70 replies to this topic

[Jill]

It's particularly egregious since their business model is serving links to paid sponsors, but they don't want folks doing it on their blogs or sites unless they add "nofollow" and remove some of the value of that link... Seems highly hypocritical to me.

What are you talking about Rand?

You're acting like Google is telling everyone not to buy links which isn't the case at all! They're simply saying that those links shouldn't count towards link popularity. They're by no means telling sites or people what to do or not to do on their site. It's not like they're gonna penalize sites who buy links, not at all.

Your post just doesn't make any sense to me.

[randfish]

Sorry, Jill. I wasn't totally clear.

My point was that Google wants link sellers to put "nofollow" on their sites, which would inherently diminish the value of the links they sell. That's where I find hypocrisy - a link seller telling all the other link sellers of the web how to run their business.

It's also frustrating because paid links are not the intent of "nofollow". Nofollow is supposed to say "I can't vouch for this link" or "this link wasn't added by the editor, but by a visitor or anonymous source".

That's not the case with paid links - they're editorially approved by the site running the ad. If the search engine trusts the site to deliver relevant content, that trust should also extend to the quality/relevance of their advertisers (and in many cases it does).

But, the campaign against paid links or to add nofollow simply isn't logical - it's a very prideful stance and one that was (I believe) made hastily and without full consideration of the impact.

[amabaie]

It's also frustrating because paid links are not the intent of "nofollow". Nofollow is supposed to say "I can't vouch for this link" or "this link wasn't added by the editor, but by a visitor or anonymous source".

Gee, and I assumed that "nofollow" meant simply not to follow.

[qwerty]

I mostly agree with Rand. I made a post a few months back (but I'm too lazy to go searching for it) where I suggested that "nofollow" wasn't sufficient, if it's really supposed to pass on the message that a given link is not officially vouched for. A paid advertisement is accepted by the site owner, and as such, nofollow shouldn't be thrown onto it.

However, it's quite common for newspapers to run ads that look like articles, and they usually put the word "Advertisement" above them so that people will know (although they're likely to figure it out themselves) that this is in fact an ad.

I don't think that ads should carry any weight in ranking. They're not votes or recommendations; they're paid placements. And they're often worth having as part of an overall marketing strategy without any thought of a ranking benefit. It would be nice if the SEs could figure out what is and isn't an ad on their own, but obviously they can't, and that's why they bestowed nofollow upon us. We're supposed to tell them. So maybe we need something like rel="paid" to let them know, although I can't imagine anyone actually putting that on a link, no matter how obvious it is that it's an ad. We'd end up with site owners charging a premium for ads that aren't labelled as ads.

[Debra]

I tried to make my little scenario a search engine case not a marketing case. I guess I know the answer to my own question; ceteris paribus, you cannont compete with a site that conducts a legit link building campaign.

Only in rare cases could a site just launch and do well serp and traffic wise. Sites like the official Harry Potter and other entertainment types come to mind as examples.

But for the VAST VAST majority of sites who enter into the fray then yes, you do need to do something in order to rank well. You can't just sit back and let it come even if you have a wonderful site unless you're prepared to wait a while. Link popularity is written into these search engine algos - hence they look for that part of the equation when they spider sites.

Bottom line: You need links.

[Scottie]

My point was that Google wants link sellers to put "nofollow" on their sites, which would inherently diminish the value of the links they sell. That's where I find hypocrisy - a link seller telling all the other link sellers of the web how to run their business.

Geez, I haven't been keeping up. Where have they said to put [nofollow] on paid links and what is the benefit to the site owner for doing this?

[SearchRank]

Geez, I haven't been keeping up.  Where have they said to put [nofollow] on paid links and what is the benefit to the site owner for doing this?

Matt Cutt's Blog.

Excerpt:

A natural question is: what is Google’s current approach to link buying? Of course our link-weighting algorithms are the first line of defense, but it’s difficult to catch every problem case in adversarial information retrieval, so we also look for problems and leaks in different semi-automatic ways. Reputable sites that sell links won’t have their search engine rankings or PageRank penalized–a search for [daily cal] would still return dailycal.org. However, link-selling sites can lose their ability to give reputation (e.g. PageRank and anchortext).

What if a site wants to buy links purely for visitor click traffic, to build buzz, or to support another site? In that situation, I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute. The nofollow tag allows a site to add a link that abstains from being an editorial vote. Using nofollow is a safe way to buy links, because it’s a machine-readable way to specify that a link doesn’t have to be counted as a vote by a search engine.

[Jill]

Yep, Matt did say that, and I agree it's dumb. It's not up to us to do Google's job for them.

But I stand by the fact that Google is still not controlling what people do with their sites. It's not like they're saying they'd penalize your site or delist it or something if you don't do it.

[SearchRank]

Right. What they are saying is that they do not want a paid link to count as an algorithmic link or a natural link which I have differing opinions on.

For example, I have an Arizona construction and home improvement directory in which I sell inclusion into directory as well as featured ads. No site gets in unless it is completely relevant to the main topic of site. The links are also useful to my end users because they come there looking for construction and home improvement companies to hire.

I like the benefit of being able to send traffic directly from my directory to the contractor's site but at the same time like the fact that I am casting a link popularity vote that "here is a construction or home improvement related site that should show up in the SERPs" when someone performs a related search query.

I don't like the fact that Google is strongly suggesting that I should add a nofollow attribute to those links because they are being paid for. Who cares if I placed them there voluntarily or charged for them? They are relevant to the topic of my site and they are sites that would be relevant if found in the SERPs for queries that are related to them.

What is funny is that Google started this whole scenario with their PageRank algorithm. They had to realize that people would monetize this. Of course people game the system as well. Now they want to take their ball and go home so to speak and in essence, throw the baby out with the bath water instead of finding a more sensible solution that doesn't punish or negatively affect everyone.

I hate irrelevant linking schemes that screw up the relevancy of the search results as much as the next guy but at the same time, I am a guy that buys links, not irrelevant ones and not as a replacement to developing a quality site but as a help to the site when it is needed.

[Jill]

But it's within Google's right to count or not count whatever they want in their ranking algorithm.

If they decided tomorrow that any page that uses the keywords someone is searching for at the engine in the body of their page, that they would no longer show up in the SERP for that phrase -- it would be their right to do so. Yeah it would be stupid, but so what?

Their engine, their rules. It's not them taking their bat and going home at all. It's them deciding what they want to count towards the relevancy of a site. If they believe that a paid link (no matter how relevant) should not count towards relevancy in THEIR algo, so be it. It's their algo.

This is not a game between site owners and Google. It's Google's game alone. I don't get why that is so difficult for so many to get!

[qwerty]

Because by asking us to use nofollow, they're basically admitting that, while it's their game, they need some coaching.

I'm all for paid links not counting. It would be nice if the web were a more level playing field (ok, enough of those metaphors) and having site owners who don't have budgets as large as those of multinationals have a chance at getting as much link pop as them would be, dare I say it, fairer.

[randfish]

Jill, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they shouldn't be free to count or not count whatever links they want.

What we are against is them bullying or threatening (i.e. do this or we'll penalize your rankings) webmasters into conforming to a business model that doesn't use their SERPs as a commodity (when they obviously do this themselves).

[Jill]

Because by asking us to use nofollow, they're basically admitting that, while it's their game, they need some coaching.

Agreed.

What we are against is them bullying or threatening (i.e. do this or we'll penalize your rankings) webmasters into conforming to a business model that doesn't use their SERPs as a commodity (when they obviously do this themselves).

But they didn't say they'd penalize your rankings if you don't use nofollow on your paid links, did they? If they did, then that's another story.

[Michael Martinez]

What we are against is them bullying or threatening (i.e. do this or we'll penalize your rankings) webmasters into conforming to a business model that doesn't use their SERPs as a commodity (when they obviously do this themselves).

By that logic, Rand, shouldn't Google therefore object to Webmasters using their own content as a business model instead of Google's SERPs? Every Webmaster is free to block Google from their server. I do that often (mostly to keep my server alive). Having the freedom to choose NOT to rely on Google is, in my opinion, preferable to being in a verbal tug-o-war with them over what is and is not acceptable.

I can criticize Google for many reasons, but not for monitizing their search results. It's their search engine. They can do whatever they wish with it.

"Without me, Google doesn't exist." That's what every Webmaster should remember.

[SearchRank]

But they didn't say they'd penalize your rankings if you don't use nofollow on your paid links, did they? If they did, then that's another story.

No... not yet, only that they would not allow them to count as a vote or to pass link popularity. They (Matt) also seems to indicate that a site selling links will lose its authority to give reputation.

From Matt Cutts Blog:

However, link-selling sites can lose their ability to give reputation (e.g. PageRank and anchortext).

Of course we have already seen Google doing that for some time now with select sites so that is really nothing new in an of itself.

I can't see them penalizing sites for selling links. If they did, what would that do to the relevancy of their results when major authority sites that sell links are no longer part of the SERPs?