70 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

Well, the worst that could happen is that they'd admit there's no way for them to algorithmically figure out which links are votes and which are ads, and determine that the best way to protect the relevance of their results would be to stop using links in the equation.

That would be a pity, because I think that it makes sense for links to carry weight, but it might in fact even the playing field somewhat, and I'd still see plenty of reasons to continue increasing the visibility of sites via linking -- either paid or not.

[Jill]

Well, the worst that could happen is that they'd admit there's no way for them to algorithmically figure out which links are votes and which are ads, and determine that the best way to protect the relevance of their results would be to stop using links in the equation.

They wouldn't do that though as it would ruin their index completely.

[SearchRank]

That's what I'm referring to, because people began to cry out loud (including ones like Danny Sullivan) that it is unfair and stupid to strip a site of PR-passing potential if it sells links. It is not unfair and not stupid at all.

If it is true that Google has stripped Search Engine Watch of the ability to pass link reputation site-wide because they sell ads, then that is stupid IMO. SEW is an authority site on search and as such has lots and lots of great editorial content which links to other resources within that content. If Google was smart, they'd be able to find a way to identify the paid links from the editorial links but they are not that smart yet.

To take a site like SEW and strip it from being able to pass reputation (not saying that they have) is the lazy solution. "We can't identify which links are paid or which are editorial but we know they are selling ads so we will just turn the ability to pass reputation off completely."

Of course they have the right to do that but it is not the most intelligent way to combat this problem.

[qwerty]

This doesn't answer the general question, but in the specific case of SEW, it would be ludicrous to take away its ability to pass link pop, not just for the reasons David listed, but because the ads there are labeled. They're all in sections marked "Marketplace" and images in those ads are in a directory called http://searchenginew.../RealMedia/ads/.

They're certainly not hiding anything from the reader, so even if googlebot can't figure it out, they can't blame SEW for that.

[incrediblehelp]

Jill and I don't agree on everything, but we both agree strongly that building content and making your site a great resource for visitors is a positive method for attracting links and visibility.

I agree with both of you here.

[Michael Martinez]

If the ads are being priced in part because of the value they pass within Google's index, then Google has already long since established a precedent in the Bob Massa affair. They penalize sites that attempt to monetize the value that is internal to their index.

[ChipJohns]

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.

I couldn't agree with his more. Only we have a situation that even goes a step beyond this... We are looking at links that people buy that don't even have advertising worth. That's all they are is a link on a page to increase pop.

The system was started on a great premise. It is however broken. it needs to be fixed. is there a way to fix it 100%. I don't think so... So what do they do? Google isn't out to keep us at bay. They just want to make the system work better.

---- --- --

Also, it was mentioned that Google can do whatever they want. This is true, however, if they expect everyone else to practice proper "ethics" they need to set the example. They have to exercise community respnosibility as well.

They built this remarkable thing they have, The Great GOOGLE ... So..!

They have a respnosibility to people who use their service to search for relative content. AND, HOWEVER, they also have a responsibility to the web site owners who have put their trust in Google and have put a personal stake in this business of search engine marketing...(without whom would make Google just a Giant Library.)


Is it perfect? No. And it never will be. Is there a better way? This is the question

[qwerty]

A client of mine experimented with ROS text link ads for about six months. Their reported backlinks and PR both went up in Google, but their rank for the term that anchored those links hardly changed at all (it vacillated between 6 and 8 for the whole period). The links have been gone for a month or two, and they're at #7 for the term right now.

We next tried something different: we're advertising with a graphic link on three pages of a site that is very tightly targeted to their business. The previous site was sort of tangentially related to them, and the other text links there had nothing at all to do with the niche.

The links all run through a jump script and they're clearly advertisements. I told my clients when we were considering this that there was no way they'd get any ranking boost from these links, and they were fine with that. Instead, we're linking them to their blog in an effort to build up its reputation as a source of news and editorial content within the niche. Link pop isn't really the goal, but these ads may well lead to other bloggers linking to them, and those are likely to count in the SEs.

Another small advantage of this is that the site on which we're advertising is going to share their clickthrough data with us, which I'll compare with the data in our logs, giving me further opportunity to judge the efficacy of the ads.

So who needs link pop?

[Jill]

This is true, however, if they expect everyone else to practice proper "ethics" they need to set the example.

Argh.

Don't you see that Google isn't expecting anyone to practice proper ethics? They're just trying to build a search engine that is useful to their visitors.

[Michael Martinez]

They have a respnosibility to people who use their service to search for relative content. AND, HOWEVER, they also have a responsibility to the web site owners who have put their trust in Google and have put a personal stake in this business of search engine marketing...(without whom would make Google just a Giant Library.)

That is not correct. I, as a Webmaster with numerous listings in Google, have never been asked to sign any sort of contract with them. Google has no responsibility to me whatsoever, with respect how to operate its search engine.

These kinds of faux rationalizations don't help the Webmaster community deal with reality in the least.

[Robert813]

  I, as a Webmaster with numerous listings in Google, have never been asked to sign any sort of contract with them

Contracts are not only written but verbal and implied as well! When Google sets guidlines in writing and people abide by them and then the "normal flow of trade" gets disrupted via updates or changed policies, as commerce continues to increase on the Internet, don't be surpirsed if at somepoint the Fair Trade Commission gets involved.

Edited by Robert813, 15 December 2005 - 05:52 PM.

[making-it-big]

That is not correct. I, as a Webmaster with numerous listings in Google, have never been asked to sign any sort of contract with them. Google has no responsibility to me whatsoever, with respect how to operate its search engine.

These kinds of faux rationalizations don't help the Webmaster community deal with reality in the least.

Actually this statement is a faux rationalization.

Responsibility does in no way HAVE to be transfered/accepted through contract. I can be dictated or assumed for example. A mother can dictate responsibility to a child. The child can accept the responsibility of the duty the mother has set forth or the child can choose not to do it. The child now has been FORCED the responsibility of choice. Either get in trouble for not doing the chore or just do the chore and make mom happy. Once the choice has been made the child now has the responsibility to take action on the choice made. The child now also has the responsibility of EFFECT choice. There was not even a written contract between the mother and child.

As in Google's case: Let's say Google dictates to webmasters that you MUST us a nofollow on paid links. If you do not you will get banned from their index. The responsibility of Google not crawling/considering those liks are now on the webmaster. The webmaster must assume the responsibility or suffer the concequences reguardless of the webmaster wanting the responsibility in the first place. Just as in google trying to force responsibility scanning books saying that "authors can opt-out". They force the responsibility on authors. Authors turned it around and said no way you must ask us to opt-in FIRST putting the responsibility back on Google. And it worked.

Webmasters can do the same to Google. If let's say 98% of webmasters think that Google is treating and exploiting us then a soulution would be to tell google what we want to see differently. If they do not accept the responsibility then we can disallow our sties from their index. If they have no index...they have no product...forcing the responsibility of such decision and being responsible to uphold the decision.

The same goes with searchers.

Google has the responsibility to keep webmasters, searchers, as well as investors happy. If they do not...they will fail. This is what business is all about. Simple market forces/demands. This is what determines the responsibility they must take on and assume when they went into and continue to grow in this business.

Edited by making-it-big, 15 December 2005 - 08:03 PM.

[Michael Martinez]

Arguing that Google has some sort of moral responsibility to Webmasters is a waste of time. They don't owe us anything.

However, Robert813 makes an interesting point. Common Law might be established through some sort of precedental behavior, and many court systems honor Common Law to a certain extent.

But I think if that turns out to be the case, Google has sufficiently warned Webmasters not to expect consistent results.

I may poke around some of the legal archives next week to see how contract law has been applied to the World Wide Web. I have followed legal debates over Intellectual Property Rights, Privacy, and Free Speech and the Internet for years. I don't think I've ever dipped into Contract Law.

Maybe Ian might have something to say on this subject at this point.

[projectphp]

... don't be surpirsed if at somepoint the Fair Trade Commission gets involved.

In what? How google deal with websites? With the [url=http://searchengineland.com/070621-145956.php]Keep the Faith When the Algo Changes[/url]? What? Because they are already involved, in so far as Google operate as a business.

If Google tried to stiff you with AdWords, they would be stuffed. But their algo? I fail to see any legal precedent for such a view. In fact, quite the opposite.

[Jill]

If Google tried to stiff you with AdWords, they would be stuffed. But their algo? I fail to see any legal precedent for such a view. In fact, quite the opposite.

Yep, and it's pretty much already been tested with the SearchKing case.