Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

If Google Doesn't Like Paid Links - Then What Are Ads?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 lister

lister

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 06:10 PM

Someone contacts you and says, hey, can I pay you to place my blog post and link back to me?

What's the difference with that and say, an affiliate link such as Amazon from my site?

Am I being dumb here?

I thought Google etc dont like paid (inorganic) traffic - or am I wrong?



#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,112 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:37 AM

 

I thought Google etc dont like paid (inorganic) traffic - or am I wrong?

 

Yep, you are.

 

Google doesn't 'like' paid for links or 'non-editorial' links that are intended to manipulate their ranking algorithms. That's it, you are free to buy or sell links to and from where ever or whomever you like, just as long as they do not pass 'value' to the target URL.



#3 lister

lister

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 03:43 AM

 

just as long as they do not pass 'value' to the target URL.

 

How is 'no value' determined as true or false? By adding "no follow"?

Thanks!



#4 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,642 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:43 AM

Yes. you are supposed to nofollow them or send them through a redirect where the redirect URL is blocked by robots.txt. It also used to be OK to use Javascript, but then Google decided it was going to try to crawl Javascript and so declared that simply using Javascript was no longer sufficient to avoid passing value. So much for "treat Google as if it did not exist".  :rant:



#5 Mikl

Mikl

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:37 AM

I think what Google really objects to is advertements that are disguised as editorial. A link from a block of text or an image that's obviously an advert shouldn't cause a problem. But if you place a paid-for link in the body of an article to make it look like a recommendation, that's another matter.

 

At least, that's my understanding. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It raises the obvious question of how Google knows that the link is paid-for.

 

Mike



#6 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:40 AM

 It raises the obvious question of how Google knows that the link is paid-for.

 

 

They don't, which is why they ask you to add the nofollow attribute to them.



#7 Mikl

Mikl

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:13 AM

 

They don't, which is why they ask you to add the nofollow attribute to them.

 

I take your point, Jill. But what if you fail to nofollow a paid-for link? From what you say, the linked-to site will still receive page rank (because Google can't tell that the link is paid-for). If that wasn't so, then any genuine links from the page would not receive page rank either, which defeats the whole point of page rank.

 

And if Google does have a way of distinguishing paid-for links, why would they rely on you adding a Nofollow to it? It seems to me they would be more likely to rely on their own algorithms.

 

Sorry if I'm a bit confused by this. Chris said that Google doesn't like links that are intended to manipulate their ranking algorithm. I can understand that. But if Google can recognise such links, why don't they just ignore them?

 

(By the way, I appreciate that passing page rank is not as important as it used to be. But I don't think that has any bearing on the argument.)

 

Mike



#8 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,157 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:49 PM

Google knows the domains that many advertising and large affiliate networks serve content from, so when they find those links on other Websites they'll ignore them.

 

It's okay to be confused.  Google keeps changing the rules, which are more like "guidelines".



#9 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,112 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:05 PM

 

I take your point, Jill. But what if you fail to nofollow a paid-for link?

Absolutely nothing at all. As said earlier Google don't actually know the link is paid.

 

 

You are WAY overthinking this, the odd paid link here or there simply does NOT matter that much at all, if you have bought 100,000 of them it probably will.

 

Please, have a sense of scale, or is that the dumbass "experts" with their tales of doom and gloom have every body crapping themselves because Google may smite them with furious anger and vengeance because they bought ONE piddly insignificant link?



#10 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:29 PM

But if Google can recognise such links, why don't they just ignore them?

 

 

They ignore (or penalize) the ones they do recognize. The others pass PageRank (which is indeed still important). 

 

If the paid link isn't obviously an ad, it's likely to pass as an acceptable link. Which is why link building companies still exist!



#11 Mikl

Mikl

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted 01 March 2014 - 04:31 AM


It's okay to be confused. 

 

I am delighted to hear that. I find it increasingly difficult to get my head round all this stuff.

 

People talk about "senior moments". With me, "senior" seems to be the default. I occasionally have lucid moments.

 

Mike



#12 lister

lister

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:29 AM

I think the bottom line is to think as common practice as 'guidelines'

 

I've got about 50 links from a well ranked page that send traffic to affiliate products -

1. I use no-follow for them
2. I disclose that I am an affiliate (i.e. no cloaking)

3. They are subject specific to my site

4. The affiliate network is reputable

So I guess I will be cool...but as always we will see!



#13 matthecool

matthecool

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:Barcelona

Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:26 AM

people should stop following the rules of google and just focus their site to be useful for surfers.

 

Theres too many hoops to jump through , nofollow, disavow, guest posts etc etc, the list goes on and on.

 

Does Google use nofollow on adwords on its pages?



#14 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,112 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 15 April 2014 - 10:18 AM

Adwords are created by javascript which isn't read by 'bots'

 

AND

 

Google do not crawl their own 'pages'.

 

 

Thirdly Google do not have any 'rules'.



#15 matthecool

matthecool

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:Barcelona

Posted 15 April 2014 - 10:32 AM

Adwords are created by javascript which isn't read by 'bots'

 

AND

 

Google do not crawl their own 'pages'.

 

 

Thirdly Google do not have any 'rules'.

 

1) Slowly Google are getting around to reading Javascript. This is documented everywhere.

2) They don't? https://www.google.c..._sm=91&ie=UTF-8 News to me.

3) Meh, true. "Guidelines" then  :disguise:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!