65 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

I just don't get it. Matt starts a post (http://www.mattcutts...ort-paid-links/):

One thing I heard at SES London was that people wanted a way to report paid links specifically.

And people start getting all huffy. What is the big deal? Can someone please explain it to me?

[Nueromancer]

I just don't get it. Matt starts a post (http://www.mattcutts...ort-paid-links/):

And people start getting all huffy. What is the big deal? Can someone please explain it to me?

Those that have big networks of dodgy link exchanges that they have built would be my bet. :-) its interestig to see the ones that went balistic oops a few SEO playa's just outed your selves as BH's - neaver a good idea.

Some times the responses to Matt C's posts are as interesting as the post it's self.

[Randy]

I don't get the hubbub either Mike.

But then again I probably wouldn't since I don't sell any links and only buy the odd link based purely upon the amount of qualified traffic it'll send. I don't ever expect those to count for link pop anyway.

[St0n3y]

we don't buy or sell links but I think that for Matt to ask people to report when they think someone is (gasp!) buying a link is ridiculous. Should we also report when they run a TV ad or radio spot?

[qwerty]

If you feel that it's ok to sell links without going the extra step of creating a machine-readable way to specifically tell search engines that that's what's going on, then it seems that Google's pronouncements about the subject put you in the camp that believes that big G just wants to stop all forms of online advertising that they don't control (and profit from) themselves.

That's not my view, but I do see the point. My opinion is that it's unwise to link to any site you don't trust, whether they paid for the link or not, so once you've decided to link to them, there's no reason to warn the search engines about it. I do believe advertisements should be labeled for people, but I don't like the idea of going the extra step and encoding the ads so the links won't carry any weight. If a search engine doesn't want to count a link, then it doesn't count it. Do they need me to give them hints?

And as far as reporting goes, I've reported a few unsavory links in my day, but those were hidden links that were carrying weight. I think that's a much more important issue.

[Michael Martinez]

The hubbub is all about link anchor text. You basically gain three value points from a link:

• Trust
• PageRank
• Anchor text

There are other ways links help you, though. For example, they send traffic to you, they help get you crawled, and they help you build brand visibility.

Most people who are buying links do it either for the PageRank (which is really not a worthwhile expense) or the anchor text. Some people pay for Brand Visibility and traffic but those people should have no problem with disclosure and using links that don't pass value.

The majority of SEOs are seeking inbound links for the anchor text. While people capture links in ways other than buying them, the whole point of getting link anchor text is to manipulate search engine results. There are plenty of people who will hem and haw and try (unsuccessfully) to rationalize their way out of the brown paper bag but the bottom line is if you care what the anchor text is, you are only getting links for the purpose of manipulating search engine results.

Google doesn't want people to manipulate its search engine results, but neither do the people at Google want to give up the practice of allowing links to pass anchor text to other pages.

Bearing in mind that passing anchor text is only a small part of the Google algorithm, most SEOs nonetheless make it a core part of their strategies to build up link anchor text. Hence, now that Google is warning people to get away from paid links or ele (and this round of warnings from Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox is very different from previous warnings), those people around the Web who have been using paid link anchor text to boost their relevance are facing SEO disaster.

Google is not likely to give up the passing of anchor text, but they are determined to minimize the manipulation of anchor text as much as possible. These warnings from Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox are presented very much like warnings that Google issued last year just a few month before they started knocking the majority of Web content out of the Main Web index (leaving most pages in the Supplemenhtal Index).

The bottom line here is that if you buy links for any value-passing reason, you'd better have a falback plan because wishful thinking isn't going to change Google's direction on the issue. They have made it sound very much like they are about to unleash new filtering technology or something on that scale.

But that is what the hubbub is all about because, quite frankly, devaluing link selling pages en masse can also result in the devaluing of many natural, editorially given links unless Google really is convinced it can identify just the paid links.

And as I am sure people will argue these latest warnings are no different from past comments about paid links, I will point out that -- among other differences I'm not going into right now -- Matt Cutts has asked people to start reporting paid links to Google. You'd better believe they'll scrutinize every report carefully and build as much algorithmic knowledge from those reports as they possibly can.

Paid links may not be dead, they may never die, but it's a very sure thing that paid links are about to die for a lot of people later this year. In fact, many paid links died when their pages went into the Supplemental Index.

[Jill]

The hubbub is because it's rotten to promote ways of squealing on your neighbors. Wasn't that what they did in the McCarthy era (or something like that...i'm not up on history that much!).

[justicewhite]

How do you guys think this is going to effect the web directories?

Most of the directories start off as free and then they start charging people to get into their directory. How does someone know if a link is paid for or not? And, why should someone who got a free link be penalised for it?

I think this is going to mess up a lot of "innocent" people as well. That's why there is so much noise about it.

[arteworks]

What's the worst that can happen? The links don't get "counted" towards positive ranking factors. So what. I don't believe anyone here is proposing a penalty. Just an exclusion of certain links from having "voting power". Who cares? If the link is good for you, get it. If you're buying links for the search engines, and only for that reason, then (a) you're an idiot; and ( i guess you would have reason to be concerned. Paid links are already discounted, if not excluded, anyway, so far as I can tell. This is no change in the status quo.

Nobody is suggesting that people who purchase links should be "penalized". So buy away, if so suits you. Just don't expect it to have a search engine effect. But a traffic effect? If so, then go for it.

There is nothing wrong with Google wanting to ensure that "voting" links are "real" links to quality content. It's their search engine. They can do what they want.

Savvy entreprenuers will profit off of this. I think I will scour the web for sites with questionable links, then make them pay me NOT to turn them in. The mere threat of adversity should be enough to make people throw some dough my way.

[qwerty]

Savvy entreprenuers will profit off of this. I think I will scour the web for sites with questionable links, then make them pay me NOT to turn them in. The mere threat of adversity should be enough to make people throw some dough my way.

I see you gots some outbound links. It would be a real shame if someting was to happen to dem links, like maybe dey stopped passing anka text weight. If da soich engines found out about dese links, dat'd be a real pity...

[franco81]

I don't understand how anyone, including Google, can accurately identify paid links?

[qwerty]

That's partly why they're hoping people will send them reports. You report a site, I report a site that's doing something similar, and they're going to start to see trends -- who owns sites that are selling links, where on the page they're being placed, the anchor text being used, etc. That kind of seeding can help them put together an algorithmic way of figuring it out. It certainly won't be perfect, though.

[projectphp]

They can't Franco81. But they can detect networks, using link analyisis, that look "wrong" or "articificial". If some poker site has a PR of 9, one would wonder why, and all the sites that link to it would likely be part of this "Artificial" network.

The hubbub is because it's rotten to promote ways of squealing on your neighbors.

But people asked for it, and we have always had squealling (spam reports). Nothing has really changed, hence why i just don't get the hubub. Matt just gave people what they wanted which, really, is business 101.

The assumption seems to me to be that this is going to lead to mass, individual bannings. I severely doubt that. The whole idea that Google will play Whac-a-paid-link-seller is just unlikely and costly.

Rather, I bet they use the information to start to look for algorithms to detect this sort of thing. To do that, you need data. If people are willing to provide it (for free), why not?

[Jill]

There is nothing wrong with Google wanting to ensure that "voting" links are "real" links to quality content. It's their search engine. They can do what they want.

Absolutively posolutely. But that's their job not ours.

But people asked for it. Matt just gave them what they wanted which, really, is what we teach here; give your customers what they want.

You buy that? Do you think people are really asking for that?

[projectphp]

I really do. I'd bet the house on it

Look at all the spam reports people send. People LIKE to do it. People LOVE narking. The Cuttlets are, I am sure, demanding this sort of thing.

All that has happenned is that Matt has offered a short term, red light special. For the next few weeks, you can spam report paid links!!!! Get 'em while they still pass PageRank.

IMHO, Matt's post changed nothing, but by the reaction, you would think that the world had ended. That smacks, to me, of self justifying fear.