Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

[mjtaylor]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm listening, MJ

[glengara]

I'd agree with unwise but not unethical, the pointy whites would argue breaking the SE guidelines is cheating and cheating is unethical.

Unfortunately for that argument, unilaterally imposed guidelines contain no moral obligation to adhere to them.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

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

That is a total misunderstanding of my post.

To be more precise:

Is linkselling and hiding in various ways the fact that it is a sold link unethical?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by kgun

Is linkselling and hiding in various ways the fact thal it is a sold link unethical?

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

[kgun]

I hoped for that answer. I have not deleted the first link in my signature. But I have never sold a link aside from affiliate links.

When traffic to my sites is 50 mill / month you shall be the first to get some cheap links if you can guarantee that that answer is correct for the next 25 years.

But I will not hide the link aside from standard tagging / markup.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by kgun

That is a total misunderstanding of my post.

To be more precise:

Is linkselling and hiding in various ways the fact thal it is a sold link unethical?

Kgun, I beg your pardon. I didn't quote you because it would have been out of context, and I thought the ethics issue was worthy of another thread ... but you did say (bold mine):

If you wan't to sell links on your page:

1. Set up a professional link broker business. Did you watch the second video in my first post? Note what Rand Fishkin say's in the time interval 06.20 - 04.35. Build a marketplace for paid reviews. There has to be a solution to this problem to make it white hat. Related
   - SEOmoz | A Solution to the Paid Links Debate - Sponsored Editorials
   - SEOmoz | The Art of Buying Links Under the Radar
   - SEOmoz | Matt Cutts on Nofollow, Links-Per-Page and the Value of Directories
2. Hide the link selling as good as you can. An argument for unlegal and / or unethical business. <snip>

and I hope you can see how I might have gotten the wrong impression and interpreted #2 as a suggestion that link selling is unethical ...

I didn't mean to misconstrue your words.

In any case, I simply meant to sound out members on whether ethics comes into play or not.

[Tubby]

I am with Jaan who said
"Not in my opinion at all. You can do what you want with your website as Google can do what they want with theirs."

If Google wishes to read our pages so that it can use this information to run its own business, then it should simply learn to read them properly. I think the whole topic of, 'is this ethical' is totally an unwise way of looking at things.

For myself, I will continue to not to put no follow tags on any link on my sites. I do not care If it screws up google's results. Google results are nothing to do with me. . In fact if Google wanted me to adjust my site in any way to assist their search engine. . They should simply do what everyone else does. send me an email.

something like
Dear Tubby, can you give me a price to place no follow tags on an insurance ad you have placed at classic cars, classified adverts and car parts - get back to me Goog..

Dear Goog, That's a bit of a problem mate. I have committed myself for the next 12 months . I can email you when the ad is about to expire and we can work something out that will help you get the result you need.

I do not work for Google. . .

[Webnauts]

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

Some statements of Google. Please read carefully:

Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank. If you see a site that is buying or selling links that pass PageRank, let us know.We’ll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links.

Source: Why should I report paid links to Google?

Your site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to you. The quantity, quality, and relevance of links count towards your rating. The sites that link to you can provide context about the subject matter of your site, and can indicate its quality and popularity. However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results.

Source: Link schemes

Many people who work on ranking at search engines think that selling links can lower the quality of links on the web. If you want to buy or sell a link purely for visitors or traffic and not for search engines, a simple method exists to do so (the nofollow attribute). Google’s stance on selling links is pretty clear and we’re pretty accurate at spotting them, both algorithmically and manually. Sites that sell links can lose their trust in search engines.

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

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

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

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

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

JUST MY LAST FEW DOLLARS...

[Tubby]

webnauts wrote.
"I am against such dirty practices and I reported several sites already to Google. Who's next please?"

lets get this right.. . . Google decided how it values a site for its search results. It decided to recognise links as a value factor. I have always sold links that do not fit a year make model format. (before Google was around even)

If Google calls into search my page say at 1968 Chevrolet car parts & cars for sale - wanted
all it has to do is decide if this page is worth listing for 1968 Chevrolet parts.

I do not give a damn how it does this. . I do not give a damn if Google does not deliver any traffic.

But I do give a bloody damn if some moronic Webmaster systematically files his way through every link on this page looking for proof that I am 'Dirty'

I think some of you have lost the plot. including you Webnauts. .

I run a free site, for classic car owners. you want to get rid of free sites?

If there is any unethical behaviour it is Google that is doing it.. Google delivers AdSense ads to a number of my pages. It fully understands I need topic specific ads on my pages. (this was their agreement)
I find Google sneaking in ads based on the locality of the user. . nothing to do with the page content. simply because they get a better click rate for local ads. That is Unethical... They are placing off centre adverts where I do not want them, sneaking them in! .

Google can and does value a page any way it likes. . If it finds something it finds that decreases that value. . Let Google do what it wants. . I am sick of hearing PARROTS SHOUTING DIRTY PRACTISES - UNETHICAL.

If you are an SEO - look to the pages you are working on. get some content, do not go around Blagging webmasters that do not see things the way you do..

I have well over a 5000 pensioners that use my site. . free, they swap, find parts. Paid links and Google ads helps them keep their cars on the road. You simply do not find most of these parts on ebay. Ebay sellers sell for profit.

Unethical? BULLSHIT. . talk to Google about getting their search algorithm better. . Blagging webmasters who do not bend at the knee for Google is Pathetic....

You are a becoming parrot for Google Webnauts. . Stop it. I have a lot of respect for you John. But I think you just took one step too close to your own SEO principles.

Or is it fine. . If I simply say, it is a 'listing fee' ( bullshit ) it is fine If I just check out the page and recover the cost for my time to do this.... (Total BULLSHIT)

I check every photograph that gets listed on my pages. (thousands) I check every advert that gets listed. I delete hundreds of adverts daily because they are simply listing stuff you can find in the local store. I do not want them.
Do you think NOBODY LOOKS AT PAID LINKS. ( I F*&%^$g do )

I get an email every week from opposition website owners advising me that my site does not comply with Google guidelines. I simply tell them to come here and tell me to my face. pathetic Bastards.

Webmasters steal my ads. Spam me. why not Just look after your own resposibiliites

[Tubby]

I have a letter here (snail mail) dated. November 9 2007

It is from a Vietnam vet with one leg who gets a pension and a carer allowance for looking after his brother (could be downs syndrome) He does not have a computer. His hobby (few dollars income) is getting early Fords back on the road. He regularly post me a letters listing items he wants to sell, then he sits back and hopes for a call.

He will never click on a Google ad. .

The only Google guideline I like is. Make your website for users. I do that Mr Google, I am doing fine.
do not get your puppets to tell me what I can do or cannot do. .

Yes I am angry - You picked up on that?

[Webnauts]

Tubby I am sorry man, but I guess you still did not get my point.

I will try to pose my position otherwise asking you this question first:

Do you approve dishonest practices for beating the competition?

[Tubby]

Webnaut asks
"Do you approve dishonest practices for beating the competition? "

John, Does dishonest practices include reporting a site that is ahead of you, for having a sold link on a web page purely to get their page rank lowered.

This is a Google problem. they selected to value pages by counting links pointed at them. they gave them a value that could be passed on. They screwed up their own results. They laughed all the way to the bank while webmasters frantically fought to get inbound links - - 80% of webmasters them even stopped looking for great content. just text that contained keywords - Google teased them into just getting inbound links. The result millions of Google influenced sites. All the Bloody same.

Now you expect everyone to fix Googles mistake of not valuing content, and to try and undo the biggest screw up in search history - by calling honest business people that were simply doing what it takes to get a good result in the worlds largest search engine dishonest.

John if Google cannot tell a good site from a bad site - Hard shit.

Google Knows it is stepping way beyond the boundary if it attempts to dictate what a Website owner can do. . So it makes guidelines. . and lets you dictate that this is dishonest that is unethical, this is 'Dirty' That is CRAP John.

This is a fault with Google system. They should fix it.

incrediblehelp put it simply and in a nutshell when he wrote in answer to link selling - unethical or just unwise?
he answered.
Not in my opinion at all. You can do what you want with your website as Google can do what they want with theirs.

Google may well want better results. . Google may well find itself in a bucket of shit because everyone listened to their spiel of how to get listed higher. But it is certainly not your job to call link sellers Unethical and dirty..

You don't like it - then you don't do it.

I will sell you a link Tomorrow John. all you need is a site that I think my visitors will find useful, I only have a few dozen category 2 pages, So I expect you will not get great Google value from them. But I will sell you one.
that is an honest offer, I am an honest person. I do not charge $50 per hour, I simply strive to keep my Internet community active finding parts. Do you think that the thousands of 1960's cars on the road are all owned by enthusiasts - or is it a possibility, that its all that is affordable in a community that demands you have transport. No pride in not being able to own a new car. but you can create some pride by acknowledging it as a classic. and being proud that you have kept it original and running. Adverts pay for this.


Or ore you going to decide. . My motive is O.K. but the next website motive is not O.K.


"Do you approve dishonest practices for beating the competition? "

I do not care John. I do not even understand what is dishonest about it. I think you are in SEO world. get back to reality.

Valuing pages by the links pointing to is has past its used by date, like a stale bottle of milk. Google wants us to dring it anyway.

[Tubby]

damn it John - there are a million Google inspired web directories out there. all wasting space and costing the end users millions of dollars. You need to take a good hard look at Google. .

[Feydakin]

There is a rather large segment of the world that thinks all advertising is evil..

John talks about selling links as evil.. What about taking money to put listings above the natural results while at the same time telling people that if they don't mark their paid links in a method approved by Google they will get their wrist slapped?? Google always says that spending money with them will not affect your natural search rankings, yet they put the highest paying advertiser ABOVE all of the natural search listings..

How can one be evil and the other not??

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Webnaut asks
"Do you approve dishonest practices for beating the competition? "

John, Does dishonest practices include reporting a site that is ahead of you, for having a sold link on a web page purely to get their page rank lowered.

First to make something clear here. I am not a Google Fan! Period!

Reporting a site which uses unethical or dishonest practices, like black hat SEO, I don't consider dishonest reporting them to search engines to protect my business. Exactly like if someone harms me or my business in any illegal way, I do not see what is dishonest reporting that to the police or responsible authorities.

Originally Posted by Tubby

This is a Google problem. they selected to value pages by counting links pointed at them. they gave them a value that could be passed on. They screwed up their own results. They laughed all the way to the bank while webmasters frantically fought to get inbound links - - 80% of webmasters them even stopped looking for great content. just text that contained keywords - Google teased them into just getting inbound links. The result millions of Google influenced sites. All the Bloody same.

First: Google does not have a problem. They do not oblige anyone to be indexed in the search engines and they do not oblige nobody using it.

Second: February 2003: Google's official quality guidelines have advised "Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank" for several years.

Third: August 19, 2005 and September 1, 2005 : Matt Cutts posted on his blog: The best links are not paid, or exchanged after out-of-the-blue emails–the best links are earned and given by choice. When I recap SES from my viewpoint, I’ll give some examples of great ways to earn links.
Sources: SEO Mistakes: link exchange emails anf Text links and PageRank

Originally Posted by Tubby

Now you expect everyone to fix Googles mistake of not valuing content, and to try and undo the biggest screw up in search history - by calling honest business people that were simply doing what it takes to get a good result in the worlds largest search engine dishonest.

Reading the above, I am asking myself, who screwed up what after all? And, who said link building is unethical or dishonest? I build links and will go on doing so, and I had absolutely no problems so far and I am sure I will never do. Therefore, buying or selling links for PR, is just a bravery for manipulating the search results, hurting other webmasters and searh engines users.

We all know that Black Hat SEO is a development and implemenation of techniques that are used to get higher search rankings in an unethical manner. In others words to manipulate the search results. Manipulating PR is also a way to manipulate search results. Exactly like cloacking, snicky redirects, etc.

Originally Posted by Tubby

John if Google cannot tell a good site from a bad site - Hard shit.

I fully disagree. They are getting better day by day. The other engines too! Until a while ago, almost everyone in this forum and elsewhere where beating me up when I was talking about code quality, etc. Would someone like to try that again?

Google Knows it is stepping way beyond the boundary if it attempts to dictate what a Website owner can do. . So it makes guidelines. . and lets you dictate that this is dishonest that is unethical, this is 'Dirty' That is CRAP John.

Originally Posted by Tubby

This is a fault with Google system. They should fix it.

That is not the fault of Google. It is the fault of the guys laughing about Google, when Google began telling that they do not want sites in their index who are selling or buying PR to manipulate the search quality and results. I was reading in many forums discussions and posts like:

• How can Google find that out. That is a Utopia.
• Other were just laughing.
• E.t.c.

Why aren't those ladies and gentlemen laughing now?

Originally Posted by Tubby

incrediblehelp put it simply and in a nutshell when he wrote in answer to link selling - unethical or just unwise?
he answered.
Not in my opinion at all. You can do what you want with your website as Google can do what they want with theirs.

Exactly. You can do what you want with your web site and Google with theirs. If you do not like Googles rules, then stop complaining man. Google has no rights to tell you who you will link to on your site, and you have no rights to tell Google who they want to include in their index. If the discussion here was not about Google and Selling/Buying links, then I have mistaken all the way up to the beginning. Is that the case?

Originally Posted by Tubby

Google may well want better results. . Google may well find itself in a bucket of shit because everyone listened to their spiel of how to get listed higher. But it is certainly not your job to call link sellers Unethical and dirty..

Bravery is unethical. No matter if someone does that to get higher results in search engines, or to become a president of the United States.