer . Google is not that silly surely. When was the last time you saw a web directory that had a catagory for early chev parts?


we have two ends of the scale, it might be top heavy, that seems to me a silly reason to Kill off the bottom half.

[Webnauts]

Tubby did you read my post above?

There is for sure a way to ask for $100 if a site needs to get listed, without anybody being penalized. Think about that twice. I am pretty sure you also know how.

I guess I was not explicit, so I shall rephrase:

There is for sure a way to ask for $100 if a site needs to get listed, and you sure can share with that site PR without using the "nofollow" attribute, and without anybody getting penalized...

Is that more clear now?

[Tubby]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Tubby did you read my post above?

There is for sure a way to ask for $100 if a site needs to get listed, without anybody being penalized. Think about that twice. I am pretty sure you also know how.

I guess I was not explicit, so I shall rephrase:

There is for sure a way to ask for $100 if a site needs to get listed, and you sure can share with that site PR without using the "nofollow" attribute, and without anybody getting penalized...

Is that more clear now?

John, I have already been "penalised" or rather Google has adjusted my green toolbar PR. so penalisation is not one of my worries. So far it has not worried any of my advertisers, (thank goodness) and traffic is still flowing nicely..

John I did read your post, it has a vagueness about it. . . I would hate to argue in my second language.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

John, I have already been "penalised" or rather Google has adjusted my green toolbar PR. so penalisation is not one of my worries. So far it has not worried any of my advertisers, (thank goodness) and traffic is still flowing nicely..

Then you should be happy man.

Originally Posted by Tubby

John I did read your post, it has a vagueness about it.

What do you mean with vagueness?

[Tubby]

wenauts said - "What do you mean with vagueness?"


I understood the words John, but what the words meant seemed unclear, I could read them with varied end results.
I was not left with a clear understanding of what you were saying. I could take the words either way. (varied meanings)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

wenauts said - "What do you mean with vagueness?"


I understood the words John, but what the words meant seemed unclear, I could read them with varied end results.
I was not left with a clear understanding of what you were saying. I could take the words either way. (varied meanings)

Tubby I was serious. Send me a PM if you want, and I will tell you what I mean and how to.

[Tubby]

No John. my system works just just fine. I update dozens of pages daily using a very refined and fast system, (not good to look at, but effective) If I need to change the way I do things it would require lots of lead time. I certainly would not have time to ad code by hand to a hundred pages every night. (each upload wipes out the previous one)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

No John. my system works just just fine. I update dozens of pages daily using a very refined and fast system, (not good to look at, but effective) If I need to change the way I do things it would require lots of lead time. I certainly would not have time to ad code by hand to a hundred pages every night. (each upload wipes out the previous one)

You did not need all that. Anyway, since you are doing fine, its OK buddy.

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

It hasn't been forgotten at all.. What seems to be forgotten is that most people have never heard of the search engine guidelines and will be punished for something they are unaware of.. And again, most people are not professional web developers, so even if they are aware of the rules, their WYSIWYG editor of choice does not have the nofollow attribute as an option, so again, they will not be able to become compliant.. It's easy for professional web developers and SEOs to become compliant, not so easy from the millions of mom and pop operations out there trying to earn a living..

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with their stance if they did several things..

1. Not corrupt the spam fighting nofollow and instead using an rel="advert"
2. Move the paid links from above the natural search on Google.Com.. If I can't use paid links to push my page to the top of the serps then they should not take money to put links ABOVE the natural results..

LOL you are funny! You can just picture all of those helpless people that are being victimised by Google. WYSIWYG nearly always have code views too and so they can put it manually if there is no 'option'.

What guidelines are we talking about again? Only things that have been mentioned so far are:

- To not hide text
You would only hide text if you were trying to trick the search engines. There would be no benefit for their site visitors. So they wouldn't even think about doing it.

- 'Door-way' pages for redirecting to other web sites
They wouldn't even know how to make these pages and then how to redirect them to their web site.

- And now paid links need to have no-follow attribute
If they've been paying for links then they must know why they are doing it. It's just as easy for them as it is for us to find out that the SE's disapprove of this.

These are pretty logical guidelines aren't they? If a 'mom and pop' are going to make a living from a web site, don't you think it would be a good idea for them to research how to do it properly?

All these people have to do is use a free validator to check the code on their web pages so they follow the W3C guidelines. There's stand-alone validators or even plugins for Firefox that can do this.

Also you don't have to use the nofollow tag so it has not been corrupted at all. As it has already been said you can use a script to filter the paid for links so they don't pass on PR.

Other than that, you are right, it would have been better if there was a rel="advert" attribute and if Google removed the adsense from above the natural search results.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by weslinda

...and no one can see why buying links is at a minimum in poor taste.

This isn't about buying links, but selling links.

The OP doesn't ask anything in real respect of raising PR, just the selling of links for its own explicit good (if I read this correctly). This would be in the course of normal business. How can there be anything unethical about carrying on a normal busines acitivity, to wit: advertising sales? It's older than the printing press, by far.

How does it benefit me* having an ad link to your site? I'm driving traffic your way, out of my domain. Should my site be punished for doing this? There's clearly nothing unethical here.

My only salvation is the user's back button. What more punishment can I ask?

* Personal pronouns are rhetorical.

We can see where this whole thing gets muddy as soon as the converse is made to agree.

Is it ethical to buy links? Well, IS IT?

How much does GM spend on multimedia advertising in a model year? Is this unethical? Do they spend millions to achieve a point of recognition in the marketplace all on the pretext that we the consumers are being duped?

How the h--- else are we going to sell our products? By keeping quiet and letting word-of-mouth take its course?

No matter how you look at G., it's all a crap shoot. I just don't see how ethics comes into play. They unleash a given algorithm and a few people pick up on it. Like everything since time immortal, adjustments are made and the parties return to their respective corners. The punters either party or lick their wounds.

It's a free market system. Do we report everyone who misinterprets and goes off the range?

The general concensus here is that G. should have taken a different approach to dealing with paid links. It's academic at this point. The burden they put on developers is grossly unfair, especially in the light that other SEs have not gone to such overt lengths. The others must certainly be addressing the manipulation concerns. Where are their demands?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

LOL you are funny! You can just picture all of those helpless people that are being victimised by Google. WYSIWYG nearly always have code views too and so they can put it manually if there is no 'option'.

And how many of those folks use a WYSIWYG editor because they haven't a clue about coding? How many of them would really make a mess of things if they tried?

You don't have a problem with another business coming to you and saying...

"Hello Munky, the way you are running your business is affecting the way we are running ours. We are not going to change the way we run our business. You are going to have to change the way you run yours or else..."

As far as "guidelines" go, I'm trying to figure out another business that puts guidelines in place that "require by threat" to do their job for them or they will "harm you". Is this unethical or simply unwise?

Here's just one of the few questions I asked John that he's not given a direct answer to. Perhaps you will.

Munky... If your business model wasn't working they way you really wanted it to, would you "threaten" millions of people to do it for you are would you be able to do it yourself?

Dave

[MuNKyonline]

Its quite simple Dave, if you value the FREE traffic you get from their search engine, then you follow their very accomodating guidelines. If you dont want traffic from Google, then dont follow them. They really are not that bad, I dont see what the fuss is about.

[crankydave]

Just one additional point I'd like to make...

Google has come out and said that they cannot efficiently and/or effectively detect and discount paid links themselves so everybody has to do it for them.

What do you think is going to happen?

Do you really believe that people who are simply gaming the system are going to say...

"Poor Google. They can't effectively and efficiently detect and discount paid links themselves. Better hurry up and do it for them."

Or is it more likely they'll say...

"Thank you Google. Thank you for letting us know you can't do this. But since you're really watching, better be even more clever. I really appreciate you letting us know so we can get even better at it."

Noone has said they "like" spam. Nobody. But the way in which Google is going about it is simply not going to work IMO. Sure they'll get a few but they won't get what I personally believe they're after.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Its quite simple Dave, if you value the FREE traffic you get from their search engine, then you follow their very accomodating guidelines. If you dont want traffic from Google, then dont follow them. They really are not that bad, I dont see what the fuss is about.

And here I thought you'd actually answer my question.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Munky... If your business model wasn't working they way you really wanted it to, would you "threaten" millions of people to do it for you are would you be able to do it yourself?

Dave

This argument has now gone straight over my head, Google warned people about paid links years ago. This is nothing new Dave.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

This argument has now gone straight over my head, Google warned people about paid links years ago. This is nothing new Dave.

Do you not understand the question John, or just unwilling to answer it?

Dave

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

They really are not that bad, I dont see what the fuss is about.

The fuss is about the question. Is link selling (or logicially) buying unethical? Just as SEO professionals don't like people calling their business practices into question, people that buy/sell links don't either.

It could be unwise. But it is not unethical.

I'll also say that we have one affiliate link on our site. And I used the nofollow tag on it. It really wasn't a big deal to me either way. But whether I do or don't use the tag is my decision and it has nothing to do with ethics.

We've done or own SEO. We've done or own link building. We've never bought, traded, or compensated anyone for a link. But for those that do, I'm not going to call their business practices unethical.

[Feydakin]

Let me add another hypothetical to this discussion..

Right now Google says you can use JavaScript to hide the advertising links on your website.. What will you do in a year when Google decides that there is more content worth indexing and starts crawling JavaScript and tells you, oh, sorry, now that we can read JavaScript you need to go back and change your code again??

Will you still comply and convert to GoogleScript or will you complain about all of the extra work you need to go through just to remain white hat??

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

You´re forgetting one important factor. Google is not against link buying and selling. All they are against is paid links that pass PR.

Peter, I am almost always in agreement with you, but in this case, I have to say, I was not clear or you didn't really read what I said (more likely it was unclear). I haven't forgotten a thing. I just have a new point of view.

I did not say Google is against link buying and selling. I said they "object to link buying that does the same thing" ... the same thing as buying an ad from them ... in other words (to put it more clearly)Google objects to link buying to obtain PR to place a site higher in the SERPs. Same thing you said.

But there is irony in it.

And Google did create our awareness of PR and its value ... they could have kept PageRank to themselves. And they could stop reporting it now. That *would* take care of the issue. But, that's another thread.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

No, they don't sell PR.. They don't have to. .They can sell you the #1 spot directly..

Yes, that is how I have come to see it.

Originally Posted by weegillis

This isn't about buying links, but selling links.

But we did agree to discuss selling and buying on the thread.

Personally, I am still a Google fan. Their search engine is the best I've used; I love their Maps ... etc. But they ought to simply stop publicizing PageRank. End of problem. Period.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Personally, I am still a Google fan. Their search engine is the best I've used; I love their Maps ... etc. But they ought to simply stop publicizing PageRank. End of problem. Period.

Only in part. A link passes more "value" than just PR and some would argue that the effect of the anchor text is greater than that of the PR it passes.

Eliminating the display of TBPR would not allow anyone to "see" but would not stop the buying and selling of links by those intent on doing so. The "value" of those links is still there whether or not TBPR is a visible metric or not.

Any metric that has "value" will be bought and sold. The only real way to prevent it is to remove the "value" itself.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Eliminating the display of TBPR would not allow anyone to "see" but would not stop the buying and selling of links by those intent on doing so. The "value" of those links is still there whether or not TBPR is a visible metric or not.

Any metric that has "value" will be bought and sold. The only real way to prevent it is to remove the "value" itself.

Dave

Well, Google can't remove that metric, PR is what their algo is based on ...

That said, my logic is thus: if I am looking to buy a link in order to boost my PR and there is no TBPR, then how am I to determine that a given link is worth buying?

Logic tells me I might continue to buy links, but that I would do it on the metric of traffic.

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by crankydave

And here I thought you'd actually answer my question.

Dave

Sorry I thought it was rhetorical. Your question didn't really make sense anyway!

Why do people continue to use Microsoft products when they make perfectly working operating systems obsolete just because they want to bring in a new version and rake in more cash? The whole world touches their toes for Microsoft. So why not for Google?

Google want to clean up their search results, if the world wasn't so stupid to rely on them as they do, then there wouldn't be an issue would there?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Let me add another hypothetical to this discussion..

Right now Google says you can use JavaScript to hide the advertising links on your website.. What will you do in a year when Google decides that there is more content worth indexing and starts crawling JavaScript and tells you, oh, sorry, now that we can read JavaScript you need to go back and change your code again??

Will you still comply and convert to GoogleScript or will you complain about all of the extra work you need to go through just to remain white hat??

Why would Google want to index javascript?! If Google's request was reasonable then yes I would change my web site so I can keep the traffic. You'd be stupid not to really lol. Google has no obligation what so ever to keep you all happy.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Sorry I thought it was rhetorical. Your question didn't really make sense anyway!

Again, no answer. I think it's worded quite clearly.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, Google can't remove that metric, PR is what their algo is based on ...

That said, my logic is thus: if I am looking to buy a link in order to boost my PR and there is no TBPR, then how am I to determine that a given link is worth buying?

Logic tells me I might continue to buy links, but that I would do it on the metric of traffic.

Agreed. But Google isn't trying to simply stop the buying and selling of PR. They are trying to stop the buying and selling of "things" that affect their results. Their business model.

I'll pose the same question to you since noone else wants to answer it...

If your business model was not performing the way you wanted it to, would you rely on millions of other people to do it for you by "threat" or would you fix it yourself? Why?

Dave

[MuNKyonline]

Sorry Dave, I missed out - No I wouldnt make people do that. But i'm not running a free web site where people can choose whether or not they want to follow the guidelines.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Sorry Dave, I missed out - No I wouldnt make people do that.

Why?

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feydakin

No, they don't sell PR.. They don't have to. .They can sell you the #1 spot directly..

Yes, that is how I have come to see it.

This is kind of a weird logic. Sell the #1 spot directly,.. well,.. they allow you to compete for it rather than selling that specific spot to you. And this is in adwords.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Now it looks like Google wants you to spend that money for that link on them. As if the reason to be against paid links passing PR is because they want that money to go to Google.

Doesn't it make more sense that they just really want to make sure their results stay the best they can be? If Google would be so greedy there wouldn't be any Google and we would still be messing with lousy search engines like yahoo and msn.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

If your business model was not performing the way you wanted it to, would you rely on millions of other people to do it for you by "threat" or would you fix it yourself? Why?

Dave

Well, since you asked *me* ... if I could fix it myself, I would, but if I couldn't (or it was taking a long time) and I thought I had enough power to influence millions to fix it for me, I would probably try ... but the question is: would that be ethical?

[crankydave]

Peter...

Whether or not they allow sites to "compete" for it or not really doesn't matter. The fact is the up to 3 of the very first results that a searcher is delivered are paid for.

Because they are paid for, because they are the very first results a searcher sees, the results the searcher is being delivered are affected by paid links. All of the other sites below those paid links are being affected by them.

Google doesn't want "paid" links to affect what they deliver to the searcher yet they do it themselves.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, since you asked *me* ... if I could fix it myself, I would, but if I couldn't (or it was taking a long time) and I thought I had enough power to influence millions to fix it for me, I would probably try ... but the question is: would that be ethical?

Hehehehe... Thanx MJ.

If you couldn't? It's your business. Your business model.

Dave

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

This is kind of a weird logic. Sell the #1 spot directly,.. well,.. they allow you to compete for it rather than selling that specific spot to you. And this is in adwords.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Now it looks like Google wants you to spend that money for that link on them. As if the reason to be against paid links passing PR is because they want that money to go to Google.

Doesn't it make more sense that they just really want to make sure their results stay the best they can be? If Google would be so greedy there wouldn't be any Google and we would still be messing with lousy search engines like yahoo and msn.

And this is what confuses me the most about your side of the argument.. How can you NOT see what one has to do with the other?? There has been study after study done to show that as many as 70% of Google's users have no idea that those top links are paid for.. They think that they are part of the normal natural search results..

And Google goes even further by doing their own studies and research to make that area even more clickable by playing with colors..

If this was "really" about have pure search results they would not be muddying up the waters with advertising above the natural results..

I wish I could find the paper by Sergy where he discusses how bad it would be for a search engine to try to blend advertising in with natural search results.. But it was written while Google was an infant and AdWords not even a dream.. Yet now we hear from Google that it is important to blend their ads on our pages to get better click thru..

Anyway, if you don't see the problem with having paid advertising that the majority of internet surfers do not even realize is advertising, then I'm not sure where to go after that..

[Feydakin]

Ah, found it -

The Anatomy of a Search Engine
Appendix 8:

For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.

Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious.

In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

We've certainly come a long way from there haven't we??

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

But they ought to simply stop publicizing PageRank. End of problem. Period.

Now I do not follow your argument, and those that say that Google have to place their ad another place on their SERP pages.

Google is a profit maximizing company operating in the global advertising and search market.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Not in my opinion at all. You can do what you want with your website as Google can do what they want with their.

Yes, you can even put a nofollow attribute on links on your own page and Google decide how pagerank should be passded. It is their formula.

A related thread: Who said Paid Links are bad?!?! New term please!

I wish all of you that read these posts a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Do you not understand the question John, or just unwilling to answer it?

Dave

My web directory SEO Search Bot has guidelines which submitters sites SHOULD conform to if they want to get included and maintain there. Am I threatening anybody? I assume that you mean Google is threatening?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

This is kind of a weird logic.