65 replies to this topic

[St0n3y]

good point Qwerty!

Undisclosed advertisements in "editorial content" are considered deceptive by the FTC. This isn't just Google's opinion. It is deceptive.

What constitutes a "advertisement" or paid link. I agree that ads should be marked as such but a paid link can be many many things, the least of which is an advertisement. In fact if I link to someone, they find it and link back on their own, that, technically, could be considered "paid". I got that link because I paid with another link. It's a stretch, I know, but the point is the same. Google wants to be notified of paid links because their algo can't do it themselves. But who says any of those paid links are an attempt at deception?

I'm not arguing with you here Dan, just putting my thoughts out there.

You have started with an assumption that paid links are bad.

No I didn't. I assume that links can be given and recieved for many reasons. Just because it's paid Google should not assume something nefarious is going on and worth of being "reported".

Huh? That makes no sense! Of course they will do something with it. My point was there was nothing specific said

You're talking in circles here. "Matt never said...", "Of course they will..." We don't need specifics to make educated guesses. They want peope to report paid links. They certainly don't want that info in order to reward people.

I couldn't care less why they want it, because I won't fill any in.

But others do and will will, hence the plea from Cutts

All I know is that taking action or making assumptions about abuse of power, changing the internet blah blah blah based upon a request with nothing more attached is poor logic and, well, silly.

Wrong. Ignoring, or choosing to be ignorant, of such possibiliies is silly. My speculation may be off, sure, but its speculation founded on what I see are the realities of the situation.

Are normal spam reports OK?

Acually, I think there is a significan distinction between reporting sites that obviously have intent to decieve users and the engines and reporting sites because we suspect they bought a link somewhere for some reason.

The abuse of power is the fact that Google (unlike yahoo and msn) has the power to shape the internet to fit their algorithm. Instead, they should be trying to fit their algorithm to the internet. Obviosly they feel they are failing in that regard somewhat. If Google didn't have a near monopoly or the ability to change the way the Internet works then there would be no power to abuse.

You miss the context. Does he say you have to? Force you to? Or does he qualify such statements? I cannot remember a quote that didn't add something like those I mentioned above. I am willing to be corrected, but Matt only talks about the SE perspective as far as my memory on this goes.

And this goes right back to the power that Google has.

So, explain to me, who wanted it: Google or the plebs? And what does he want it for if not to improve (fix is an erroneous term) their algorithms?

I fail to see the relevance here. Just because a few ask for something does not make it a good idea. While business must serve their customers Google, like any other business, has a greater responsibility to the environment around them. If their actions negatively impact the environment, in this case the Internet as a whole, they must take that into consideration.

Honestly, I hate making this argument becaus I'm very pro-capitalist but this just seems to be taking things a step to far.

Sigh! Double Sigh! Anyone who used pre-Google SEs KNOWS how bad they were when links weren't counted, and how spammy.

Yes, Google's algo is better than others but it also created some big problems at the same time. I dont' know what's worse other than that I see that the problems created, while not insurmountable, seem to be a real problem for Google because they are looking for snitches. Let's remember, they didn't tell us to report link deception, they said, report anybody who paid for a link. That's where the line was crossed.

[projectphp]

Every other metric to stop link buying would either be unlikely to change as a result (Alexa) or easy to fake (anything else).

I'm no technical server guru by any means, but would it really be that easy for a link seller to fake referrals in my server log files that link to actual conversions through my shopping cart?

I think I phrased that poorly. Link buying for PageRank / anchor text, which is seperate from any other kind, won't go away if the Green toolabr goes away. Without it, peoploe will stil buy them, and the value will come from something less tangible and less reliable, helping the sellers. The artifical "PR Booost" from selling links will drop, but never go away, without the toolbar. Make sense?

If you buy links for traffic, do you care if they are tracked by both sides? Do you care if people spam report? This whole issue is moot to such people, and my guess would be that you WOULD track them.

The idea of false reports is kind of a waste. Who really think Google care enough for that to work, or be helpful? Anjd how do you subvert a plan don't know? For all we know, THAT could be the test!

[DanThies]

I'm not going to help you cloud this thing up, Stoney. I can't tell you how the FTC would interpret link exchanges or other forms of consideration for a link, although if they dug deep it's possible that they'd expect some kind of human-readable disclosure. I can tell you that the situation we're talking about (paid links) is unambiguous. Money is paid. A link is rented. Money is paid. A blogger posts a "review."

If it isn't disclosed in a human-readable format, it's deceptive. It is the publisher's responsibility to disclose which links are paid.

Google asking for a machine-readable disclosure is a whole other issue. They can shout all they want about nofollow or whatever, but I doubt the FTC will give them any help... If their algo can't interpret human-readable disclosures, that's their problem. They're going to have to figure this thing out on their own.

They have every right to ask for reports. They have every right to do whatever they want to with their search engine. I don't have any problem with what they're doing here. It's their business. I don't expect them to take action against sites that buy advertising - it doesn't make any sense to do so, if they can filter the paid links at the source.

With that said, I will not be filing any reports. They can afford to pay people to do that.

[projectphp]

Wow, you think reporting paid links is worse. I don't get that, and you don't explain why. Is it because the outcomes are differnet? Because one works and one doesn't? What's the difference, I truly fail to see it. Care to elaborate?

Obviosly they feel they are failing in that regard somewhat

Defining failing? If I asked for help to improve my site for SEO, does that mean I am "failing"? I think such a definition is too strici, and leads to a sort of arogance, where one has to be 100% right or your wrong, and asking for help is admitting failure.

Any business that fails to improve eventually fails.

Google, like any other business, has a greater responsibility to the environment around them. If their actions negatively impact the environment, in this case the Internet as a whole, they must take that into consideration.

OK, so justify that! How will this, asking for paid link reports, change anything? Google has never said they like paid links for PageRank, and have altered sites for years (See phpBB circa 2003 and Massa's site Around the same time).

So what has changed? What is this mythical responsibility they aren;t abiding with one post by Matt Cutts? Seriously, the only consequence of this is be a potential loss of a "PageRank Premium" on some sold links. As that only exists because of Google, aren't they doing exactly what you ask?

But maybe you think more will change, so please, do explain what exactly tou think this will change, because I honestly don't get it.

They can afford to pay people to do that.

Amen! As the reports will not likely lead directly to any penalties, why give them free labour?

[St0n3y]

I'm not going to help you cloud this thing up, Stoney. I can't tell you how the FTC would interpret link exchanges or other forms of consideration for a link, although if they dug deep it's possible that they'd expect some kind of human-readable disclosure. I can tell you that the situation we're talking about (paid links) is unambiguous. Money is paid. A link is rented. Money is paid. A blogger posts a "review."

oK, Dan. We'll pretend that the only way to pay for a link is money. Where am I obligated by the FTC to disclose that someone paid for a link on my website? Or are blogs the only type of paid links Matt referred to? Since I'll only link sites that I woudl link to without payment, I'll also glady accept payment to link to a site I would otherwise link to but perhaps hadn't known about. Don't get me wrong I'm all for disclosure, especially if you are pretending to endorse something that's not specifically what we are talking about here.

Yes, Google has the right. Nobody is arguing that point. We are not talking about their right to do it we are talking about the greater ramifications.

Wow, you think reporting paid links is worse. I don't get that, and you don't explain why.

Um, yeah I did: "Acually, I think there is a significant distinction between reporting sites that obviously have intent to decieve users and the engines and reporting sites because we suspect they bought a link somewhere for some reason."

Elaboration: Paying for a link should not be assumed as deception. The only deception is if a link is paid and there is an implied endorsement of something else. A link doesn't always imply endorsement, in fact in can be the exact opposite or even nutral.

Defining failing? If I asked for help to improve my site for SEO, does that mean I am "failing"? I think such a definition is too strici, and leads to a sort of arogance, where one has to be 100% right or your wrong, and asking for help is admitting failure.

fair enough. I'll qualify that. They are failing to find paid-for links on thier own. Why ask for reports otherwise. Cops fail at finding carpool lane violaters so they have hotlines in place so people can report them. If they were able to be self-sufficient at that they wouln't have the hotlines. Back to Google, they are not failing, they are failing in this area and need help.

OK, so justify that! How will this, asking for paid link reports, change anything? Google has never said they like paid links for PageRank, and have altered sites for years (See phpBB circa 2003 and Massa's site Around the same time).

So what has changed? What is this mythical responsibility they aren;t abiding with one post by Matt Cutts? Seriously, the only consequence of this is be a potential loss of a "PageRank Premium" on some sold links. As that only exists because of Google, aren't they doing exactly what you ask?

But maybe you think more will change, so please, do explain what exactly tou think this will change, because I honestly don't get it.

Again, they are unnaturally forcing the Internet to adapt to them, rather than adapting to the internet. This can be both good and bad but asking for snitches is the wrong road to go down, IMHO.

[Jill]

Um, yeah I did: "Acually, I think there is a significant distinction between reporting sites that obviously have intent to decieve users and the engines and reporting sites because we suspect they bought a link somewhere for some reason."

I don't think there's a difference.

I don't think Google should ask/need us to report either instance. As Dan said, they have enough money to hire people to do those jobs.

[Randy]

With that said, I will not be filing any reports. They can afford to pay people to do that.

That's the best line I've seen on the whole discussion yet Dan !

Just for fun let's turn it all around. This is the perfect opportunity for all of those folks who worry about PR Leakage for absolutely no reason. With one brilliant master stroke they now have a way to keep all of their PR! Simply start placing paid ads/links on their site, advertise the fact that they're being paid for linking, then report themselves !

[projectphp]

There are so many issues wrapped up in this, it is quite surprising.

don't think Google should ask

The desire to tell others what to do is strong, but honestly, asking is rarely wrong, IMHO.

St0n3y, I still don't see the distinction between asking for feedback for paid links or spam. Your view, that selling links isn't deception, misses the point that the feedback is to improve results and, sometimes, improving results isn't about spam, but about issues with Google. Sometimes a page ranks for no good reason, and fixing that is just as important.

They are failing to find paid-for links on thier own.

Doubt that. Failing to find 100% of links for sure, but any? Doubt it!

If you assume finding links is good for the algo, then the more you find the better 100% is never realistic in virtually any endeavour. Shoplifting, corporate fraud, three pointers, free throws, manufacturing, server uptime, all these things accept less than 100% as incredible.

[quote]Again, they are unnaturally forcing the Internet to adapt to them, rather than adapting to the internet.[.quote]
That all comes down to one word: "forcing". If you change that word to "asking" or even "offerring", as in "Google are offerring people the chance to label paid links to avoid problems", the whole argument shifts. As I said, Bruce Clay had asked for this sort of thing back in the day, as did Bloggers.

IMHO, I think it is a GOOD THING to know that SEs don't like paid links, and to offer suggestions to avoid problems. Imagine if they started banning sites that had no idea. Imagine the outcry.

The lay of the land is that Google doesn't want to include paid links in its algorithm, and is attempting to stop them being of value. How you view the peripheral stuff is pure interpretation, but to assume that the only reason a site would obfuscsate links is to "help" Google and not themselves is, I think, off base.

[DanThies]

Did I miss something, or is everyone just assuming that Google's intent is to penalize individual sites that turn up in these reports?

[mcanerin]

As Dan is apparently implying (my apologies if not), there is a difference between a penalty to a site and simply not passing on PR for advertising. A big difference.

Of course, since Google is mum as to exactly what their intentions are about this information, they are feeding the speculation by making half of an announcement - "Everyone selling links either put yourself on this list, and if you know someone who is doing this, put them on this list, too. What we plan to do with this list is a secret. Trust us." Shades of McCarthy!

I *suspect* and would like to believe, that Google is simply trying to stop PR from being passed for paid content, in much the same way that you are not supposed to treat the information and claims in an advertisement in a newspaper the same way that you would treat a proper story. Fine.

My issue is this: What the heck is a paid link? Here is a quote from a post I wrote in response to the first time MC brought this up (when no-follow was introduced in 2005) from a different forum:

"I'll trade you this chicken for that loaf of bread"
"I'll trade you 2 silver coins for that loaf of bread"
"I'll chop some wood for that loaf of bread"
"I'll tell people you have great bread if you give me that loaf of bread"

These are all legitimate ways to obtain a loaf of bread. They are also, mutatus mutandi, legitimate ways to obtain a link (ie trading, paying, performing services, or advertising, respectively).

Is that loaf of bread worth less because you traded for it rather than bought it?

Now, how about this:

"I'll give you this loaf of bread because you are my friend"
"I'll give you this loaf of bread because you are my family"
"I'll give you this loaf of bread because I respect/like you"
"I'll give you this loaf of bread because it's my job"
"I'll give you this loaf of bread because you are threatening me"
"I'll give you this loaf of bread because you smell and I want you to go away"

Any difference? Well, it's a one way transaction, technically. But the reasons vary quite a bit.

Are the loaves worth more? Maybe, because you didn't have to give something up in return. Of course, you could also argue that they are not worth anything at all because there was no value set, nor was there an intent to, in some cases.

This would be no problem until some explorers come to the village and start to try to figure out who the most important person in the village was by counting the loaves of bread, giving them lots of nifty trinkets and trade goods, and only wanting to do trade with the ones with the most loaves.

Of course, the villagers would figure that out quickly and start collecting loaves of bread, even hording them and not giving them away to the needy like they used to. Some would even begin to bake their own bread, and to buy bread they don't even want, just because of this. They might even consider borrowing or renting bread.

Not a good trend. But don't blame the villagers. They were perfectly happy with their bread before this all happened, and will be perfectly happy with their bread when the explorers leave. Maybe the needy will actually get fed, then.

In the meantime, anyone else notice that bread is getting kinda expensive lately?

There are a lot of ways to "pay" for a link. All commercial Yahoo directory links are paid. Any link made by a paid employee is paid. I make money from being a Google AdWords Professional, and they ask me to link to my profile to prove that I am one - is that a "paid" link to Google? Exactly where is this line crossed?

What if I put free links to my favorite charity in the section of my site with commercial links because it makes sense for my design and
my visitors to do so? Does the charity get screwed because it's now considered "paid"? Why should *I* mess with my website design to differentiate between paid, charitable and free links if I stand behind the quality and relevance of each?

I think that Google should be asking if links are editorial or not, rather than if they are paid or not. Whether a site stands behind the quality and relevance of a link is more useful information than if it was paid for or not, IMO.

Sure, go after the people who sell links indiscriminately, for the same reason that they should go after FFA setups - little or no editorial discretion is involved. But it's about editorial discretion, not payments.

Ian

[OldWelshGuy]

Google could easily find sites that are openly selling links hell just take out text link brokers or the like and the storm across the forums would be enough to dampen the spirits of many. I see a HUGE difference between reporting a site that is using totally spammy methods like cloaking etc, and playing God by deciding how a link come to be placed.

I have links in my blog roll to a guy I know is buying links, but his site is good. So does this now mean I remove that link? YES it does, as (just like Jill indicated earlier), we are back to McCarthyism, guilt by association.

[projectphp]

You know, the worst thing they could do is ban or penalise text lnk sellers. IMHO, THAT would be evil, and THAT would be a breach of their duty.

Why?

Because they are offerring a legal business that's only crime, if you can call it that, is to use a tird party's trademarked algorithm's perceived value to inflate the price it chanrges. How can any SE justify banning, penalising or even stop from using AdWords when they sell a competing product? That smacks, to me, of a massive conflict of interest.

I hope they never do that, and continue to seek algorithms to filter links, rather than ruining the "church and state" divide that currently exists betwen paid and natuiral search, and banning from AdWords businesses Google perceive as a threat.

...have links in my blog roll to a guy I know is buying links, but his site is good. So does this now mean I remove that link? YES it does, as (just like Jill indicated earlier), we are back to McCarthyism, guilt by association.

Why? Nothing has honestly changed since the day before Matt made his post. All that has happenned is that Google will likely have a lot more test cases for their algorithms (test case meaning they run some algo, and if a site is not detected, they know they need to tweak it).

I think Dan's question is spot on. and if everyone is changing their behaviour because they assume that Google's intent is to penalize individual sites that turn up in these reports, then they are making some rather drastic changes with very little evidence.

My issue is this: What the heck is a paid link?

I think that the confusion stems from paid being the focus, Ian. If we take a step back and look at what SEs are trying to do by using link analysis to infer importance (which is what they are in effect doing), we migth geta better picture of all this.

The web is built on links. Without them, there would be no web. Pages that ar more important tend to have more links, i.e. importanec and links in are strongly ciorrelated, in the same way that smoking and ling cancer are. That means link analysis is a fairly reliable way, on a mnass scale, to infer importance.

Whilst that is true, not all links were coded equally, and some would be better be described as "noise" than a vote. These are the linsk SEs want to discount when infering importance.

The best definition of a "noise" link is the old adage "if SEs didn;t exist, would this link be here"? If the anwer is no, then it is, likely, just noise.

Now before everyone says "but if there wer no SEs, I would want more links", the fhat is true, but I doubt three small words ina footer would be the goal.

Moving the focus from paid to "noise", IMHO, we get a better picture of what links SEs don't want to count. Here are some examples of linsk that IMHO SEs are likely to discount:

1. Mass paid links.
2. Mass spammed links (blogs, guest books back in the day).
3. Link Farms.
4. Directories with no to weak editorial controls.
5. Autogenerated links.
6. Links on duplicate content - an often forgotten source.
7. Self generated links (forum sigs, Myspace etc).
8. Links on SERPs that get mistakenly indexed.

IMHO the question "what is a paid link" is not the issue, and focussing on the money issue obfuscates the rationale , nd makes decision making harder. There are probably plenty of paid links that SEs find more than acceptable and not noise, and there are legitmate reasons for that view, and legitmate protections, not least of which is constituitional protection (Ammendment 1 from memory).

That is why I just don't get this hubbub whatsoever.

Edited by projectphp, 19 April 2007 - 03:07 AM.

[Scottie]

Here's my issue... I run a directory. People might pay to be listed, or they might link back to the directory to get a free listing.

It's human-edited, tightly themed, and I've turned down a lot of offers to link to sites that aren't in the niche. It really is an authority on finding businesses in that niche.

I don't nofollow the links or disclose "human-readable" notifications that the links are paid, however anyone can take a look at the listing page and see the deal- which are paid (top of the page) and which are not.

So... are the free reciprocal links now the "good listings" and the paid listings at the top "bad listings"? What about the people who've paid to be featured AND link back to the directory? IMO, the paid listings tend to be the more established, reputable companies who understand the value of marketing while the freebies tend to be new to the game or run their business cutting corners just like they do their marketing.

In theory, I guess I should be reported as "selling links" but what I am selling is marketing that happens to include a link as part of the package.

There are competing "free" directories in the niche that are full of dead links, spam and errors. Are they more worthy than mine, simply because I give people the option to pay for additional features?

[projectphp]

A better question would be how the FTC views this (do paid directory submissions need labelling?)

Again, paid is not the issue, noise is and always will be.

People want to make the issue more complicated than it needs to be, by analysing Monsenniuor Cutts every comment like a year 12 English Student studying the symobolism of windows in Wuthering Heights, who eventually realises there is none (true story - after a 5 minute talk, she sayus "basically, there is non. Me : "So you are saying, we went through all that and there was no relevance?" Her: "yes". Me: "That was like a dry hump, all the effort, none of the reward". Teacher laughed, everyone else was too scared to).

Look, we all know what paid links are "wrong", and which are fine. And if you don't, as the great Satchmo said, "If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know".

IMHO, all this hubbub has to come back to some action, some step forward. Guess what? THERE IS NONE! No one should do anything, including submitting any reports, and should let Google sort it out for themselves. As long as you build a good, useful resource, I doubt any SE is going to pay much never mind merely because money changes hands.

Of course, you can expect some issues along the way

[St0n3y]

Failing to find 100% of links for sure, but any? Doubt it!

Sorry, I overstated. Point taken.

There is a difference between a penalty to a site and simply not passing on PR for advertising. A big difference.

Absolutely agree.

My issue is this: What the heck is a paid link?

I think that Google should be asking if links are editorial or not, rather than if they are paid or not. Whether a site stands behind the quality and relevance of a link is more useful information than if it was paid for or not, IMO.

Well stated Ian! And just because some kind of bartering has happened that does not necessarily imply blind endorsement.

Look, we all know what paid links are "wrong",

And that right there is what all the hubub is about. We are being told that paid links are "wrong" when in fact they are not. Google doesn't want them to count in their algo, and that's fine but that's now what is being inferred when Cutts says "report paid links here." The implication is that it's wrong to buy a link, or worse, its wrong to buy a link that isn't nofollowed or disclosed in machine readable language that it's paid. We're being told to tell Google which of our links are paid and which are not so they can factor that and not give "link juice" from those links. If they can find it on their own, great. So be it. But don't ask people to report link sellers" That's what's wrong.