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.

Originally Posted by Tubby

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

I am too honest to be dishonest. Maybe that is the reason I think I will never become a millionaire.

Originally Posted by Tubby

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.

I am very sure that you are an honest person. If I would like to have the link, I would take it if you would add the "nofollow" tag, as it is about generating traffic and not manipulating PR, or?

Originally Posted by Tubby

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.

If it is a pure Ad, why don't you implement the "nofollow" tag? Could it be that advertising is not your real intention? Could it be that you want to manipulate the search results

Originally Posted by Tubby

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.

To be honest I do not give a shit what Google is planning. I am a Web Standards Advocate and Professional SEO, and I as I am far ahead than Google is, I have no reason to worry.

I am already tweaking my seoworkers.com site for the Artificial Search. Everything else is already past for me.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by 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. .

I take a good hard look to Google and everyone else.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

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??

I think you did not get the point here:

The Ad link Google will provide you does not pass PR. So the link you get does not manipulate search results. Not positive or negative. And if you buy or sell links for advertising, and not to manipulate PR, Google does not penalize you for that. They just need to know if it is an Ad, so they us advice us how to tell them, using the "nofollow" tag, so their crawler can identify that it is an Ad. PERIOD!

What the hell is so strange about that???

I am slowly going nuts. Is my English so bad that no one can follow me anymore?

[Tubby]

John. You have my views.

the only things I would like to point out is
you said.
"If you do not like Googles rules, then stop complaining man. "

I was not complaining about google rules. . I was complaining that you consider sites like mine that sell links to be Dirty and unethical. It is you I have the argument with.


You said.
"If it is a pure Ad, why don't you implement the "nofollow" tag? Could it be that advertising is not your real intention? Could it be that you want to manipulate the search results"

You still suggest I do it to manipulate search results!. O.K. so you consider me Dirty

Loosing respect for you john. fast. . .

[Feydakin]

John, let's take a little logic trip..

What is the purpose of selling PR?? To help a page rank higher in the SERPs, correct?? That would be the ideal goal of being the #1 spot on Google.Com when someone searches for that term..

Now, what is the purpose of spending money with AdWords?? To be the first listing ABOVE the #1 ranking when someone searches for that term..

Of course adwords don't pass PR.. They don't HAVE TO.. You are already on the page you want to be #1 on.. Why is this simple step so hard for so many people to understand?? You have a fixation on passing PR.. That's not important.. What is important is that you can't sell a link for PR to help someone rank higher on google.com.. But goolge can, and does, sell links to rank higher on google.com..

Does this make more sense now??

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

John. You have my views.

the only things I would like to point out is
you said.
"If you do not like Googles rules, then stop complaining man. "

I was not complaining about google rules. . I was complaining that you consider sites like mine that sell links to be Dirty and unethical. It is you I have the argument with.


You said.
"If it is a pure Ad, why don't you implement the "nofollow" tag? Could it be that advertising is not your real intention? Could it be that you want to manipulate the search results"

You still suggest I do it to manipulate search results!. O.K. so you consider me Dirty

Loosing respect for you john. fast. . .

Tubby, I am sure you still did not understand me man. I never claimed that buying or selling links is in every case unwise, illegal, dirty, unethical or so ever.

Any practices developed and implemented to manipulate search results are nothing else than what I mentioned above, as those are against the search engines, ethical SEOs, webmasters and end searchers.

Am I more clear now?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

John, let's take a little logic trip..

What is the purpose of selling PR?? To help a page rank higher in the SERPs, correct?? That would be the ideal goal of being the #1 spot on Google.Com when someone searches for that term..

Now, what is the purpose of spending money with AdWords?? To be the first listing ABOVE the #1 ranking when someone searches for that term..

Of course adwords don't pass PR.. They don't HAVE TO.. You are already on the page you want to be #1 on.. Why is this simple step so hard for so many people to understand?? You have a fixation on passing PR.. That's not important.. What is important is that you can't sell a link for PR to help someone rank higher on google.com.. But goolge can, and does, sell links to rank higher on google.com..

Does this make more sense now??

So do you approve BRAVERY & MANIPULATION?

Did you ever hear the word "Democracy"?

Please read this: Google Technology

[Feydakin]

Yeah, I know the word.. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.. Your point??

John, you own a company that manipulates search engine results..

So, are you saying that what I said was wrong?? Are you ok with Google making money by placing links above natural results while telling other people that they can't profit from link selling??

[Tubby]

John said
Any practices developed and implemented to manipulate search results are nothing else than what I mentioned above, as those are against the search engines, ethical SEOs, webmasters and end searchers.


No john you are not clear...

I just gave you a negative rep point.

You say anyone who does not follow the Google guidelines is manipulating the results and is 'unethical' and 'dirty'.
if that is not worth a negative rep point I do not know what is..

I say you have lost the plot.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Yeah, I know the word.. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.. Your point??

That is not what I understand with democracy. That is called Oligarchy.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

John, you own a company that manipulates search engine results..

I strictly don't manipulate search engines results!!! Period. I honestly feel offended, and I still will if you will not back that up.

Look at my site and show one single practice where I manipulate the results. Or do you need samples like my clients sites? Send me a PM or a mail and I will send you a list of them.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So, are you saying that what I said was wrong?? Are you ok with Google making money by placing links above natural results while telling other people that they can't profit from link selling??

If I pay you to add a link to my site at a prominent place of your site for advertising purposes, using the "nofollow" tag, so we do not manipulate the PageRank algorithm, like Google does with their AdWords, would you sell it to me?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

I just gave you a negative rep point.

You say anyone who does not follow the Google guidelines is manipulating the results and is 'unethical' and 'dirty'.
if that is not worth a negative rep point I do not know what is..

I say you have lost the plot.

About the negative rep point I honestly don't care. Thanks by the way.
How many of those points I need to be kicked out here? Or how many $ do I get for each positive Rep point?


And I never said that anyone who does not follow the Google guidelines is unethical and dirty. Please don't put words in my mouth I never said. I think you do not really read my posts carefully, or my English is so bad to understand, or there is a problem with perceiving the meanings of my posts.

[Webnauts]

My policy as an SEO may be found here: Search Engine Optimization Ethical Practices - SEO Workers

And Google's definition about SEOs: What's an SEO? Does Google recommend working with companies that offer to make my site Google-friendly?
At the end of the page the advise:

If you feel that you were deceived by an SEO in some way, you may want to report it.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles complaints about deceptive or unfair business practices. To file a complaint, visit: Federal Trade Commission - Home and click on "File a Complaint Online," call 1-877-FTC-HELP, or write to:

Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
Washington, D.C. 20580

If your complaint is against a company in another country, please file it at econsumer.gov - international Internet consumer fraud complaints.

Read both above, and if you have any further questions, I will enjoy to answer them.

And don't forget to give Google a negative Rep point too, if you do not like what they are claiming.

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is not what I understand with democracy. That is called Oligarchy.

Then you would be wrong about that too..

Oligarchy: a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (that would be Google making the rules for everyone)

Democracy: Majority rule is a major principle of democracy etc etc.. (one person (link) one vote)

So my analogy holds true..

I strictly don't manipulate search engines results!!! Period. I honestly feel offended, and I still will if you will not back that up.

You offer services that help people to rank higher than they otherwise would in the search engine results.. That is manipulation.. The extent of that manipulation can be debated, but it is still manipulation..

If I pay you to add a link to my site at a prominent place of your site for advertising purposes, using the "nofollow" tag, so we do not manipulate the PageRank algorithm, like Google does with their AdWords?

Not real sure what you meant to write there.. But I'll give it a shot..

1st, I wouldn't sell you a link.. You don't offer anything that anyone that visits my website wants.. Therefore the link sale would never happen..

Now, if you offered a product that I liked, and would be of benefit to my readers, then I may consider selling a link.. But I just as easily might just give you the link because I like your product.. If I don't like your product then there is no chance that you will get a link no matter what the cost..

So the advert serves two legitimate purposes.. It is a solid vote for a product I like and would freely recommend, while it also provides some revenue to allow me to continue to do what I like..

You think it's fair to lump that type of sale with some random per per post where the only consideration is money??

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You offer services that help people to rank higher than they otherwise would in the search engine results.. That is manipulation.. The extent of that manipulation can be debated, but it is still manipulation...

Sorry, but this will go to far now. I will let it be at this point.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Not real sure what you meant to write there.. But I'll give it a shot..

1st, I wouldn't sell you a link.. You don't offer anything that anyone that visits my website wants.. Therefore the link sale would never happen..

How can you know that? We already have a discussion here at WPW about designers placing links on their clients sites for promotion purposes.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Now, if you offered a product that I liked, and would be of benefit to my readers, then I may consider selling a link.. But I just as easily might just give you the link because I like your product.. If I don't like your product then there is no chance that you will get a link no matter what the cost..

Does that mean that you give me the link so I can manipulate the search engines or to satisfy your visitors needs or wishes?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So the advert serves two legitimate purposes.. It is a solid vote for a product I like and would freely recommend, while it also provides some revenue to allow me to continue to do what I like..

Braving voters for a vote for our favorite President at the Presidential elections is legitimate too?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You think it's fair to lump that type of sale with some random per per post where the only consideration is money??

Nofollow tag?

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

How can you know that? We already have a discussion here at WPW about designers placing links on their clients sites for promotion purposes.

Because you sell SEO services and I sell jewelry.. Not a lot of cross over traffic there..

Does that mean that you give me the link so I can manipulate the search engines or to satisfy your visitors needs or wishes?

Both.. If I like your product enough to show it to my visitors I have no issue with helping you rank better so that others can benefit from it as well..

Nofollow tag?

What happened to the old rule of don't do things for search engines, do them for your viewers?? That no longer applies??

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Because you sell SEO services and I sell jewelry.. Not a lot of cross over traffic there..

Well I also don't agree with that practice, but I just felt like mentioning.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Both.. If I like your product enough to show it to my visitors I have no issue with helping you rank better so that others can benefit from it as well..

I guess I would benefit even without manipulating PR.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

What happened to the old rule of don't do things for search engines, do them for your viewers?? That no longer applies??

How are the visitors affected if you use the "nofollow" tag in links?

[Tubby]

webnauts asks
'How are the visitors affected if you use the "nofollow" tag in links?'

They are not affected. but you have a situation where you have just added a link to your site for visitors - but you feel the site you have linked to is not good enough for search engines. Now we have evoked the principle of accepting payment to add a substandard link for cash. If a link is good enough for the users it is good enough for Google. or any other visitor to the site.

One could argue, that accepting payment for a link to a site that you feel is not good enough for search engines is unethical. adding a 'nofollow' would equally tell Google - this site displays adverts to our users even when we know the site we refer them to is rubbish, or does not deserve promoting...

That is a big contradiction.

This is a legitimate revenue stream for many thousand of small and some very large club sites. One Club I am aware of has a very nice website supported entirely by one single sponsor, links to the sponsors website are plastered on every page. (they are paid for) The links are to a Plumbing site. what sort of a Bastard would you need to be to put a 'nofollow tag' on these links. The Club site links - are one big Hurrah for the plumbing site. . (and deservedly so. . This plumber supports his community, they want him to get traffic)

I expect if an opposition plumber came to you for SEO . . . . Google would get the nod . . (paid links, tut tut)

[Tubby]

John, there are a large number of companies out there that wish to be seen supporting worth while sites. In the same way that some companies supply football jerseys for the local team. (sponsored by Sealey Metals) the locals like this support. would you have guideline that prevent this and have the "Sealeys metals' logo removed?
these companies support little teams with little or no income, because they understand the needs of small football teams. These are good companies. These are companies that are good to do business with. The have an intangible Value that search engines might never notice. but it is there, it might only be represented with what looks to you like a paid advert. but the kids still need jersey to play in...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

1. I am not a fan of anyone, except of myself. May be the rason that you are not a millionaire John.
2. Mr. Cutts. John, I thought you did not know who he is.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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?

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.

Bravery is unethical. It is not so simple.

"However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results."
Source: Why should I report paid links to Google?

My private conclusion:

1. If you want to do well in the Google SE index, follow their rules like putting nofollow on links etc.
2. I personally have more important things to do than being police for any SE out there.
3. Otherwise, write content and ad for surfers.
4. More and more surfers are looking for "circus, theatre and show" and not bread and (link)juce. Not much content to index on those sites, but some (web applications) are valued high by surfers.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If I pay you to add a link to my site at a prominent place of your site for advertising purposes, using the "nofollow" tag, so we do not manipulate the PageRank algorithm, like Google does with their AdWords, would you sell it to me?

To follow that argument,
Questions (Think web - www - SEO generally):

1. If a webmaster with (50 mill natural hits on his site)/month came here and asked you to buy a link on his high traffic page, would you only buy the link if it had a rel="nofollow" property on the link?
2. Would you buy at a higher price if it had nofollow on it?
3. Would you buy at a higher price if the link was relevant (semantic)?

[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.

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

Back to topic?

Note: This thread was posted in the search engine optimization (SEO) forum.

[MuNKyonline]

Wow there seems to be a big verbal war going on here. You guys are going to be argueing for quite some on this subject.

Hey Tubby, I completely get what your saying and agree with you 100%. Google created the hype about link building causing a lot of companies and directories to spring up on the web primarily to sell links. Google did mess up in this sense as people then started buying links to improve PR instead of to just get traffic. Therefore they should really change the algorithym to fix this but thats nowhere near as easy as it sounds!

If a company with completely ethical practices and great free content was ranking highly, as it should be in Google, wouldn't you be pissed off if some other low quality web site appeared in the SERPs above yours because they had a bigger wallet? This is what is not ethical! That is what this thread is about isnt it?

This is why the nofollow tag has been encouraged. If you use the nofollow tags then you dont pass on PR and the rankings are not affected. A paid for advertisement should only be for traffic anyway. It only takes a second to add the nofollow tag, especially if you use a find/replace tool, so it wont break the bank either.

You can still support any web site you want to, you can link to anyone you want. If you do this too much with links not relevant to the subject of your web site then your rankings will drop.

If you dont care about Google or how they run the search engine then carry on as you are all that will be affected is your rankings in Google. Nothing else will happen.

I think this is all John is trying to say. Not that there is any problems with selling links, just those that are doing it to boost themselves/others in the search engines.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Bravery is unethical

Huh? What does bravery have to do with right or wrong? It is unrelated. One may be courageous while doing right or wrong.

I have yet to see anyone (on this thread) give a concrete reason why link selling (or buying) is unethical. Saying that Google does not allow it has nothing to do with inherent rightness or wrongness. That only speaks to whether it is wise to do sell links if you want to maintain your PR and good standing with Google.

As to 'manipulation,' why is link buying is more manipulative than researching which keywords are popular and changing my title and h1 tags, text and other content to reflect the term that is being actively searched? Isn't any 'optimization' of the page or sites done to change (manipulate) the ranking of the site in the SERPs. Or is it only manipulation and unethical when Google doesn't like it?

Search Engine Optimization. Why do we do it? It's not for human visitors or it would be called Human Visitor Optimization. It is the practice of making changes to websites and attracting links to those websites in order to make the site rank more highly in the SERPs. It's manipulative. That is the pure nature of what SEOs do.

It seems to me that ethics might come into play when I take on a new client. If a prospect is doing something illegal, dishonest, hateful or is clearly presenting misinformation or ripping off customers, then it would clearly be a matter of ethics. Wouldn't it be unethical and immoral for me to help them achieve their ends?

But if I believe what my client is offering is legitimate and honest, then may I not ethically choose to help them within the system?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

If a company with completely ethical practices and great free content was ranking highly, as it should be in Google, wouldn't you be pissed off if some other low quality web site appeared in the SERPs above yours because they had a bigger wallet? This is what is not ethical! That is what this thread is about isnt it?

What about Salvador Dali? Today called the world's biggest surrealist. My young son loves his paintings and (he loves Google, Opera and Vista ).

Salvador Daly would rank low in the beginning. Bet me.

Most people hated his paintings in the beginning, especially the facists in his home country, Spain. To them art should be fine like a dear in sunset.

A lot of people would have used harder words than unethical on his paintings.

By the way I am an advocat of clean code and markup. Good Se's don't mind. Code is queen, refactoring to better code is King IMO.

Was that off topic?

[MuNKyonline]

Feydakin, I also agree with you. How can Google justify that selling links is wrong when they place adwords above natural search results? Put simply this is unethical and Google is being hypocritical by doing this.

I dont ever click on those adverts but there are a hell of a lot of people that do. Google should really only include the adwords on the side of the listings.

What you say about SEO companies I do not agree with however. If SEO is done correctly then it's not just about improving the web site for the search engines but improving the web site's accessibility and overall quality too.

By validating a web site, semantically structuring the code and by creating useful content you will rank higher. That is not manipulating the search engine results at all, it's about creating a web site as it should be!

Originally Posted by Feydakin

What happened to the old rule of don't do things for search engines, do them for your viewers?? That no longer applies??.

Now I just think you are argueing for the sake of it. How do you think a nofollow tag affects a viewer? It doesnt at all!

Are you saying you do not design anything on your web site so it helps in the search engines? You've got meta description and meta keywords in your pages havent you? What do you think they're for?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I have yet to see anyone (on this thread) give a concrete reason why link selling (or buying) is unethical. Saying that Google does not allow it has nothing to do with inherent rightness or wrongness. That only speaks to whether it is wise to do sell links if you want to maintain your PR and good standing with Google.

Link selling is of course not unethical.

Saying that Google does not allow it has nothing to do with inherent rightness or wrongness. That only speaks to whether it is wise to do sell links if you want to maintain your PR and good standing with Google.

Yes, that is perhaps the reason why this thread should have been moved to the Google forum.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Feydakin, I also agree with you. How can Google justify that selling links is wrong when they place adwords above natural search results? Put simply this is unethical and Google is being hypocritical by doing this.

I dont ever click on those adverts but there are a hell of a lot of people that do. Google should really only include the adwords on the side of the listings.

What you say about SEO companies I do not agree with however. If SEO is done correctly then it's not just about improving the web site for the search engines but improving the web site's accessibility and overall quality too.

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

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

Did you Guys take that.

That only implies that if you want to rank high in the Google Se, you have to follow their rules.

In my view this (Re: Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?) is a border discussion or am I wrong?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by kgun

Link selling is of course not unethical.

Saying that Google does not allow it has nothing to do with inherent rightness or wrongness. That only speaks to whether it is wise to do sell links if you want to maintain your PR and good standing with Google.

Yes, that is perhaps the reason why this thread should have been moved to the Google forum.

So moved. Seconded and completed.

Originally Posted by kgun

Did you Guys take that.

That only implies that if you want to rank high in the Google Se, you have to follow their rules.

In my view this (Re: Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?) is a border discussion or am I wrong?

What's a border discussion?

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I have yet to see anyone (on this thread) give a concrete reason why link selling (or buying) is unethical. Saying that Google does not allow it has nothing to do with inherent rightness or wrongness. That only speaks to whether it is wise to do sell links if you want to maintain your PR and good standing with Google.

I believe I did, so has John. It's just if you agree with it or not. We didn't say it was because Google says it's right or wrong but if it's to affect your rankings in the search engines.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Huh? What does bravery have to do with right or wrong? It is unrelated. One may be courageous while doing right or wrong.

I think John is just using the wrong word here. His English isn't always perfect, maybe he means bribery or something like that?

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

As to 'manipulation,' why is link buying is more manipulative than researching which keywords are popular and changing my title and h1 tags, text and other content to reflect the term that is being actively searched? Isn't any 'optimization' of the page or sites done to change (manipulate) the ranking of the site in the SERPs. Or is it only manipulation and unethical when Google doesn't like it?

No its only unethical if you use Black Hat techniques to improve your rankings. Manipulation has nothing to do with with anything being ethical. It's the methods you use to manipulate a web site determines if it is ethical or not. But then again, this is entirely based on opinion.

Anyone can research keywords and change their web sites text to improve their rankings. If they did it right in the first place, they wouldnt need an SEO to help them at all. In this case if you dont want to learn how to do it yourself then you pay an SEO for their services and they do it for you. There is nothing unethical about that.

You can only buy a link if you have the money. If you dont have the money then you cant get it. This means that those who buy links purely to improve their web sites rankings are being unethical. It is unfair to those who cannot afford to buy the links. This in turn reduces the quality of the web sites that show up in the SERPS. Why dont they just create good/useful content and then other web sites will naturally link to them?

[Feydakin]

Nofollow does affect the viewer.. Because other search engines use the nofollow to reduce spam, as it was originally intended, by adding nofollow to links for Google you are affecting things on other search engines.. This in turn affects everything around it..

Munkey, I never said there was anything "wrong" with what SEO companies do.. I said that what they do is manipulation.. I never said that manipulation was evil.. So I'm not sure what you disagree with..

What really has me interested though is this new mantra that having money, and using it to improve yourself and your business is evil.. When did having more money than someone else, and using that money to improve yourself, become evil??

These things are not, in themselves, evil.. They are a business decision of risk/reward.. Business is not fair.. Life is not fair.. Wishing it were is simply a waste of time and resources that could be better used doing something else..

Take Jennifer Laycock's example of blocking all search engines from her website using robots.txt.. With effort it was quite successful.. She thought differently and proved that you can be successful without Google or money..

Why dont they just create good/useful content and then other web sites will naturally link to them?

Because Google created a situation where links are worth something.. Now they want to undo the damage they have done by making links so important to the rankings..

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

By validating a web site, semantically structuring the code and by creating useful content you will rank higher. That is not manipulating the search engine results at all, it's about creating a web site as it should be!

Not everyone can afford to hire a competent SEO or someone versed in useful content and semantic structuring.. That is unfair to them and it should be stopped.. These companies are using their money to gain an unfair advantage and their whole site should be nofollowed..

See where this is leading??

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

I believe I did, so has John. It's just if you agree with it or not.

Well, I haven't actually said whether I agree or not. I have just posed the questions. But I have not read anything yet that speaks to ethics.

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

We didn't say it was because Google says it's right or wrong but if it's to affect your rankings in the search engines.

No its only unethical if you use Black Hat techniques to improve your rankings. Manipulation has nothing to do with with anything being ethical. It's the methods you use to manipulate a web site determines if it is ethical or not. But then again, this is entirely based on opinion.

Anyone can research keywords and change their web sites text to improve their rankings. If they did it right in the first place, they wouldnt need an SEO to help them at all. In this case if you dont want to learn how to do it yourself then you pay an SEO for their services and they do it for you. There is nothing unethical about that.

Agreed. But it *is* literally manipulative, and we often attach a pejorative connotation to that word. Yet, our business is based on that.

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

You can only buy a link if you have the money. If you dont have the money then you cant get it. This means that those who buy links purely to improve their web sites rankings are being unethical. It is unfair to those who cannot afford to buy the links. This in turn reduces the quality of the web sites that show up in the SERPS. Why dont they just create good/useful content and then other web sites will naturally link to them?

So, being unfair is unethical? Having more money than someone else has to do with ethics? I can't accept that. If I follow that logic, then it is not ethical for anyone to hire me or John because most people don't have enough money to afford us.

I'm sorry, but ethics is not about fairness. Ethics is about morals. About what is right or wrong. And having more capital to invest in promoting and marketing a business does not touch upon the morality or ethics of what is done with that money.

The question was whether it is unethical to *sell* links, and it might well be a different question about whether it is moral or ethical to buy them ... but I am fine with this thread addressing both.

Still listening for someone to speak to the question of ethics.

MJ

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by MuNKyonline

Now I just think you are argueing for the sake of it. How do you think a nofollow tag affects a viewer? It doesnt at all!

Precisely part of the point.

Google has and continues to say, build your website for your visitors. Now they say, build them for "our" SE and algorithym or be "harmed".

I posted this on my blog...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

[mjtaylor]

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

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

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

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

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

Ethics? No, has nothing to do with "ethics" from my perspective.

The buying in selling of "advertising" has been going on long before any SE, let alone Google, had even been conceived.

Google comes out and says their machines and algorithm, the very thing that makes them all their money, won't work the way they would like unless pages are built specifically for them, and not doing so is somehow "unethical"? I don't think so.

Has Yahoo or MSN or any other search engine come out and declared the same? Demanded that pages be coded for them so their machines and algorithms will work they way they want them to? Nope. But since Google has, it's somehow "unethical". Gimme a break.

Dave

[Feydakin]

Nope, you got it dead right.. Google said early on that PR could be looked at as a sign of the quality of a website since people won't link to bad websites.. Great.. They even added a 1 to 10 scale to it and made the number public so that everyone could see it.. Great..

Compare that with Motor Trend.. They review and rate cars and trucks.. Get a 5 star Motor Trend rating and things are great.. Get a 1, no so much.. When you see ads on TV for Toyota it's not uncommon to see, 2007 Motor Trend 5 star car of the year..

Motor Trend loves this. Google, not so much.. Toyota uses that 5 star rating to sell cars.. Some webmasters use the PR number to sell links.. Toyota isn't selling the 5 star rating, they are using it as a metric for the value of their car.. Motor Trend assigns that rating on it's own.. Webmasters are not selling PR, they are selling links and using the PR number as a metric for the value of that link..

Can you imagine what would happen if Motor Trend told Toyota, "Hey, we don't like you using our name, and our rating system, to sell your cars.. You are unfairly influencing car purchases by advertising the fact that we like you.. Slap this nofollow sticker on the rear deck of all of your cars from now on or we will stop rating your product.."

[MuNKyonline]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Nofollow does affect the viewer.. Because other search engines use the nofollow to reduce spam, as it was originally intended, by adding nofollow to links for Google you are affecting things on other search engines.. This in turn affects everything around it..

What do you think google is doing it for? They want to stop spammy web sites from easily getting high rankings. Yahoo and MSN use it in the same way, they wont allow the link to affect their ranking calculations. What is the difference??

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Not everyone can afford to hire a competent SEO or someone versed in useful content and semantic structuring.. That is unfair to them and it should be stopped.. These companies are using their money to gain an unfair advantage and their whole site should be nofollowed..

See where this is leading??

OK, so you're trying to say that this is unfair as not everyone can afford an SEO? You dont need to be able to afford one. There's plenty of places to learn how to do it yourself, on the Internet; without spending a penny.

Originally Posted by MJ

So, being unfair is unethical? Having more money than someone else has to do with ethics? I can't accept that. If I follow that logic, then it is not ethical for anyone to hire me or John because most people don't have enough money to afford us.

I'm sorry, but ethics is not about fairness. Ethics is about morals. About what is right or wrong. And having more capital to invest in promoting and marketing a business does not touch upon the morality or ethics of what is done with that money.

The question was whether it is unethical to *sell* links, and it might well be a different question about whether it is moral or ethical to buy them ... but I am fine with this thread addressing both.

Still listening for someone to speak to the question of ethics.

So you dont think that people with poor quality web sites using their money to jump ahead of better quality web sites is wrong?

This discussion can go round in circles. It all depends on if you see buying links as a way of cheating the search engines or not.

Cranky and Tubby you are completely correct. Google messed it all up. They should sort the mess out. But really, they provided a pretty simple solution to improve the quality of the search results using the nofollow tag. How else are they going to determine if a link is paid for or not?