Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Am I threatening anybody? I assume that you mean Google is threatening?

Let me rephrase it John...

You own a business. Your business model is not working the way you want it to. Do you...

A) Fix what's not working the way you want it to yourself. Why? Why not?
B) "Require" millions of other people to fix what's not working the way you want it to for you. Why? Why not?

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by 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

This is a logical conclusion.

Don't get me wrong; I do agree that Google has the right to run their business this way if they choose. I am simply aware of the irony of the situation.

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?

Originally Posted by crankydave

Hehehehe... Thanx MJ.

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

Dave

Well, perhaps I am not as smart as I think I am.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

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..

Also good points.

Originally Posted by kgun

Now I do not follow your argument,

My argument (and I don't mean to be contentious) is that Google created PageRank and then published it so that webmasters could see it on a toolbar; this lead to the trading of text links (both reciprocal and paid) to boost PR and raise SERP positions. Google came to feel that it muddied their organic results, and well you know the rest. An easy way to eradicate the problem would be to stop letting us know what the PR is on any given page. I can't sell you my PR if I can't show you I have it.

Originally Posted by kgun

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

Now, that's way off topic, but hey, I don't want to be a ! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too, Kgun, and to All, Whatever You Celebrate, May it be Joyous!

Cheers, MJ

[crankydave]

Is it the buying and selling of links that is a "problem" or is PR, the core of Google search technology, obsolete?

6.1 Manipulation by Commercial Interests

These types of personalized Pageranks are virtually immune to manipulation by commercial interests. For a page to get a high PageRank, it must convince an important page, or a lot of non-important pages to link to it. At, worst, you can have manipulation in the form of buying advertisements(links) on important sites. But this seems well under control since it costs money. This immunity to manipulation is an extremely important property.

PDF

Clearly, this premise for why PR is so "good" is not accurate. It wasn't "immune" then and most certainly isn't "immune" now.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, perhaps I am not as smart as I think I am.

Or perhaps you realize that trying "influence" the very people who are causing your business model not to work the way you want, to stop, AFTER having told them you cannot do it yourself, won't work.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Is it the buying and selling of links that is a "problem" or is PR, the core of Google search technology, obsolete?



PDF

Clearly, this premise for why PR is so "good" is not accurate. It wasn't "immune" then and most certainly isn't "immune" now.

Dave

Well, I will not go so far as to agree that PageRank obsolete. I do maintain that the problem was sharing it with the public, and you may be right because there may be no recovery from the current situation.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Or perhaps you realize that "influencing" the very people who are intent on causing your business model not to work the way you want to AFTER having told them you cannot do it yourself, won't work.

Dave

So it would seem.

However, throwing out PR now, would be like the proverbial baby and bath water. I believe it remains a viable method of returning good results ... and will have to do until personalization is more entrenched. Once Google can convince surfers to rate sites the way Netflix users rate movies, I think they may be able to move away from PR. And aren't they moving in the direction of factoring in social bookmarking now? There is a way to vote for a page on the Google toolbar, but I doubt many outside the industry ever use it.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

And aren't they moving in the direction of factoring in social bookmarking now? There is a way to vote for a page on the Google toolbar, but I doubt many outside the industry ever use it.

So the next metric is LobbyRank

[Peter (IMC)]

Glad to see that so many feel my point of view is wrong. Always good for a good discussion.

In my opinion, you can not say that they are selling the number 1 spot. Even if studies proof that many people have no idea that some results are paid for. The fact is that they are marked as sponsored links. They are not selling positions in the organic results. You can twist it any way you like it but the fact remains that they are marked as sponsored links. And if you tell somebody that didn't know, they do not get upset. They really don't care.

That Google is doing "research to make that area even more clickable by playing with colors" that is pretty normal. We try to make our website also as effective as possible. That's not a bad thing at all. That´s normal business.

Their search results are not affected by paid links in any way. The presentation of their search results include paid links, but you can not possibly compare those links with the paid links in other websites. Most paid links are far from related, often site wide, they´re sneaked away in parts of the page where people aren't really interested in, not marked as sponsored links, they pass Pagerank, etc. etc. etc. Google's paid links are right in your face, extremely related, marked as sponsored links and they do not pass Pagerank.

They´re not the same thing!!!

If you do paid links the way they do them, you don't get penalized at all.

But the fact is of course, that most link sellers want to do their paid links in such a way that they do pass Pagerank, because that drives the price up. We could just admit that..

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

There is a way to vote for a page on the Google toolbar, but I doubt many outside the industry ever use it.

Very important point. How many "random surfers" know what PR is let alone "cast a vote" for it?

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Quote:
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?

I was not kidding.

[kgun]

I have the following link on my site.

<a href="http:// www dot example dot com">Outbound link to Example.com</a>

Who owns that link?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

In my opinion, you can not say that they are selling the number 1 spot. Even if studies proof that many people have no idea that some results are paid for. The fact is that they are marked as sponsored links. They are not selling positions in the organic results. You can twist it any way you like it but the fact remains that they are marked as sponsored links. And if you tell somebody that didn't know, they do not get upset. They really don't care.

bah... Organic, Schmorganic

Remove all the paid links from the top of the SERP's and more "organic" links on that page get followed or more often. This would be fact not assumption. Those paid links directly affect the the results presented to the searcher and where they surf.

Okay Peter...

How many paid links on the top of the page that a random surfer sees first and has to scroll past, before they get to your "organic" listing don't you have a problem with?

Right now it's up to 3. How about 5? How about 10? How about 20? How about 50?

Put a hard number on it Peter.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Very important point. How many "random surfers" know what PR is let alone "cast a vote" for it?

Dave

1. How many random surfers know that Google is a Search engine?
2. How many random surfers know what AdWords is?
3. How many random surfers know that Google is a large advertising and media company?
4. What does a random surfer need to know if (s)he find what (s)he is looking for on the SERP or on the Adwords ad's?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

How many paid links on the top of the page that a random surfer sees first and has to scroll past, before they get to your "organic" listing don't you have a problem with?

Right now it's up to 3. How about 5? How about 10? How about 20? How about 50?

Put a hard number on it Peter.

Dave

If Google is a profit maximizing company that I assume that they are, I learned in Ecomics that they should use the combination of inputs (number of sponsored links on the top) that maximizes profit.

Telling something else is fairly tales to an economist.

1. Etical products.
2. Green products.

There is nothing new. The only effect is to put extra constraint's on the maximization problem so that:

the constrained maximum is <= the unconstrained maximum.

If you are searching for the highest mountain top on the earth measured from sea level, you find Mount Everest. If you constrain your searh to Europe, you find Mont Blanc.

[crankydave]

You too kgun...

Put a hard number on it.

You and Peter aren't going to tell me if doesn't make a difference are you?

As a matter of fact, how about everybody join in.

Everybody come up with a hard number of paid links placed at the the top of Google's SERP's that would bother you when it comes to your precious "organic" listing.

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

There is one simple way to proof that Google isn't as greedy as some might think. Check out these pages: Google Google Google etc. etc. etc. etc.

Those pages are worth probably like $ 500.000.000 per year if they'd allow banners and all. But they´re not using them at all. Why is that? Because Larry and Sergey care more about the quality of their service than they care about money. The reason for that is simple: It guarantees the continuance of Google.

But that doesn't mean they are a non-profit organization. Somebody's got to pay for the services they provide. The way they do it is the right way. (obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be as big as they are.) And of course they also live very good of the money they made. Who wouldn't,..

Just like any company, they need to find a balance between what's best for their clients and what's best for them selves. I guess 3 links is the correct number for Google. Otherwise they would have put less or more. Did you know that only high quality ads are placed at the top? You don't get there just like that. Why else do you sometimes see ads only on the right? If they'd really sold the number 1 spot, all SERP's would put the sponsored links at the top.

You could even argue that the adwords links are increasing the quality of the SERP's. It saves them from 1 very important problem. How to deliver quality results when people are searching for a product or service?

[kgun]

For me personally

1. I have made a reservation in the Norwegian Do Not Call data base. My son told it is worse over there. Pre recorded messages that may be interrupted by a seller that sit and listen.
2. I have made a reservation against unadressed ad in my post box.

On the other hand I have heard of those that find this ad exiting, especially that in the post box.

Personally I would prefer SERP's without ad, but I have found hits on the SERP's especially finacial related hits where the AdWords ad's is much better than the free one.

I have noted without studying it in detail that the sponsored link on the top is often very relevant and sometimes the same as the first free. (Is it an improvement to filter out the free one if it is identical to the sponsored hit? I personally do not bother.)

No back to a very good example IMO.

Click on the second link in my signature. Do you see the Value Line Banner (easy to identify) on the top. In my view may be one of the best links on the whole site. It may even save you much money if you use the Value Line investment tool. How many do you think know of that tool? How many in USA know of it?

Who shall tell me that I shall delete that banner (link)?

Now, I soon have to leave and do not know when I will be back.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Just like any company, they need to find a balance between what's best for their clients and what's best for them selves. I guess 3 links is the correct number for Google. Otherwise they would have put less or more. Did you know that only high quality ads are placed at the top? You don't get there just like that. Why else do you sometimes see ads only on the right? If they'd really sold the number 1 spot, all SERP's would put the sponsored links at the top.

You could even argue that the adwords links are increasing the quality of the SERP's. It saves them from 1 very important problem. How to deliver quality results when people are searching for a product or service?

I see. So now you're saying that the paid links Google places at the top of the page do affect the SERP's.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You too kgun...

Put a hard number on it.

You and Peter aren't going to tell me if doesn't make a difference are you?

As a matter of fact, how about everybody join in.

Everybody come up with a hard number of paid links placed at the the top of Google's SERP's that would bother you when it comes to your precious "organic" listing.

Dave

I agree with you, Dave, the top spot on the page is being sold. Yes, it is clearly marked "sponsored" *and* it is still the top spot on the page. Whether or not people know or don't (and most don't) it is still the first site a searcher sees. And from running PPC campaigns for sites with a number #1 organic position, I know the ad was often clicked instead of the organic listing.

As I recall, when Google started Adwords, they only ran down the right side. Now that was clearly a different sort of 'result' than when they started putting sponsored listings at the top.

I don't take issue with 2-3 sponsored results on top, but it does muddy the results, especially for those who don't understand that those are ads ... and even for those who do .. because if you see something that seems to fit your search you tend to click on it.

And while I don't take issue with it, as an SEO I would prefer organic listings be clearly separate.

MJ

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Those pages are worth probably like $ 500.000.000 per year if they'd allow banners and all. But they´re not using them at all. Why is that? Because Larry and Sergey care more about the quality of their service than they care about money. The reason for that is simple: It guarantees the continuance of Google.

I have heard another story. That minimalism is profitable.

One tiny argument, if the first position on the SERP is identical to one of the sponsored ad links above it, there is increased possibility that this is a good link, since the company has the ability to pay for that position.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I see. So now you're saying that the paid links Google places at the top of the page do affect the SERP's.

Dave

Now you´re just being cranky Dave,.. Just looking for things to not agree with... I think that's a very well developed strategy in politics too... Don't try to proof you´re right, just try to find small contradictions in what the other says to reduce their credibility. You'd really think that that increases your own credibility? How many people actually believe politicians?

I didn't say before that the adwords links don't affect the SERP's.... But yes, I do think that adwords ads do ad something to the SERP's. Why that is a bad thing I don't understand. Perhaps because people that don't use adwords feel its not fair because they got high positions in the organic results after a lot of hard work, and then see those cheap ads taking "their" clicks away from them.

But then again, its not about what's best for you. It's about what's best for the searchers. And obviously, the ads add something good to the SERP's as most people don't even realize they are ads. (do you realize how well Adwords must be working if people don't realize they´re clicking on ads, that are clearly marked as sponsored links? Maybe you think people are stupid and don't know any better, but anybody that thinks that is wrong. If you´re doing something wrong to a large group of people, you'll know really fast. They'll leave you in an instance if you´re not able to meet their expectations.)

By the way, this whole idea of Google selling the number one spot is just an example of that same strategy that is so popular in politics. Just a way to discredit Google's disicion to do something about the negative influence paid PR passing links have on their results.

[chrisJumbo]

As this relates to using another metric in leiu of links, anytime you have a metric that is partially dependent on others "good" blessing, people will find a way to game it.

However, I'm really curious how much it costs to "buy" your way to the top with "undisclosed" paid links. I know how much it can cost in Adwords. I mean really, how many links would you have to buy to make an actual dent in your rankings. Does a site with a PR8 pass so much more juice to the 20 links they have on that page than a quality site that has 100 PR2/3 backlinks?

So I suppose with the question above, I may just show my ignorance, but, as we learned in kindergarten, no question is a dumb one, but the one not asked. :O)

Naturally, the people selling the links want you to believe it affects things a great deal, but I wonder.

Peter, you made a comment about how Google is different because they properly label their links, even though studies show, most people still don't know the difference. So maybe Google should spend as much time and money getting the word out and educating people about paid Adword links. I would say that those same people would have no clue regardless of how you labeled links on your page. Also, Google hasn't asked you to "properly" label your links for the visitors only for them. That is kind of odd isn't it.

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by kgun

Click on the second link in my signature. Do you see the Value Line Banner (easy to identify) on the top. In my view may be one of the best links on the whole site. It may even save you much money if you use the Value Line investment tool. How many do you think know of that tool? How many in USA know of it?

Who shall tell me that I shall delete that banner (link)?

I went to the 2nd link in your signature and didn't see what you were talking about. Are you referring to the links tied in with the google search bar? The links at the top. I'm still on 800X600 Res so maybe something isn't visible to me.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Now you´re just being cranky Dave,.. Just looking for things to not agree with... I think that's a very well developed strategy in politics too... Don't try to proof you´re right, just try to find small contradictions in what the other says to reduce their credibility. You'd really think that that increases your own credibility? How many people actually believe politicians?

I didn't say before that the adwords links don't affect the SERP's.... But yes, I do think that adwords ads do ad something to the SERP's. Why that is a bad thing I don't understand. Perhaps because people that don't use adwords feel its not fair because they got high positions in the organic results after a lot of hard work, and then see those cheap ads taking "their" clicks away from them.

But then again, its not about what's best for you. It's about what's best for the searchers. And obviously, the ads add something good to the SERP's as most people don't even realize they are ads. (do you realize how well Adwords must be working if people don't realize they´re clicking on ads, that are clearly marked as sponsored links? Maybe you think people are stupid and don't know any better, but anybody that thinks that is wrong. If you´re doing something wrong to a large group of people, you'll know really fast. They'll leave you in an instance if you´re not able to meet their expectations.)

By the way, this whole idea of Google selling the number one spot is just an example of that same strategy that is so popular in politics. Just a way to discredit Google's disicion to do something about the negative influence paid PR passing links have on their results.

Now Peter, you know by now that when I'm "cranky" there's no question that I am. I'm not even close. Also, you might want to do a bit of reading and research about the Socratic Method before you start "assuming" what one is trying to do and the means by which they are trying to do it.

And yes, thank you for pointing out that you didn't directly say adwords didn't affect the SERP's. My mistake.

Additionally, Google is not "requesting" that links simply not pass PR, they are "requesting" that those links pass nothing. I know you realize a link passes more that PR. Additionally, their "request" requires that someone do so by preventing ALL SE's from being able to follow a link at all.

Tell you what Peter, when Google supports the rel="noPR" attribute then we'll both know what it is they're trying to stop. But you and I both know that's not the case now don't we?

As far as your claim of people trying to "discredit" Google goes, they did that themselves when they indicated their business model won't work they want it to without the very people causing the problem to "fix" it for them.

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

Peter, you made a comment about how Google is different because they properly label their links, even though studies show, most people still don't know the difference. So maybe Google should spend as much time and money getting the word out and educating people about paid Adword links. I would say that those same people would have no clue regardless of how you labeled links on your page. Also, Google hasn't asked you to "properly" label your links for the visitors only for them. That is kind of odd isn't it.

One can always find things that are odd.

I don't think Google is so different. The other search engines also label their ads and come by the way, also support the nofollow atribute.

Is it really unethical of Google to punish sites that do paid links that can pass PR? It's not like they are secretly doing this. They have made it really clear that they don't like it and have given enough time to do something about it. Also you can take all the paid links out or make them not able to pass PR and let Google know and they restore your PR passing abilities and the Toolbar PR as well (in the next update).

I don't see the issue. You put paid links, you know you take a risk. Actually not such a big risk anymore. You can be pretty sure you get cought.

You drive down the highway, faster than allowed. You know you take a risk. When you get the fine, do you really believe that it is unethical of the police that they fine you? I mean, they speed too in the line of duty.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

One can always find things that are odd.

I don't think Google is so different. The other search engines also label their ads and come by the way, also support the nofollow atribute.

Is it really unethical of Google to punish sites that do paid links that can pass PR? It's not like they are secretly doing this. They have made it really clear that they don't like it and have given enough time to do something about it. Also you can take all the paid links out or make them not able to pass PR and let Google know and they restore your PR passing abilities and the Toolbar PR as well (in the next update).

I don't see the issue. You put paid links, you know you take a risk. Actually not such a big risk anymore. You can be pretty sure you get cought.

You drive down the highway, faster than allowed. You know you take a risk. When you get the fine, do you really believe that it is unethical of the police that they fine you? I mean, they speed too in the line of duty.

To the best of my recollection, no other SE has PR. Don't you think it's kinda "odd" they'd support something they don't use? I really wish folks would stop saying this because it's quite misleading. The other SE's support "nofollow" for spam, not passing PR.

Who passes PR Peter? Not me. It's not mine. If it were mine, I kinda think I'd have it all and noone else would have any.

Also as a point of clarification, all Google has said was affected was the TBPR and nothing else. They threatened other things but the've been very careful to say TBPR. Important distinction.

You really didn't compare Google's paid link thingy to the speed limit did you?

Dave

[chrisJumbo]

I don't think Google is being unethical and I never said they were. My understanding of the original intent of "nofollow" was to tell a SE (as far as your site is concerned) that they don't need to venture down that link and possibly index the page. And you may have all sorts of reasons for that. Frankly, showing my ignorance some more, but at least I'm honest, I hadn't even heard of the nofollow tag until all this stuff came up RE: Paid links. [and I read a lot on these forums - added]

Now, If a friend wants his page indexed and he comes to me and says, "Hey can you help me out, I need to be indexed?" He/she even has a real nice site. Nicer than mine. Great info, yada, yada, yada. I want him/her to be indexed. They recognize some of my time is involved and say here is a $25 starbucks gift card. I put the link on my site, I like the site, I want it to be indexed, so I don't want to put the nofollow tag. My intent is not to pass on any PR juice or even necessarily human traffic. My intent is to help them get indexed. Should I be penlized for that link or ask for two starbucks cards because I need to put this huge disclaimer on the link? Note: I haven't done this, but it sounded like a nice scenario. Or this scenario different because I actually spent time review the site. If that is the case we have to go another whole different direction with the conversation. How can any SE determine my intent?

Still curious about the real effect buying links can have? And in case you are wondering, I don't have the kind of money I suspect it would take, so I'm not looking to go out and do it. I enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling from the results I get from my own time and weak efforts at SEO. I just wonder if all if this is really moot. Will my pitiful attempts rank me higher than someone who goes out and buys a couple of links from PR8 sites?

[chrisJumbo]

Peter,

Speed limits are laws that are set in place by Gov'ts. I don't blame Police for giving me tickets when I break the law, actually I thank them.

Adding or not adding the nofollow tag is not breaking any laws, yet. :O)

Google has given warning and we should thank them for doing so. However, assuming I undestood the nofollow tag correctly they have taken something intended for another use and are now changing its use. Do they expect all other SEs to change their algs to fit their problem?

[chrisJumbo]

Dave,

It seems like 3 is the consensus # for paid links above the natural. Although, on an 800X600 screen with the furl tool bar, google tool bar, stumble tool bar, etc. that is a lot of organic searches pushed below the fold. Thank goodness I know better and scroll down.

[Peter (IMC)]

oh well,. this is not leading anywhere,. It shouldn't be such an issue that Google does something against link buying and selling for PR reasons. It's simple, if you do it, you take a risk. That´s a choise everybody should decide upon for them selves.

If Google is correct to be behaving like this doesn't really matter. They do it for the right reasons. That is what matters. That they sell ads in their SERPs has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because Google is so popular and have the guts to be so open about things is logically resulting in these kind of discussions..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Let me rephrase it John...

You own a business. Your business model is not working the way you want it to. Do you...

A) Fix what's not working the way you want it to yourself. Why? Why not?
B) "Require" millions of other people to fix what's not working the way you want it to for you. Why? Why not?

Dave

A). I will fix it myself if I have the resources, the competency and the time.
B). I will require millions of other people to fix what is not working the way I wanted it to for me, if I do not have the resources, competency and/or time.

Dave please give it up. These are the most ridiculous arguments I ever have been confronted with in my entire career. Should I back that up? OK.

Googlebot is a software. If you have a minimal idea about software engineering, you would have heard about usability testing. Usability testing could never be 100% accurate without real-users testing and therefore feedback.

Google are trying to improve the functionality and efficiency of their software, so they ask from all of us support. What is weird about that? They would never be able to have an accurate usability test results if they would rely on 5-8 users, as Google is dealing with millions of guys who are trying to hack and crack their software.

Also, the search engine is their property and they have the rights to define the requirements sites should meet to be indexed in their results. What do you pay Google for being indexed? Nothing!!! It is a free service for all. So if you want to profit from that free service, you have to play their game and not they yours. They still welcome you to join their services even if you do not meet their requirements for the organic search. AdWords.

I assume you know where I am coming from, so you might would like to check my profile: http://www.xing.com/profile/John_Britsios (you will also see there what where my positions at a search engine).

Am I clear enough now? No? Then I honestly feel very sorry for that.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

oh well,. this is not leading anywhere,.

Don't tell me that I did not warn you Peter.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

To the best of my recollection, no other SE has PR.

What is if I will tell you that PR is the most popular and effective Marketing Strategy a search engine company ever came up with? Just look around and see how many people are discussing and debating about Google and how many about Yahoo, MSN and co? Or no! Look only here on WPW?

I am not a Google fan, but I must admit that Google rules!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

A). I will fix it myself if I have the resources, the competency and the time.
B). I will require millions of other people to fix what is not working the way I wanted it to for me, if I do not have the resources, competency and/or time.

Dave please give it up. These are the most ridiculous arguments I ever have been confronted with in my entire career. Should I back that up? OK.

If you do not have the resources, compentency and/or time you don't think there's a problem with the business model?

In this particular discussion, Google is "requesting" that millions of other people fix what is not working. Based on your answer, are you suggesting Google does not have the resources, competency, and or time to do it themselves.

I'm really surpised you're having such a difficult time with this concept John.

Fact... Google does not want paid links to pass value.
Fact... Millions of people are placing paid links that pass value.
Fact... Google cannot effectively and efficiently find and devalue those paid links themselves.
Fact... Google is "requesting" that those millions of people who are placing paid links stop them from passing value or be "harmed".

What's ridiculous John, is you can't see this approach won't work.

The only people this approach is going to affect are the people who don't know about it, the people who get "tattled" on by the "paid link police", and the people who give shit.

Do you really think all the spammers and gamers are going run out and stop their paid links from passing value especially since Google has just told them they can't?

No, all the spammers and and gamers are more likely to keep doing what they're doing and make themselves even better at it since they now know Google can't. Google themselves say not all paid links are bad so all the spammers and gamers are going to get better at making their links look like "good" ones.

That's what's truly ridiculous John. All the people who really think this has a snowballs chance in hell of actually working.

Dave

[weslinda]

So Dave, should the police stop anonymous hotlines regarding crime? Same concept as you are concerned with here, which are the masses reporting on issues that are harmful to them.

I see this as Google giving everyone a warning, then they'll implement their solution to the problem. I'm sure that they have people out investigating this, and I'm sure that they either are working on, or already have a solution that will dig through links and figure out the value of each based on contextual relevancy. It's very rare that "paid links" don't stick out like a sore thumb.

I think that Google is actually pretty intelligent to also request the input of others to report sites. Why pay for the Cow if you can get the Milk for free? From a business standpoint, it's actually pretty shrewd and will save them millions in effort and time.

Google never puts it's eggs in one basket, and I'm not sure why you feel they would now. In the end, people should have been working through developing a reputation for their site in an responsible way, not simply trying to buy a reputation which, as we all know, never goes well in the long run.

And that is my final 2 Cents.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by weslinda

So Dave, should the police stop anonymous hotlines regarding crime? Same concept as you are concerned with here, which are the masses reporting on issues that are harmful to them.

I see this as Google giving everyone a warning, then they'll implement their solution to the problem. I'm sure that they have people out investigating this, and I'm sure that they either are working on, or already have a solution that will dig through links and figure out the value of each based on contextual relevancy. It's very rare that "paid links" don't stick out like a sore thumb.

I think that Google is actually pretty intelligent to also request the input of others to report sites. Why pay for the Cow if you can get the Milk for free? From a business standpoint, it's actually pretty shrewd and will save them millions in effort and time.

Google never puts it's eggs in one basket, and I'm not sure why you feel they would now. In the end, people should have been working through developing a reputation for their site in an responsible way, not simply trying to buy a reputation which, as we all know, never goes well in the long run.

And that is my final 2 Cents.

Weslinda... Please don't make the comparison between reporting someone "breaking the laws" established by duly elected or appointed government agencies with reporting paid links. Bad comparison since Google is not a duly elected or appointed government agency and paid links are not "breaking the law". Not even close to being the same concept.

You have blog don't you weslinda? Why don't you turn off the SpamKarma or whatever you use and tell all the spammers that you don't want spam and they need to stop or else you will delete their comments and ban their user names? THIS is the same concept as what Google is doing.

I'll tell you why you don't. Because it won't work. They'll not stop. They'll just get better. And if you think it's very rare that "paid links" don't stick out like a sore thumb you better guess again.

Instead, YOU adapt, YOU adjust, YOU change what YOU are doing to stop what YOU don't want. This is what is effective in the long run. You yourself build in whatever means neccessary to stop what you don't want. You don't rely on the people you want to stop to do it for you.

You don't go out and tell them you can't effectively and efficiently do it yourself they need to do it for you because this approach builds in "failure" right from the start.

Dave

[weslinda]

My example of the police and their hotlines is the exact same concept. Police can't be everywhere at all times and yes, they rely on others to help their job.

You know that your example with my blog isn't even close to what Google is doing. Your assumption is allowing people to report link buyers is the only way they are going about finding out about link sellers.

If my blog had the traffic of Google, then I would have the money to have someone write that press release to tell the spammers to stop. Unfortunately, your point isn't even close to what Google is doing. You've chosen to think that Google is only using reports from webmasters for their list of who is selling links. I'm sure you're keen enough to understand this is not the only thing Google is doing to combat this issue.

I would think that people can see why Google is doing this, to save money! They are a business, and they'll use any advantage they can to improve their product to make more money. Including using the free efforts of random web masters to report issues / concerns.

Have you been griping about them having a place to report spam web sites and other poor practices? This is simply an expansion of this. Surely you are capable of understanding this.

[weslinda]

Okay...that is really my last 2 cents on this. If you aren't smart enough to understand what they are doing, there is nothing I can say that will make it clear.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by weslinda

My example of the police and their hotlines is the exact same concept. Police can't be everywhere at all times and yes, they rely on others to help their job.

You know that your example with my blog isn't even close to what Google is doing. Your assumption is allowing people to report link buyers is the only way they are going about finding out about link sellers.

If my blog had the traffic of Google, then I would have the money to have someone write that press release to tell the spammers to stop. Unfortunately, your point isn't even close to what Google is doing. You've chosen to think that Google is only using reports from webmasters for their list of who is selling links. I'm sure you're keen enough to understand this is not the only thing Google is doing to combat this issue.

I would think that people can see why Google is doing this, to save money! They are a business, and they'll use any advantage they can to improve their product to make more money. Including using the free efforts of random web masters to report issues / concerns.

Have you been griping about them having a place to report spam web sites and other poor practices? This is simply an expansion of this. Surely you are capable of understanding this.

My suggestion would be for you to read what I post more carefully. Go back and point out every instance anywhere on the web where I mention anything about reporting paid links. I'll give you a hint... there's 1.

You are very confused on the points I made.

And if you had the money and paid someone to write a press release telling the spammers to stop you'd be wasting your money. They won't. On one of my sites I recently had a spammer dropping more than 100 spam comments an hour. Do you really think a press release requesting them not to would have any effect at all?

My point is exactly what Google is doing.

Is Google themselves stopping paid links from passing value? No.

Google themselves are not improving their product with their latest guideline. They are "requesting" other people do that for them.

And what people are they "requesting" do this? The very same people that are causing them the problems. And they just told these people they can't effectively and effieciently do it for themselves.

Dave

BTW... Another suggestion, please keep your "smart enough" cracks to yourself. There's really no need to address any member of WPW in that manner. I'll take it as being made out of frustration.

[weslinda]

Sometimes the truth just hurts Dave.

[Tubby]

Hmm.

My vote goes with Dave . . .

[Webnauts]

Hmmm.

My vote goes with Peter...

[weslinda]

Hmmm...

My vote goes to Garfield

[mjtaylor]

Votes?

I don't remember putting a poll on this thread!

But okay: my vote goes with bruceclay. (Sorry, John.)

[Feydakin]

I'm looking to purchase a few votes.. If you have a powerful lobby group, pac, or just a long list of dead people still registered to vote, please PM me so we can discuss details..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Votes?

I don't remember putting a poll on this thread!

But okay: my vote goes with bruceclay. (Sorry, John.)

Sorry? Very good choice!!!

I never met Bruce personally, but so far I can tell from his interviews and articles, he should be the only SEO professional I know, that I could tell that I would be able to communicate with at an advanced SEO professional level.

I hope he will visit the forums again.

[Feydakin]

I never met Bruce personally, but so far I can tell from his interviews and articles, he should be the only SEO professional I know, that I could tell that I would be able to communicate with at an advanced SEO professional level.

Wow - talk about offending every single person on the forums.. Nice Webnauts..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Wow - talk about offending every single person on the forums.. Nice Webnauts..

Is this a provocation for a fight in the public?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

[Peter (IMC)]

Bad comparison since Google is not a duly elected or appointed government agency

You know, once you´re "duly elected" you have 4 years. A company's popularity can be broken any time. The popularity of a company is more democratically determined than a government's.

Why don't you turn off the SpamKarma or whatever you use and tell all the spammers that you don't want spam and they need to stop or else you will delete their comments and ban their user names? THIS is the same concept as what Google is doing.

Actually, there´s nothing wrong with that. And in Google's case you can even say that it is working very well. The number of paid (PR passing) links on the internet has reduced dramatically. And more importantly, so have the prices of paid links, making paid (pr passing) link ads a lot less interesting to sell.

Google's strategy here is working so well, goverment agencies should be jealous.

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is this a provocation for a fight in the public?

Nope, just an observation of you and your thoughts of yourself vs everyone else..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Nope, just an observation of you and your thoughts of yourself vs everyone else..

I would just like to give you a friendly tip: Give it up before things get worse.

Happy holidays.