65 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

My whole point is that you seem to hold the view that no one should take what Matt Cutts says as being anything other than his opinion

Not only do I not hold that view, but only a misunderstanding of my post could ever infer such meaning.

My whole point is that you seem to hold the view that no one should take what Matt Cutts says as being anything other than his opinion

Did I say that? I said blogs are by nature informal. Informal and "opinion" are very different.

There is a very good reason why grown up companies run things past lawyers before issuing statements.

Um, OK, what are we talking about now? Which statement?

So obviously Microsoft isn't a grown up company, and neither is Yahoo, both of whom employ/employed celeb bloggers "unofficially" (Scoble and Zawodny, respectively).

IMHO, and you are free to disagree, the world has changed. No longer are unneccesary bureaucracies, and corporate BS that takes weeks to craft, the norm. I got my passport renewed today. Know how long it takes to deliver? 10 working days! First time I got it it took 8 weeks! We no longer accept unneccesary waiting.

Your whole whole angle on this is one I find odd. I don't think it is an issue of big vs small, official vs unofficial, and I made no such comments nor did I use such words. Rather, it is an issue of over importance placed upon one person's blog, when there are, as I pointed out, some 80 odd Google blogs I know of (and I just realised forgot to add Vanessa Fox's), none of which receive half the attention. Google is trying to hype these bloggers, which you said was needed, and yet hasn't changed anything.

IMHO again, it is neither fair nor reasonable to tell anyone else how to run their site. So long as they abide by the law, a business/person is free to do whatever they please. If Google accpet that Matt's blog is informal, it is neither your's nor my place to say otherwise. You are welcome to be unhappy with how Matt runs his blog, but you can't expect him to change.

[torka]

They only have themselves to blame if what he says is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

I doubt if they think of themselves as bearing "blame" on this point. Frankly, I thought "being ambiguous" was Bullet Point One in the job description of a "spokesperson."

Since when has any political or corporate hired spokesperson ever been clear and comprehensive about anything? Anytime anybody in that position starts "plain speaking" IMO that's a sure sign they're using that apparent "honesty" to try to conceal something their bosses don't want us to know about... (Or they've just won the lottery and no longer need their job... )

<rant-alert status="on">

Matt Cutts is OF COURSE going to be coy about the specifics of Google's plans in his blog postings (same as any other Google blogger). If he's posting informally -- without "official" Google review -- he has to be (assuming he wants to retain his current employment status, that is). If he's posting with "official" Google review, the laywers will make sure he is.

Thus it was, is now, and ever shall be, blog without end, amen. Get over it.

On the subject immediately at hand, as a webmaster I think you have to make your decision about what you're going to do (sell links, buy links, rat out your competitors, keep your mouth shut, whatever) and get on with life. Making decisions is part of the job description for any of us in a position of responsibility, and sometimes we have to make those decisions with incomplete or ambiguous information. Sometimes we decide the right way, sometimes we don't, and we have to go back and make a correction. That's the way of the world. Acknowledge, decide, and move on.

Seems to me that wasting hours dissecting Matt's every syllable and reading the impassioned rants of a bunch of overwrought "experts" with too little solid information and too much time and Internet access on their hands isn't going to make anyone's decision any wiser.

</rant-alert>

My

--Torka

[Raphael]

You do all realize that Matt is probably sitting at home laughing at y'all right now, don't you? Saying to himself "Yup, I got 'em all good and riled again today. Go me!'

Matt "The Pied Piper of Google" Cutts, I think I shall start calling him.

[identity]

I just find it rather interesting that only a few weeks earlier Google announced their PPA program, allowing site owners to place text links directly into their content without any "declaration" that the link may provide financial gain to the site owner, aside from having an "Ads by Google" appear on hover... assuming that you hover long enough before clicking to see it.

Perhaps these links will require a nofollow themselves, but it still feels like there is a lot of playing on the slippery slopes.

[nedguy]

On the subject immediately at hand, as a webmaster I think you have to make your decision about what you're going to do (sell links, buy links, rat out your competitors, keep your mouth shut, whatever) and get on with life. Making decisions is part of the job description for any of us in a position of responsibility, and sometimes we have to make those decisions with incomplete or ambiguous information. Sometimes we decide the right way, sometimes we don't, and we have to go back and make a correction. That's the way of the world. Acknowledge, decide, and move on.

Yay! Go Torka!
Agree 100% with that!

[Jill]

Gurtie over at GrayHatNews has a great take (as usual) on the reporting of paid links.