Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

And now threats.. Wow..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

And now threats.. Wow..

I did not threat you. I just advised you to stop provoking me, because the stress situation went far out of control.
Seems like you want it to continue that, so I can only ask WPW team to settle this.

I only want my peace.

[khurramali]

the fact of the matter is that, We need Google, We need Yahoo and we certainly need MSN. And all other search engines.

our relationship with search engines is one of love and hate. Our concept that all big corporations are evil is also not correct.

Look at this situation from Google's perspective, They just want to safeguard their source of income.
What they have done is just taken away the power of link sellers to pass page rank, which is also correct.

I also agree with Cranky and Tubby that no-follow tag should have been the end of this story.

Google should have given advance warning to the industry, a time line would be helpful, yes.

[mjtaylor]

Well, we have gotten a ways off the topic here ... but after all, if a thread makes it to page 6, it probably has to go off topic ... there is only so much that can be said about the ethics of selling links.

Personally, I learned a lot and it has enlarged my point of view. I did always believe that presenting a link as though it was a 'recommendation' when it is paid had a 'deceptive' edge to it ... but I had not even thought of the issues with disclosing the risks to clients when buying or selling links.

Just hoping to steer us back to the thread topic ... oh, and I also wanted to note that a more general thread on ethics has been started in the break room.

Perhaps we have said enough here ... if others think so, we could close it ... let me know if you want me to do that ...

MJ

[Webnauts]

MJ if you ask me, the thread may close, if others agree too.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

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.

Supreme court justices are appointed for life. When it comes to laws in the US, you can't get much higher than that. Not sure what "popularity" has to do with this. Comparing Googles guidelines to "breaking the laws" that are/were put in place by duly elected or appointed government agencies is a poor comparison.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

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.

Broad assumption Peter.

Not sure how you can say it's working very well, since neither you, nor I, nor Google have a clue as to how many "paid" links there are on the web. If Google knew how many there were, there'd be no issue. That's the problem and why their approach is so flawed.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

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

I can't believe you posted this Peter. wow

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Perhaps we have said enough here ... if others think so, we could close it ... let me know if you want me to do that ...

MJ

No reason at all to close the thread MJ.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by khurramali

Google should have given advance warning to the industry, a time line would be helpful, yes.

Time line? Weren't almost 5 years enough?
Google was advising us not to buy/sell links since 2003. See a previous post of mine about this: Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

If people did not ignore them, the "nofollow" attribute would not have been needed now.

Many ignored Google's advise, so now their time came to pay the price.

[Tubby]

peter said
"making paid (pr passing) link ads a lot less interesting to sell.'

I think I am the only contributor to this thread that actively sells links, or has openly said so. I am also one who has recently lost tool bar ranking (I have not accepted a connection between the two)

From where I sit there has been a distinct upsurge in buying links. More value has been added to the market price for lower value pr, and topic specific PR.

One problem with 'reading the scene' is that many many forums publish webmaster views and opinions. Many of these posts are simply what the webmaster felts like saying today. or comments on what other people have done said, thought. Or just the latest bandwagon..

We are lucky in this forum. we do have several Honest webmaster that write original words, based on personal experience.

If you do not sell links, and presume that those that do, simply sell high value for big dollars, you could be a long long way from reality and that your opinion is totally formed from the "whats been said". An nothing to do with the reality of sold links.

WPW, has thousands of members. . . How come I can only find me that says... "yes I sell links'

A few outspoken prominent SEO members are not the majority . . Each of our voices is just one person. How many lurkers are there, that have been scared into 'SHHHHHHHH mode'. "Fear as a tactic for reform, is unethical'

"Punished" - who chose that word? the choice of the word in itself hints towards attitude of disdain .

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Tubby

peter said
"making paid (pr passing) link ads a lot less interesting to sell.'

I think I am the only contributor to this thread that actively sells links, or has openly said so. I am also one who has recently lost tool bar ranking (I have not accepted a connection between the two)

From where I sit there has been a distinct upsurge in buying links. More value has been added to the market price for lower value pr, and topic specific PR.

One problem with 'reading the scene' is that many many forums publish webmaster views and opinions. Many of these posts are simply what the webmaster felts like saying today. or comments on what other people have done said, thought. Or just the latest bandwagon..

We are lucky in this forum. we do have several Honest webmaster that write original words, based on personal experience.

If you do not sell links, and presume that those that do, simply sell high value for big dollars, you could be a long long way from reality and that your opinion is totally formed from the "whats been said". An nothing to do with the reality of sold links.

WPW, has thousands of members. . . How come I can only find me that says... "yes I sell links'

A few outspoken prominent SEO members are not the majority . . Each of our voices is just one person. How many lurkers are there, that have been scared into 'SHHHHHHHH mode'. "Fear as a tactic for reform, is unethical'

"Punished" - who chose that word? the choice of the word in itself hints towards attitude of disdain .

Well, It used to be simple. You could make hundreds to thousands of dollars per page (!) by selling links. Don't look at me, as I have never rented a single link in my life. Not because I didn't want to, but because I don't have sites that are interesting enough to sell links in. I have seen in link broker sites that the prices went down. Even before Google started zeroing the ToolBar the heat on selling links was already up and prices went down.

You´re right everything is in hiding now. Most linkbroker sites don't show any information about the links they sell anymore. It's kind of funny. But I completely disagre with your "Fear as a tactic for reform" statement. It's the link seller's choice to be afraid. If he is afraid then he acknowledges he is doing something wrong... If he believes he is doing nothing wrong, then he won't be afraid.

It's not about the selling of links, it's about the selling of PR passing links, which basically means selling PR. If you place the links in non-indexable script or use a nofollow there is nothing to be afraid of.

Why people are so upset about it I don't get either. Google always has said they don't like selling links based on PR. They never did much against it because they couldn't. Now that they can, its all the sudden the big bad Google that's not being fair?

[Feydakin]

ok, one more time..

No fear, good business decision to not be as open about your own business model of selling links..

Exploiting a weakness in someone else's business model is not evil.. Or even wrong.. They either improve their business model or fail..

Selling links for PR may not be allowed by Google.. But they have throw all sold links in to the same bucket.. People who have no idea what PR is, and have sold links based on liking a product, or thinking that their users may benefit from them have also been added to the bucket to be tossed out.. The solution to stopping links from being sold based on PR is to stop showing the PR.. Not try to get millions of people to change their websites to fit your business model..

Unless, of course, the whole goal really had little to do with PR itself and more to do with controlling the text advertising market..

[Tubby]

Peter, said
"its all the sudden the big bad Google that's not being fair?"


I am not concerned about the big bad Google. . I dislike getting emails telling me I am "cheating" I dislike other people that make a living on the net telling me. . I MUST put this tag here. or I am doing something awful. or unethical, Peter that is just total crap. you just cannot throw everyone that sells a link into the same basket..

Google has never demanded a thing from me in as far as the way I run my web site. . Me and Google get along just fine. I do not have any gripe with Google,

you said "If he is afraid then he acknowledges he is doing something wrong... If he believes he is doing nothing wrong, then he won't be afraid." While you yourself become part of the campaign to enforce that acknowledgment.

I have met God fearing people. they preach Gods words on the street corners. there are now 'Google fearing' people preaching to us. .

It is fear based Peter. Some are scared someone will get more traffic than them by buying PR. so they follow - follow follow. Without taking more than a cursury glance at what it is they a doing, what this 'follow blindly' action is moulding.. yes Blindly looking at the net with one single narrow one eyed view.

Google does not worry me. . The Zealots scare me..



Its coming up to an hour before midnight here. Santa is on his way.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Well, It used to be simple. You could make hundreds to thousands of dollars per page (!) by selling links. Don't look at me, as I have never rented a single link in my life. Not because I didn't want to, but because I don't have sites that are interesting enough to sell links in. I have seen in link broker sites that the prices went down. Even before Google started zeroing the ToolBar the heat on selling links was already up and prices went down.

You´re right everything is in hiding now. Most linkbroker sites don't show any information about the links they sell anymore. It's kind of funny. But I completely disagre with your "Fear as a tactic for reform" statement. It's the link seller's choice to be afraid. If he is afraid then he acknowledges he is doing something wrong... If he believes he is doing nothing wrong, then he won't be afraid.

It's not about the selling of links, it's about the selling of PR passing links, which basically means selling PR. If you place the links in non-indexable script or use a nofollow there is nothing to be afraid of.

Why people are so upset about it I don't get either. Google always has said they don't like selling links based on PR. They never did much against it because they couldn't. Now that they can, its all the sudden the big bad Google that's not being fair?

Some prices have went down. Others have went way up.

What links don't pass PR Peter? It's about the selling of links.

And again Peter, it's far more than just the PR a link passes. A link passes value for anchor text. It passes value for the text in the URL. You don't seriously think that all Google doesn't want passed is PR do you?

Dave

[Tubby]

A link passes value for anchor text.
It needed highlighting dave. Google results would disintigrate with this tool...

[crankydave]

Some additional thoughts and a follow up Peter...

All Google has really done is push the practice further underground. Many text link brokers were being quite blantantly obvious ond open as we are well aware.

Tubby has it precisely right. It is most certainly a "fear tactic for reform".

The question you need to ask yourself is within whom the "fear" is going to be most likely instilled...

The people selling links with the intent on gaming the system, exploiting a weakness, given that they now know Google can't do it themselves.

Or...

The "average Joe" trying to make a few extra bucks selling related advertising links to what they believe are quality sites?

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Let's look at SEO.

You put a good title on your pages in order to get higher rankings.
You use a <h1> and not what ever your editor throws up there, in order to get higher rankings.
You do not use hidden links because you don't want to lose rankings
You do not hide text in order to not lose rankings.
etc.
etc.
etc.

You do these things because you know that this works in Google. And Google is not making this is a secret either.

The nofollow isn't any different. You don't have to use it, just like you don't have to put a title on your pages.

If somebody didn't put a title you say: Well DUH,.. don't complain about Google not putting you in the first position if you didn't put titles.

If somebody was hiding text you say: Well DUH,.. don't complain about Google kicking you out of their index if you were putting hidden text on your page.

So why don't you say if somebody didn't put a nofollow on a load of paid links: Well DUH,.. don't complain about losing your Toolbar PR if you weren't using nofollows on your paid links.


And you can't blame God for people being afraid of Him. That's their own choice.

[Peter (IMC)]

By the way. "The "average Joe" trying to make a few extra bucks selling related advertising links to what they believe are quality sites?" Won't have any problem with a nofollow, so that arguement doesn't stick.

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

By the way. "The "average Joe" trying to make a few extra bucks selling related advertising links to what they believe are quality sites?" Won't have any problem with a nofollow, so that arguement doesn't stick.

Sure it does because that is the webmaster that doesn't even know that Google has these rules.. He'll just wake up one day to no search traffic and wonder how he could have not changed a single thing on his website and gone from white hat to black hat..

[Peter (IMC)]

Then he'll find out, add the nofollows and ask Google to re-evaluate, which they happily do.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

By the way. "The "average Joe" trying to make a few extra bucks selling related advertising links to what they believe are quality sites?" Won't have any problem with a nofollow, so that arguement doesn't stick.

Peter...

Who do you truly believe Google is trying to thwart? The "average Joe" selling advertising links to quality sites?

The people trying to game the system and exploit the weakness?

Which one has the most "adverse" affect on the rankings?

Which one is the "fear tactic" most likely to have an affect?

Dave

[Tubby]

Peter my last post on this topic.

Example below of an average sale of a link
(I reconstructed this from memory)

email.
Tubby. I just placed some Jaguar parts on my wife's site, she did. www.wifessite,com/jaguar parts
I am taking the old girl apart and the wife will place the pics and part numbers. can you get these part numbers into the search engines again for me.
John
.................................................. ................................

This will end up being a paid link Jaguar part no xxxxxxxx

It is a paid link that does not need a 'nofollow'

It might only be on line for 8 weeks - there are millions of these paid links. deliberately designed to point Google in the right direction. (as diverse as you could imagine)

You said "I have seen in link broker sites that the prices went down"

I have never seen a link broker site, never looked at one. But I imagine they are designed to entice people to buy and sell links. If they are anything like sites that sell classified adverts. what you see on the pages, is probably mostly crap to give buyers an "everybody is doing it" feel . it is a sales technique.

If Google finds a link that says - Jaguar part no xxxxxxxx Google has to do no more than follow it. it can decide if the page is legit . . any other method is simply stupid.

I will happily run that link for as long as their is jag parts on that page - my user will happily pay to get visitors.
not thousands of visitors - just the one or two person a week that types in the right part number

I get paid to make sure We do not miss that one search a week. It is not all one end of the scale. . blanket
rules do not work..

every SEO seems to understand how important it is to 'target specificly' until it comes to the word paid" then the blanket comes out. .

I have finished with this thread now. . I am starting to repeat myself, to people that do not have any idea of what a cross section of interet users looks like.

P.S. I sell paid links - I am certainly not afraid of Google. no google fear from this WPW member

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Let's look at SEO.

You put a good title on your pages in order to get higher rankings.
You use a <h1> and not what ever your editor throws up there, in order to get higher rankings.
You do not use hidden links because you don't want to lose rankings
You do not hide text in order to not lose rankings.
etc.
etc.
etc.

You do these things because you know that this works in Google. And Google is not making this is a secret either.

The nofollow isn't any different. You don't have to use it, just like you don't have to put a title on your pages.

If somebody didn't put a title you say: Well DUH,.. don't complain about Google not putting you in the first position if you didn't put titles.

If somebody was hiding text you say: Well DUH,.. don't complain about Google kicking you out of their index if you were putting hidden text on your page.

So why don't you say if somebody didn't put a nofollow on a load of paid links: Well DUH,.. don't complain about losing your Toolbar PR if you weren't using nofollows on your paid links.


And you can't blame God for people being afraid of Him. That's their own choice.

Peter ... AMEN!

[scot184]

Is link selling really a problem? I mean, there are a ton of sites that are ranking well for good keywords despite having sponsored link sections. It doesn't seem to have any impact on rankings, so why is it being coined "unwise"? I understand that it's wrong according to Google, but is anything actually happening to perpetrators, and if so, can anyone document it?

[mjtaylor]

Yes, scot, it's really a problem. Sites selling links have had their PR removed; this has been well documented in the last couple of months on this forum and on many SEO blogs and forums. This is a fact. (Something that can be said so rarely in this business!) Here's one thread on the topic: PageRank scores manually edited for selling links

There are quite a few others ...

The sites that are having their PR removed are not the ones that have the sponsored links sections well marked; they are the ones who do not clearly identify their ads and primarily the ones who have not adopted the no-follow tag as requested by Google.

Cheers, MJ

[Peter (IMC)]

I agree that Google shouldn't need to use a nofollow to determine the value of a link. But that's another subject, which I don't want to get into.

The fact is that they use them, and therefore if you´re selling links, just use them.

[scot184]

Wasn't that whole link selling scare reversed. I thought a lot of sites that saw a drop actually turned around days later. Regardless of pagerank, are those sites still ranking well? That's what is important.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by scot184

Wasn't that whole link selling scare reversed. I thought a lot of sites that saw a drop actually turned around days later. Regardless of pagerank, are those sites still ranking well? That's what is important.

No, the whole link selling scare was not reversed, and I did not hear of any sites that saw a drop in PR recovering their PR a few days later.

You are right, though, it is the position in SERPs and the traffic that are important, and it does seem that there was such a wide spread adjustment in PR that it affected so many sites across the board and had little affect on the SERPs of the average site.

However, the sites that lost PR due to selling links have lost their ability to sell links to pass PR and that has probably had a rather severe affect on their bottom line as well as on their SERPs.

[scot184]

Are we talking about relevant text links or sites that advertise non-related terms. For example, if a credit card site sold links promoting other credit card services, would that be penalized?

Clearly, a site selling off-topic ads is wrong, but then again that's what all the big contextual ad services offer to the major news outfits.

If you ever read a news story on a major portal or news site, you'll always see credit card ads and home equity loan ads, regardless of accompanying subject matter.

[Tubby]

scot184 asks
"Are we talking about relevant text links or sites that advertise non-related terms."

I think, If everything Matt Cutts has said, was "disappeared" the whole topic would be extinct.

I now have a policy of ignoring anything anyone says 'Matt Cutts said' It seem to me he holds the strings to millions of loyal puppets. It is quite possible he enjoys pointing people whenever the temptation to do so occurs.

I honestly think this whole 'no follow' business is totally stupid and without one shred of holistic thought, thousands of small an highly informative and scare information will simply disappear from the net if this "policy" gets away from us.

It really is a stupid solution. . to an even stupider problem.

I think Google needs an aged, wise, intelligent in the ways of the world type CEO, with an Iron fist. otherwise they will fade away. Why the hell do they have some technical guy, that seemly has permission to say this or that, with seemingly no' big picture intelligence' up his sleeve...

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by scot184

Are we talking about relevant text links or sites that advertise non-related terms. For example, if a credit card site sold links promoting other credit card services, would that be penalized?

Clearly, a site selling off-topic ads is wrong, but then again that's what all the big contextual ad services offer to the major news outfits.

If you ever read a news story on a major portal or news site, you'll always see credit card ads and home equity loan ads, regardless of accompanying subject matter.

There is nothing wrong with selling links to anything relevant or irrelevant. Google simply wants to prevent PR being passed through paid links, so if and when it can figure out that text links are being sold, Google intends to remove the PR from those pages. Google has asked that websites use the rel=nofollow on sold text links, and if a website follows that rule, then it will not lose it's PR.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

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.

No, the Value Line banner link just above the live currency rates.

[scanmonkey]

All the news sites, i.e. like the jpost, selling links still have pr and I'm sure Google knows that they are selling links. Google's not going to cut their own throat and de-index to the point where the results are garbage.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by scanmonkey

All the news sites, i.e. like the jpost, selling links still have pr and I'm sure Google knows that they are selling links. Google's not going to cut their own throat and de-index to the point where the results are garbage.

Are you sure? Maybe you would like to have a look at these news: IZEA Blogs :: Community: Matt Cutts Repsonds, Confirms Double Standards

[kgun]

Important quotes from that post:

"First, I want to say thank you for approaching me at PubCon. The line after your keynote was crazy long, so I decided to take a seat near the line and work while I waited. I was going to approach you after you were finished but to my surprise you came up to me first. It is refreshing to see how open you are despite our difference of opinion on some topics. I hope we can maintain that openness, my goal is to help define some standards everyone can be happy with as the leader in our space".


Related posts:

IZEA Blogs :: Community: An Invitation to Google, MSN, Yahoo and Ask.com

"I explained to Matt that in SocialSpark all links required by an advertiser would carry the no-follow tag. I thought this would be a great thing. Matt commended the decision, but then added ALL links inside of any sponsored post should carry the no-follow tag period, regardless of whether they are required, not required or even link to the advertiser paying for the post. That means if Nikon pays me to review a camera and I link off to a site about photography that link needs to be no-follow, along with the link to the blog of my buddy the photographer. His reasoning was that the sponsored post wouldn’t exist without the sponsor paying for it, therefore all the content is commercial and should be no-follow".

My bolding.

Google Dictating Nofollow For ALL Links From Compensated Content | Andy Beard - Niche Marketing

Especially the section starting with:

"Should I now nofollow every link in this post because it is in some way previously compensated?"

Thought: Who sets web standards?

There is a very important concept in economics Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you argue against it regarding economic efficiency, you are bound to loose. If you use it on a higher level, in welfare economics, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for welfare maximum.

So why do I mention Pareto Efficiency? Is there an analogy or association

1. Regarding link selling generally?
2. Etical link selling?

Is it possible to introduce etichs in economics generally and marketing especially using externalities?

The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?

This

PayPerPost.com :: View topic - What do advertisers think about RealRank?

related thread that is mentioned in the article you cite should also be mentioned.

"As I see it you are saying that unpaid editorial content is the only content that should be passing PR. Why? Because it is the only content that would exist on its own without payment involved. ALL other content is compensated in some way. Or is some paid content ok... so long as it isn't a sponsored post? If so why?"

Already in 2004 Macromedia, now bought by Adobe had the following markup in some of the templates that I use

<div id="advert">

Ad links here

</div>

View source in the lower right corner of the last link in my signature.

That is why software / Bots in some sense are plain stupid. That stupidity is sometimes good.

GoogleBOT is more advanced: Did you mean ....

Did you mean advertising?

Make it simple, as simple as possible, but no simpler.

I have not been consistent on using that section of the template. My error.

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Are you sure? Maybe you would like to have a look at these news: IZEA Blogs :: Community: Matt Cutts Repsonds, Confirms Double Standards

I read article but you can't argue that sites like http://www.jpost.com still have pr

[bj]

Well, geez, by that definition, any of us who make a living off our websites should be adding the nofollow to every link. Every corporate blogger should be adding the nofollow to every link. Every musician who sells his or her own mp3 files on his or her site should be adding the nofollow to every link. Etc. I mean, after all, we are "sponsored" by our sales on our website, aren't we? So by Cutts' definition, that taints the content as far as Google is concerned, even if it has value to the reader.

There is a basic assumption here that this is OUR problem as website owner. It isn't. It's a problem with Google's algorithm. Maybe their underlying foundation upon which they based their whole search engine is in error.

And other search engines don't seem to have the same problem with it, which seems to point up that this is a Google problem.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by bj

There is a basic assumption here that this is OUR problem as website owner. It isn't. It's a problem with Google's algorithm. Maybe their underlying foundation upon which they based their whole search engine is in error.

You mean inverted links / votes more precisely the link matrix of the web. I do not see a better model. For some days I have used msn / live search since I reformatted my harddisk and got the Windows live toolbar (that I did not wish) with Live Search by default. I know I can uninstall it, but it is interesting to see how good Live Search is. My first impression is that it does not reach Google search to the knees.

Originally Posted by bj

And other search engines don't seem to have the same problem with it, which seems to point up that this is a Google problem.

Funny coincidence. Two eposts in my inbox, I comment one on my right screen and on the left I am about to ugrade (or overwrite) Windows Live. Look at the defaults. Everything is checked. I (should) know what it is. Of course I will keep windows Live mail and Messenger (Writer, Photo Gellery, "Tja" Norwegian slang for yes/no) Toolbar, OneCare, Search, Msn Home Page: NO, Help us improve software (definitely not - Did Opera say don't trust anybody on the internet).


P.S. I know it is my fault that I am too fast when installing software, but why shall Microsoft choose for me by default? Why shall Microsoft choose home page by default for people that desperately call me and use my time to reinstall their old home page? Statistically I have 20 years left to live, if I do not get an heart attack before because of agressive and incompetent software companies

Have you found a perfect software company or a perfect world? How many know how to deactivate Msn Messenger? Microsoft is not compatible with themself. Run + msconfig + start. You don't get rid of it. I have three user accounts on Windows Xp home. Administrator, Surfer and Guest. Msn Messenger, it pops up on the other two even if I have deactivated it on the administrator account.

We both know the answer. There is digital business ad war. I prefer the Google search horse. Then comes the Yahoo engine. Microsoft Xp, office, messenger, hotmail, C# ... excellent products. But please, respect my free consumer choice Microsoft.

Back to topic: I have understood Google so that they want to improve the free SERP's and make them better. They will solve the problem.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by scanmonkey

All the news sites, i.e. like the jpost, selling links still have pr and I'm sure Google knows that they are selling links. Google's not going to cut their own throat and de-index to the point where the results are garbage.

Jpost doesn't appear to sell links that pass PR.

Originally Posted by bj

Well, geez, by that definition, any of us who make a living off our websites should be adding the nofollow to every link. Every corporate blogger should be adding the nofollow to every link. Every musician who sells his or her own mp3 files on his or her site should be adding the nofollow to every link. Etc. I mean, after all, we are "sponsored" by our sales on our website, aren't we? So by Cutts' definition, that taints the content as far as Google is concerned, even if it has value to the reader.

My feeling precisely. Most of the links on my sites are commercially oriented in one way or another.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by bj

There is a basic assumption here that this is OUR problem as website owner. It isn't. It's a problem with Google's algorithm. Maybe their underlying foundation upon which they based their whole search engine is in error.

And other search engines don't seem to have the same problem with it, which seems to point up that this is a Google problem.

It is a Google problem, and the other search engines are loving it. I'm sure they're just as bothered by the paid links as Google is.... But finally they have something of which they can say: "well, yeah,.. that's a problem to Google, not to US".

It just is really difficult to algorithmically decide what the value of a link is. That a link is paid for or not actually is irrelevant, but you can conclude that most bad links are paid for. But there are also a lot of paid links that are good and Google won't be able to ever figure out that they are paid for. And I doubt they really care about that. They´re only against those paid links that influence their SERP's negatively.


But "their underlying foundation upon which they based their whole search engine" is not in error. Keep in mind that the unrealistically high monthly prices for links only exist because of Google. That they now do something to reduce that is not such a bad thing. The pagerank algorithm together with all the other algorithms are still capable of producing the best search results in the world.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

It is a Google problem, and the other search engines are loving it.

Hm

Google, Yahoo, MSN Unite On Support For Nofollow Attribute For Links [SearchEngineWatch]

What is the Hosts file?

[garywhw]

Agreed with IncredibleHelp, you do what you want to do. Google will do whatever they wanna do.

It is more important to keep your website running the way you want, as if Google does not exist.

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by janeth

lol

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

Your fortunate I actually run a real world business, trade shows, printing catalogs, dealing with customers and manufacturing products.

I don't really even have time to post here LOL