Matt Cutts Reignites Some Simmerring Embers, Why Do I Never get His RSS feed? Options

[projectphp]

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/ (Update, May 12th, 2007:)

The suns are playing game 5, so I won't have a chance to read it for a while, anyone care to sumamrise for me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[incrediblehelp]

I summarized here:

Matt Cutts Finally Answers Paid Links Questions

I think I shall stop reading the RSS soon to. To much of a headache.

[daniel]

In your summary, I think you might have misunderstood (or I've misunderstood your summary) with regards to the images Matt posted up of obviously paid-for links.

Matt then posts some obvious image based links or paid links that have no relevancy from one website to another. If they are image based then Google will probably ignore them and then everyone is happy, I guess.

They're not images on the sites they are on (only the title above the links is an image where it says "Sponsored Links"), and Matt has just taken a screenshot of them and inserted them as images into his post. But yes, they are obviously non-relevant, paid-for links.

[Jill]

I read through Matt's post, but one thing I'm not clear on...

He said that the unrelated paid for links, such as gambling links on a linux site were what they were after. I didn't see him address relevant paid links. It was a long post and I may have missed it, but was that addressed anywhere?

Does Matt and the rest of the Gods at Google care if someone buys a perfectly relevant ad at a site, but doesn't stop it from passing PageRank?

There are so many sites that do this, especially in the SEO/SEM niche. Look at all the SEO/SEM blogs and look at all the ads on them. Is Big Bad Matt going to penalize them?

None of this matters to me as I don't buy or sell links for PageRank, but I would imagine it has many people worried.

[projectphp]

Penalise is a bad word top use Jill. "Not count" is more likely.

[Alan Perkins]

I read through Matt's post, but one thing I'm not clear on...

He said that the unrelated paid for links, such as gambling links on a linux site were what they were after. I didn't see him address relevant paid links. It was a long post and I may have missed it, but was that addressed anywhere?

The answer doesn't matter Jill. The fact is that if you don't get it, then what hope does an average Webmaster who has never heard of Matt Cutts and who knows little about SEO have?

A better answer to Google's problems would be:

1) Treat all links as suspect
2) Allow Webmasters to label their links as "pristine" using a rel=follow tag

Then people could spam on purpose, rather than by accident as with the current strategy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

My extended thoughts are here.

[Alan Perkins]

Penalise is a bad word top use Jill. "Not count" is more likely.

Then where's the incentive to use rel=nofollow on paid links? Why not let Google just work it out for themselves?

[projectphp]

There is none Alan (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The whole cpncept that rel=nofollow means paid is, to my mind, insane. But that is neither here nor there.

The fact is that if you don't get it, then what hope does an average Webmaster who has never heard of Matt Cutts and who knows little about SEO have?

The average webmaster wouldn't even know the debate exists. And if you rely upon sold links without spending two seconds doing a search to find out the G O, whose fault is that?

The fact exists that paid links are not something Google like. You decide to sell links, and no one can tell you what will happen with Google. All that exists if Google starts doing whatever with paid links is that the SEO premium goes away. No biggie IMHO, but then, I don't sell links (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Alan Perkins]

And if you rely upon sold links without spending two seconds doing a search to find out the G O, whose fault is that?

Rely upon them for what? Rankings on Google, I fully agree with you. My issue is that as a Webmaster you could (theoretically) buy or sell links without even knowing that Google existed, but now Google is prepared to label you as a spammer for doing so and expects you to not only know that Google exists, but understand how Google works (e.g. "flowing Pagerank").

I agree it's up to Google how they apply their spam filters and how their algorithm works. I just don't like the attitude in this instance.

[DanThies]

I'm not sure how any of Matt's post(s) amounts to labeling you as a spammer for buying or selling links.

I agree with you, Alan, that Google's freakin' nuts if they really expect every link to get labeled for them.

[Jill]

My issue is that as a Webmaster you could (theoretically) buy or sell links without even knowing that Google existed, but now Google is prepared to label you as a spammer for doing so and expects you to not only know that Google exists, but understand how Google works (e.g. "flowing Pagerank").

Exactly! On the one hand, they have in their SEO bible (guidelines) that you should act as if Google doesn't exist (which is in fact great advice that they learned from Alan). But in Matt's latest post, he says that you have to actually KNOW that Google exists now.

Which is the truth Google?

[Ron Carnell]

My issue is that as a Webmaster you could (theoretically) buy or sell links without even knowing that Google existed, but now Google is prepared to label you as a spammer for doing so ...

Yea, but if one buys or sells links without knowing Google exists, one is also never going to know they've been labeled a spammer. Nor will they care. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Jill]

True, Ron, but they could unwittingly lose search engine traffic because of it.

[Alan Perkins]

Yea, but if one buys or sells links without knowing Google exists, one is also never going to know they've been labeled a spammer. Nor will they care. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Not so sure they won't care. Names can hurt!

However, the issue is more one of Google's place on the Web, IMO it's fine that Google choose how to implement their own ranking algo. What's not fine is Google telling Web publishers how to create content. I'm very uncomfotable with the notion that people (are encouraged by Google to) create content in Google's image. That's completely the wrong way round, and sets a precedent which, taken to its extreme, results in cloaking (creating content in Google's image, purely for Googlebot to see). I'm much more comfortable with the idea that Google adapts to the Web, rather than vice versa.

But then, I am a white hat. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whitehat.gif) Is Google?

[projectphp]

True, Ron, but they could unwittingly lose search engine traffic because of it.

Is that really what happens though? Do paid links being detected lead to a lose of traffic?

What's not fine is Google telling Web publishers how to create content.

The whole argument revolves around "tell". What if we reword it as ask? Or offer?

Webmasters want to sell links, but don't want to suffer a (to this time undisclosed, FUD riddled) Google "penalty" / "wrath". OF so, Google offer/recommend/suggest rel=nofollow.

Is that ideal? Hell no, but it is a case IMHO of giving the masses what they want.