64 replies to this topic

[Jill]

Okay Arteworks, if you say so. I have already addressed all that, so I give up!

Oh, and for everyone else who may have actually LIKED the article, it's up at Sphinn here.

[1dmf]

Torka, I can't find the link on Google where I got the text, but i'll post the text as I had it in discussion on another forum.

However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results. Examples of link schemes can include:

Links intended to manipulate PageRank
Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
Buying or selling links

and that was taken from a page on google, I went and copy pasted it myself a while back.


I've highlighted where it CLEARLY states recipricol links are BAD!

[glengara]

Have to agree with 1dmf Torka, "excessive link exchange" is a term I've seen used more than once from various Googlers.

http://www.google.co...b...topic=

[gsimerlink]

Wow, this is causing quite a commotion isn't it? I'm right with Ignoramus and that's how I've been doing my sites for 10+ years. They always seem to come out fine in the rankings and almost all of the links are helpful to my visitors. (Can't say all since on one site I do use Adwords with limited results, but I do block non-relevant ads from being served.)

Anyway I wanted to add my voice to the choir and say that good results can be had without trying to build your site just for the SERPs. It just takes a lot of work and some smart marketing, just like out in the non-digital world. I personally think it comes down to how you think. Do you want to create something worthwhile that will have value over time, or are you just after a quick buck?

[Ignoramus]

I've highlighted where it CLEARLY states recipricol links are BAD!

I can see what you mean Idmf but I think you may have misinterpreted what Google mean't as opposed to what they said.

I believe the emphasis in the quote should be on the word 'schemes'.

To me, this covers things like those software programmes which generate hundred of links to sites unrelated to your own business and, in return, place hundreds of links on your site to sites in the same 'scheme'.

That's clearly spamming.

I don't think Google is bothered about reasonable numbers of reciprocal links which have some sort of validity. They may discount them for ranking purposes but I doubt they penalise them.

[glengara]

"..reasonable numbers of reciprocal links which have some sort of validity."

Problem in a nutshell, it's G that determines what's reasonable :-)

[Randy]

Problem? Maybe for us.

But not for Google. It's their search engine and they have every right to decide what factors they'll use in making sites rise to the top of their rankings, as well as what factors they'll use in making sites become invisible in their rankings. Google isn't a democracy after all. At least if you don't own voting stock.

That's the catch. Since they're a public company as long as they stay within the law they're only beholden to their stock holders. At least you get that much, because if they were still a Private company there wouldn't even be that small crack in the door. So if they do something that angers enough people --and this isn't it, I can guarantee you-- at least their stock holders have the right to force them to change direction.

And no, none of the above means I actually agree with everything Google does. Just that they have every right to do it if they're not breaking the law.

[Tom Philo]

When a company becomes a monopoly it is THE GOVERNMENT who forces the company to put conerns of the people above the conerns of the shareholders. No company willingly will do that - it is NOT in their interest.

Think back to the Union Pacific Railroad of the late 1800s early 1900s. They owned the rails, all goods within their rail area of the US had to move by THEIR rails - really no alternative (even had to use rail to get to the rivers!) and the UP charged a LOT to the people who wanted to travel or to move goods - there was no alternative. The Federal Government only stepped in after complaints from RICH people who HAD to use the UP to move their goods - then the Railroad commission was created and stepped in and regulated the rates it and all the other RRs charged. The regulated monopoly.

Google is NOT the only player. If, and when, it does become the only way to search or a place to pay to advertise will the government step in and regulate it - till then they are free to do whatever the shareholders allow them to do (*through the board of directors*) so that they can earn the most money for the owners. ("Investor" firms don't really care about how well the company thinks / acts such as long as the stock price stays same or goes up so they can sell at some point in time to make money, no insurance company holds stocks to earn dividends, they hold stock in hopes the share price goes up a lot then sell, most companies NEVER declare dividends at all - not like the original idea behind stocks.)

The only other way the Federal G will step in is if too many Federal agencies start using G features and services, and G starts charging a whole lot for them, then it will step in to cut its own costs to G. I have never read about the Federal government ever doing that to a whole company - only specific products of companies when they sell to USA at one price and to private firms at another. And that is rare since the US G usually asks for so many customizations of "off the shelf" software that the price difference is often justified.

[nethy]

Well, I can only speak for myself. But my issue has never been with the folks doing anything that takes advantage of the search engines. My beef has always been the engines sometimes saying one thing, but doing the exact opposite.

My take on this is that googles' statements/guidelines/disclosure/etc are not actually statements of fact opinion. They are statements which are predicted to have a certain effect on the readers actions which google believes is in their interest. I think this is also true with adwords.
Take adwords quality score as an example. I think that every pieceof information published about QS is not done with any regard to what actually affects QS rather they publish after answering the question 'what will this piece of 'information' make people do. Any relationship between the statement and 'truth' is incidental. I would npt be surprised if the writers of that piece of information are not supplied with the formula for QS at all. I'm not saying that in this particular example this particular statement is false, I'm talkingabout the way they decide to take or not take action.

So I think that anything anounced by G has to be taken in this way. If a declaration about a change in the way the treat certain links is enough to curb a behaviour then they will make it, regardless of whether or not it is true.

[thx1138]

OK, I'm slightly confused, I buy links from directories that have sections devoted to the product I sell. I then monitor the traffic created, conversion rates etc and if it's of no benefit I don't renew and obviously if it is providing quality traffic I do renew.

However is Google now saying that either it doesn't approve of me buying those links or the given site selling them or both or neither?

Charlie

[Jill]

However is Google now saying that either it doesn't approve of me buying those links or the given site selling them or both or neither?

Neither. They are simply saying they don't want those links to count as a "vote" for your site. Which it isn't, it's an ad.

[Ignoramus]

When a company becomes a monopoly it is THE GOVERNMENT who forces the company to put conerns of the people above the conerns of the shareholders. No company willingly will do that - it is NOT in their interest.
............Google is NOT the only player.

You are quite right taphilo. Technically, Google is not a monopoly. That is, it is not a sole supplier.

On the other hand, it is a near monopoly, is perceived as such, and attracts the attention of would be regulators.

With monopolies or 'near monopolies' the usual laws of supply, demand, and competition do not apply.

If you depend on internet marketing for a living where are you going to take your budget ? Yahoo ? MSN ? Ask ? Google can do pretty much what it wants to maximise revenue, balancing the loss of some customers with the increased revenue from the majority who have no alternative if they want to stay in business.

You are also correct in saying that stockholders don't give a stuff about business practices unless it impacts the share price. I wouldn't.

I prefer private companies. They don't have stockholders, analysts and class-action lawyers on their backs every quarter looking for double digit growth. They can choose to 'do no evil' if they so wish.

[Ignoramus]

Neither. They are simply saying they don't want those links to count as a "vote" for your site. Which it isn't, it's an ad.

That's fine by me. Like Charlie above, I have a small number of paid adverts which are there because they provide quality traffic. I really don't care if they put 'nofollows' on the links or not.

Here's what concerns me....

These are perfectly legitimate sites which depend on paid adverts for their living. If they don't use 'nofollows' - through inattention or ignorance - will they be slapped down by Google ?

If they are, and lose ranking, they lose traffic. If they lose traffic, advertisers lose traffic. I pay a flat fee for my ads - not PPC - so if traffic goes down so does ROI on the ads. Maybe it won't be worth advertising with them anymore. If that happens enough, they go out of business.

If Google can identify a paid link it is welcome to discount it as a 'vote'. If it penalises the site selling the advert that's another matter.

[thx1138]

Neither. They are simply saying they don't want those links to count as a "vote" for your site. Which it isn't, it's an ad.

Thanks Jill, as always you provide clarity of thought. One potential issue is that many directories will review a website before inclusion, to confirm it meets a given standard, has unique content etc. Is Google's approach a one size fits all, you paid for the link, so what if there was an element of voting for your site in accepting it for inclusion, you paid, the link has no value?

Charlie

[Jill]

These are perfectly legitimate sites which depend on paid adverts for their living. If they don't use 'nofollows' - through inattention or ignorance - will they be slapped down by Google ?

That's the question of the week, iggy. And the reason why it's ridiculous for Google to force it down people's throats.

Is Google's approach a one size fits all, you paid for the link, so what if there was an element of voting for your site in accepting it for inclusion, you paid, the link has no value?

It's hard to say, Charlie. They used to love Yahoo's paid links (their directory).