Is this a violation of Google's TOS?

[SIA]

Ok, question to the great minds of WPW.

I have been looking at what constitutes Black Hat SEO for some time now and cam across something I was curious about.

I was at a website that allowed users to purchase back links within their articles. The website is text based and has a ton of information on an incredible amount of information. They allow you to purchase a backlink based on a keyword phrase that you choose. The one that got my attention was about website design and the keyword phrase I would be interested in is in this article. I can purchase the back link rights to that keyword phrase as little or as much as I want on their website. It turns the text from standard text into a relevant anchor tagged back link.

Would this be a violation of the big G's terms of service or did someone find a loophole here?

[shakir]

Selling links is violating, but what u r doing is good way that u r updating utr content alos regarding the sold links. its good and technically no problem on it

[kgun]

Originally Posted by shakir

Selling links is violating, ...

As far as I know that is misinformation. Can you quote?

[chrisJumbo]

Google's TOS for what? Do they own your website?

Google has said they don't like people buying/selling links to affect page rank. But there is no TOS document that you are agreeing to that says you won't.

Google wants you to put the nofollow on bought/sold links if you do. However, what you do with your site is your business.

Of course, if you go against Google's suggestions they can also choose to penalize your site. Maybe you were using the term TOS in a general sense.

[chowell]

Google says stay away from paid links that help your SEO/PageRank, but virtually everyone is doing it. I can point out lots of big name sites (Fortune 500, etc.) that do both buying and selling, but they're often not affected.

So I guess the bigger question is: Are you going to jump? LOL...

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by shakir

Selling links is violating, but what u r doing is good way that u r updating utr content alos regarding the sold links. its good and technically no problem on it

Ummm. it violates the content guidelines but the TOS (Terms of Service) I'm not so sure of. Remember also that selling links is also breaking the content guidelines (this is as good of an example of a paid link as I've seen on here) so not only you but the author has broken the guidelines if the links do not include rel="NoFollow". So I'd say only buy them as advertising I wouldn't buy them for SEO. That said if the author sells you advertising and doesn't use the rel="NoFollow" then they have broken the content guidelines and that could cause you a problem down the road. Exactly the degree to which it may be a problem is not known for sure. At the very least it is added risk and should be treated in that manner.

[Martinscholes]

And the sponsored links on Google search results, are... Gosh! They'd be 'paid for' links!

Yeah. Of course. Google have them rigged as "nofollows". As if!

[Terry Van Horne]

No... NoFollow but they are going through a proxy/redirect which is the same as using nofollow. Besides that SE's don't have to play by the rules, they make the rules and give you an opportunity to get some free advertising. The above argument is a strawman argument that the lame and spammers hide behind to justify unethical and unprofessional conduct. SE's are not public entities! They are private so like you can do what you want on your site, they can do whatever they want because basically you are riding on their dime!

[Big Juice]

Google will someday rel=nofollow itself out of usefulness or the public's favor - or at least we can hope that they do.

[Martinscholes]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

No... NoFollow but they are going through a proxy/redirect which is the same as using nofollow. Besides that SE's don't have to play by the rules, they make the rules and give you an opportunity to get some free advertising. The above argument is a strawman argument that the lame and spammers hide behind to justify unethical and unprofessional conduct. SE's are not public entities! They are private so like you can do what you want on your site, they can do whatever they want because basically you are riding on their dime!

Terry, you seem to be arguing that without Search Engines, there would be no Internet. That's not true. There should be a symbiotic relationship. They need websites, websites need them.

And just to make it clear, I am neither lame, nor a spammer. Nor was I attempting to justify unethical behaviour.

[Terry Van Horne]

Sorry, I've been hearing that stuff for 15 years and so... I get a little bit too much attitude. You likely aren't lame or a spammer but... those are the same arguments they use. It is no co-incidence that with the improvement of search technology ie: Google came accelerated Internet growth. Why, try to find anything without using a SE it takes much more time and effort for us can you imagine what it's like for John Q. In the early days when the churn rate was huge it was because people found it too hard to find what they wanted so.... there would be an Internet... it would just be useless to most people out there.

[wige]

Actually, the methods that Google uses for paid ads (including on their web site and Adsense) utilize one of the methods specifically mentioned by Google as an alternative to rel=nofollow. As far as could be determined, Yahoo and MSN don't calculate links passing through certain types of 302 redirections.

Edit: Its actually called a blocked 302 interstitial page.

[texxs]

It's sites that sell links that have to worry about this most.
Lots of above is true to.

don't worry dude, you're free to do what you want with your sites. some things will get you penalized/banned fom google but this isn't one of them.

Paid text links are the most basic forms of advertising. Google can't do anything about it except huff and puff and hopefully change their system into one that isn't so easily manipulated by people with money. Probably going to take quite a while because google doesn't want to admit their search results suck and always have (except in their first couple years).

[nthampi]

I don't see any violation, but if google and other search engines don't like it, they may not value those links. So, you need to worry about the ROI.

[SnerdeyWebs]

It's totally up to Google to do what they want... just like it's totally up to you to do what you want. Choosing to advertise and where, how is vital if you're concerned about what your doing just email Google. They will advise and they always communicate with us when we have a concern about something.

Google might be big brother on the web but there's other siblings out there brewing up the next new thing so they know they have to be careful not to run you off.

This was FUNNY!!

"And the sponsored links on Google search results, are... Gosh! They'd be 'paid for' links!"

Like that attitude and good to see it around

Good Luck!

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by SIA

Ok, question to the great minds of WPW.

I have been looking at what constitutes Black Hat SEO for some time now and cam across something I was curious about.

I was at a website that allowed users to purchase back links within their articles. The website is text based and has a ton of information on an incredible amount of information. They allow you to purchase a backlink based on a keyword phrase that you choose. The one that got my attention was about website design and the keyword phrase I would be interested in is in this article. I can purchase the back link rights to that keyword phrase as little or as much as I want on their website. It turns the text from standard text into a relevant anchor tagged back link.

Would this be a violation of the big G's terms of service or did someone find a loophole here?

I know this might sound silly but how does google KNOW that the link to your site is one that was paid for? If it were from a site called links farm or something ok but from a normal site that say sells nothing or a small business ... unless that site has lots of links to unrelated sites just how is it done,& proved to have been done.

[Martinscholes]

There would seem to be a conflict of interest. Would a paid for link really cause a problem for a search engine? Or is the real problem -possibly- that Google see any paid link as a £ or $ out of Google's purse?

[SIA]

Originally Posted by ron angel

I know this might sound silly but how does google KNOW that the link to your site is one that was paid for? If it were from a site called links farm or something ok but from a normal site that say sells nothing or a small business ... unless that site has lots of links to unrelated sites just how is it done,& proved to have been done.

Well when enough links come from a certain site, one of the big G's staff looks on the site to see if you can pay for those links. Then they check whether or not those links are valid. I know this being in Sacramento. I have had many trips down to Mountain View and found that a lot of what we look at as black hat, Google just lets sit there rather than telling people yes it would work.What I like is that the site that I am talking about doesn't allow for more than three one way links within 500 words of text. They also only allow it to be relevant. You can't just say "I want 100 links to my site" You actually have to categorize your site first and then choose valid search terms or you will be caught, lose your account, your links, and your money.

My thought process is that Google is looking for validity in the links, so if I have valid links on related pages, I would think it helps both Google and I.