Google Publicly Attacking Paid Links Again!

[Webnauts]

I just came from the blog of Jaan (IncredibleHelp). I was reading his post there http://www.jaankanellis.com/google-p...nks-againstop/ and I thought it deserves a real discussion here.

Attention: I would like to ask the "thank you", "good information", "helped me a lot", "great information" and such posts posters, not to spoil my thread. Just hold back and enjoy reading.

Thanks in advance,

John

[dburdon]

Webnauts,

I've read Jaan's blog and it raises some interesting points. I'd be wary of using the small print of a law designed to prevent overt public paid endorsement with the cottage industry of link building.

The other issue is regards Google's big brother approach. It is after all an effective monopoly. In both the US and EU, companies with 60-90% market share would expect to be heavily regulated. In the media world this is even more likely to be so. An abuse of a dominant market position risks sever financial penalties within the EU and these penalties are related to turnover or profit. In the media world this is even more likely to be so.

I am amazed that Google has reached it level of dominance so relatively unscathed. Essentially, its probably because regulators are so far behind the curve on the Internet and search in particular. A TV station with an 70% share of European broadcasting would be under severe scrutiny, particularly if it was US owned.

Google has a dominant share of paid search (See Is Google Cheating you on Adwords?) and it wouldn't be difficult to see the link between penalising paid links with the benefits they yield from selling pay per click. Its all ultimately part of the same food chain. And Google wants to ensure they yield the maximum possible.

[Martinscholes]

Google MUST be careful. The EU as well as the US governments can and will kick their butts if they decide they are abusing their position.

[freetraff]

In my opinion this is a good example of how Google one more time is running "informational wars".

I remember ~ 2 years ago the panic: "My God, Google slaps for paid links!" and other stuff being heavily discussed. Sometimes it looked to me that some people were ready to commit suicide, judging by the doomsday tone of their posts about this topic.

So what?

If I am not mistaken some sites were publicly nailed down and "decapitated", some stupid link services kicked into the b*tt. Most of the paid link services are ok up to now.

The only real effect was that a portion of people got scared by the official Google threats to punish for paid backlinks. I agree, that was a smart step to run a fear campaign and scare people off from buying backlinks, good job. The people who did the media component of this informational war should get yachts as bonuses for a great job.

Has anything changed this time?

I don't know - I am not Google. But I assume that it is not easy to catch paid backlinks algorithmically.

"Report a paid link service" feature - well, I don't know. Webnauts in some of the recent posts on WPW quoted an article with answers from Google team and the answer to this question was something like 'yes we see you all', so what?

I assume that algorithmically it is possible to catch some primitive link brokers with packs of junk links in the footer. Or link farms.

But not real backlinks, otherwise Google will have to close the whole net.

Bottom line: my personal opinion - this is the sequel of informational wars about paid links. Once again we will see some "public executions" done by Google. Once again the masses will be creating thousands of forum threads about it. Once again - the majority of paid link services will survive.

Real life will show whether my point of view is correct or not. As WPW stores the info for a long time, let's get back to my words in a year - after the media part of informational war gets calmed down.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by freetraff

I don't know - I am not Google. But I assume that it is not easy to catch paid backlinks algorithmically.

My opinion, they will not catch all. How is it on non English sites?

That is why I have come up with my own model for publishers that I have to repeat once more:

Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers

with

1. A rel="nofollow" attribute on the link inside a
2. <div id="advert"> Ad here </div> tag

I will be surprised if that article will come directly on the first page of the SERP's unless it is an exact search term.

Google:

"Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers" (in quotes - that is exact term)

and you find two WPW posts where the article is cited. It was written 07.09.2008.

Originally Posted by freetraff

I assume that algorithmically it is possible to catch some primitive link brokers with packs of junk links in the footer. Or link farms.

Yes, and triangular, trapezoid, ... , n-angular linking may be detected. Don't underestimate a SE Bot.

Originally Posted by freetraff

But not real backlinks, otherwise Google will have to close the whole net.

My bolding.

Yes, that is the issue. In an ideal world, there are what we may call a pure, generic or canonical semantic link. Now, Google have made me put Rel="nofollow" on all links I agree to exchange with friends, even if I try to make it semantic.

There is a Norwegian saying (a cite by Henrik Ibsen): "Don't go with the ideal demand." IMO it would have been better for Google to say something like:

It is our objective to make the best spam free SE

Submitted links, reciprocal links, triangular etc etc that are not semantic will carry a weight of 0. In the worst cases the site can be removed from our index / register. When is a submitted (directory) link semantic?

Related WPW post:
Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

Conclusion:

1. Google own their ePropery / site and decide what they present there.
2. Web masters own their ePropery / site and decide what they present there.
3. My solution for static brand links are like advertising in a Magazine, in this case a digital version.

[A Phoenix SEO]

I figure it this way... Google is providing a free service. They are also a business that has the right to establish their rules and criteria. It is kinda like the BCS system for American college football. They set the standards and they set the rules. A lot of people grip but it doesn't change the end results. If they choose to set certain rules and you want to appear in the results they produce then you play by their rules. You don't have to like the rules you just need to adhere to them.

[kgun]

Yes, rules are Ok, but it is also assumed that the rules are equally valid to everybody.

1. I doubt that the majority of webmasters have heard about the rel="nofollow" attribute.
2. There is no discrimination on geo location and language. How many in Norway have heard about the above attribute? I doubt there are many. I have asked two webmasters. None of them had heard of it.
3. I nofollow links exchanged with friends. Bots are not human beings. The SE Bot could reckognize a pattern that were mistaken as a paid link pattern.
4. Static brand links that are nofollowed. Google should love that model, but my above article is still not indexed.

No hit:

Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers site:adschoolworld.com

But there is a paid Google AdWords link at the top of the SERP.

Buy Relevant Edu Links

On Quality Sites & Watch Your Website Traffic Sky Rocket

Site: http://www.edutextlink.com/

Google:

"Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers"

One of the two links I mentioned in my above post are now removed.

And in my opinion web standards are set here: http://www.w3.org/

Originally Posted by wige

Kgun, in your install of IE 6, do you have Google Toolbar installed?

Google toolbar now overrides the default error document if it is below a certain size. This is also done by Google Chrome.

Source: Custom error pages::: Best practices.

Overriding a 404 error document below a certain size. What standard is that?