| 10:29 pm on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Most people is discussing here about the legality/ilegality of selling links in high PR Pages.
First of all, PR is only a factor among most others in optimization, as it's been discussed here (The Decreasing Value of PageRank as an Optimization Metric) [webmasterworld.com] a few days ago.
Second, most people is speaking about the second site in the links list (the page with only 5 incoming links and PR 7), but żdid anybody try to find it in Google?. I mean, I've searched for invest, stock market, and some others I think could be important keywords for that page, and I've found not a single entry among the first one hundred pages. PR is not all that matters.
Third, maybe all these pages don't need Google at all. I think a link in a PR 8 like Fox News could be worth it (speaking in incoming visitors term)
Finally, I think that if Google implemented something like subjets to see how relevant a link is /is not those people "selling" PR would find its bussines a lot more difficult.
| 10:37 pm on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What makes me mad about this whole thing is that there are so many people here crying foul to try to get sites banned for moving onto the next wave of internet marketing(buying text links). Stop your crying, telling, fingerpointing, adn mass spam reports tring to bring other people down to your level(just becouse you can't compete) and start playing the game or getting out of the way.
The truth is that people who are doing this for a living are damd good at it and you can't stop them no matter what you do. Out.
| 10:45 pm on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Pradnetwork must be looking for suckers. $29 a month for a link on a PR5 page, and $69 a month for a PR6 page? Unless there are just 2 or 3 links on the page, not worth it. There are teenyboppers out there with PR5 and 6 home pages that you could buy links from a lot cheaper. There prices seem more reasonably for PR7 and 8 pages, although I wonder how manu other links those pages have?
| 11:38 pm on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>> did anybody try to find it in Google?
do a search on the keywords in the link (stock timing) - look who's number one ... still want to claim that PR is overrated?
| 12:23 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I say, lets get of our high horses... if you can't beat'em join'em.
If its ok with google to purchace text links on high PR sites, it's ok with me.
| 12:45 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I guess the only way to really stop people from "buying" text links for a PR boost would be to eliminate the toolbar. Otherwise...buying text links is just another form of advertising that is not illegal, in my opinion.
[edited by: crobb305 at 1:47 am (utc) on Mar. 26, 2003]
| 12:59 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I hear it's a good idea to buy expired domains too.
I really don't care if Google passes the PR or not. It doesn't make any difference to me. That is unless they start skewing the results, and I think that is when Google will start to care too.
Go ahead and buy the ads. Just don't start crying when that ad stops passing PR *if* it does.
I do not think they will penalize FoxNews or The site that buys the ad. That would be just plain wrong. But if the results get skewed because of it, I could easily see them blocking the PR with a filter.
| 1:15 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Go ahead and buy the ads. Just don't start crying when that ad stops passing PR *if* it does."
Best advice yet.
| 1:26 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|What makes me mad about this whole thing is that there are so many people here crying foul to try to get sites banned for moving onto the next wave of internet marketing(buying text links). Stop your crying, telling, fingerpointing, adn mass spam reports tring to bring other people down to your level(just becouse you can't compete) and start playing the game or getting out of the way. |
If the "game" of selling PageRank influences Google's search results, then you can be sure that Google will find a way to deal with it--not as a kindness to the Webmasters who make you mad, but to maintain Google's quality, credibility, and continued profitability.
| 3:37 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think it would be a bit of a slippery slope for GOOGLE to try and penalise for this type of thing.
Off site links, guessing the reason and or MOTIVATION for getting those links, etc.
I guarantee it is'nt/won't be as simple as doing a search for "buy this link" or "buy this PR".
| 4:50 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
some one was asking whether there are any PR 8 sites selling text ads. My answer are you interested in regional websites who have english speaking audience. I think they charge abt $1300 to $1400 per month. Pretty high for me.
| 5:43 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Eh. I usually don't bother posting on threads like this, because I've commented on similar things before. Webmasters with questions about this can review our quality guidelines, including the principles section:
It's a well-known fact that some of the things SEOs try do more harm to their rankings than good. As always, it pays to research things like this carefully. And if you think that there's something out on the web that Google should know about, we're always happy to get feedback regarding potential quality problems via our spam report form at
| 6:20 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Only thing that I see relevant is this:
"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
That is all kinds of vague. In this case, the problem with purchasing links is that there is no way of knowing what the purchasers intent was. For example, there are lots of webmasters around here who would be delighted to have a link on the home page of FoxNews even if it didn't pass on PR for the click through value.
| 6:43 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|For example, there are lots of webmasters around here who would be delighted to have a link on the home page of FoxNews even if it didn't pass on PR for the click through value. |
I agree ... It is difficult to determine the motivation. So, the onus is on Google to find out how to resolve this issue to maintain the quality. I believe for now they are doing some manual corrections (as I have seen in a few cases) to address this issue ... but it is not perfect as too many are flying under the radar.
Currently many sites in top categories rank very well merely due to link exchanges. Now is that an endeavor towards manipulation of pagerank?. And when does link exchanges cross line?. What is acceptable or not and how long?.
Ok .. many questions. My take on all this is have a quality site and ensure that the visitors who land on the site finds exactly what they are looking for and the site conversion rates are at least above the industry averages. And then go with acceptable SEO practices like link exchanges and text link ads etc. Do not ever use cloaking, hidden text, gibberish text/content soley meant for SEs although some of these still work and many spam reports to Google went unheeded. Oh, well they might address them in the algo next month:)!
[edited by: przero2 at 7:00 am (utc) on Mar. 26, 2003]
| 6:51 am on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I personally think this whole topic stinks.
There seems to be a fair amount of people here that define spam as "any site that ranks above me." The minute they see someone doing better than them, they instantly try to find "dirt" on them and hit the spam report. And they claim to be ethical. Funny.
This whole thing starts as an assumption...that everyone that is on the internet knows about PR and those that place ads on other sites in the form of a text link is obviously trying to buy PR. That assumption is wrong.
And furthermore, who is anyone here to tell me, including google, what kind of ads that I can place for my site? If I choose to use text link ads in my ad campaign, I should be able to do that without being penalized by google. The fact of the matter is that sites that generate a lot of traffic, which is something that I would look for as an advertiser, generally have higher PR. To penalize for this would be wrong.
If I wanted to pay for PR, I'd hire someone to get links for me and optimize my site so I can rank higher in the search engines. I hope nobody reports me for that because in reality, that is what I would be doing...buying PR.
| 4:44 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I hardly think that a site selling text links on their sites, no matter what they are using the determine value of those links, could be by ANY definition of the term called spam. :)
|It's a well-known fact that some of the things SEOs try do more harm to their rankings than good. As always, it pays to research things like this carefully. And if you think that there's something out on the web that Google should know about, we're always happy to get feedback regarding potential quality problems via our spam report form at |
| 5:06 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google has already begun lowering the effects of one particulair PR9 that was discussed here last month. They were selling links, and you could become a PR8 easily, and PR9 with some finesse. I imagine that Google made this part of their algorithm as it is relatively simple to do.
This particulair site had no idea that "bad neighborhoods" existed, so it may be that the algo didn't change, but that the sites behaviour bit them in the *ss.
This last dance made it clear that the smart folks at Google have begun to fix this. Few of the folks using that site are above a PR7 now. This site "Wunderful" site is no longer worth $2500 a month for a link. Not even close! I bet the sites buying links are actually going to be LOWER than if they hadn't purchased.
Pays to behave!
| 5:27 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The flipside (as some people have touched on) is that it *is* quite a tempting thing to buy into.. and you may get PR7 today, but next time Google could tweak the algo and you'd drop to PR3 or worse, and you could end up with a massive financial commitment but no traffic to pay for it.
"The value of passed-through PageRank can go down as well as up".
| 6:57 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> As always, it pays to research things like this carefully.
Umm, exactly where can we research Google's position on paid text links? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the TOS. Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if Google just spelled out the rules on most of these issues.
| 7:18 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Such posts make me sick. People complaining about PR and behaving like "kgb" spying on others all day long. Why dont you guys use the time to do productive SEO work?
You don't need the highest PR's to get to the top. Plenty of ways to beat higher PR sites. Most problems in this world originate just because ppl envy others for what others have and they don't.
Lucky the discussed site is foxnews. If it was some smaller company they could be banned just by such silly rumors.
I am also not happy that GG is encouraging jealous webmasters to spy on each other and report to them. Perhaps Google should improve customer relationship with webmasters that have "real" problems where usually emails are ignored or answered with meaningless standard replies.
| 7:22 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Umm, exactly where can we research Google's position on paid text links? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the TOS. Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if Google just spelled out the rules on most of these issues.
Right. For a page to have high PR, that is going to require that lots of pages be linking in its direction. Which will mean lots of page views. Absent the existence of Google PR, if someone were thinking of buying links on a page for the click through value, these are the pages that would be most desirable.
| 8:05 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google has already begun lowering the effects of one particulair PR9 that was discussed here last month. |
I must have missed that thread!. Any pointers please. Thanks
| 8:47 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
przero2, you missed the point... the links from that site are now either not helping the sites' PR's anymore, just costing them lots of $$$
| 10:00 pm on Mar 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|przero2, you missed the point... the links from that site are now either not helping the sites' PR's anymore, just costing them lots of $$$ |
Yes - I understand that must be painful unless the advertisers are getting quality traffic in which case it does not matter really. If I guessed this site right, they are one of the Google's content partners and gets millions of page views everyday. And a targeted text link throughout this site means, the clicks will pay back the ad $$$. Isn't this the reason why Google also displays Adwords on this site through their content syndication?
| 12:07 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
przero2, you bring up a good point. This PR9 site selling text links is a Google content partner and does display adwords. Makes you wonder if, instead of just manually reducing this sites ability to pass PR, Google would have hit it with a PR0 if it wasn't a content partner.
| 5:37 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think there is no way that Google could have slashed that site's PR to 0 or any less than PR9 it currently holds as that site offers a great service that is of value to millions of people!. If they removed that site with PR0, it could have been a big loss to the quality of Google's SERPs in the industry the site offers its information.
| 7:23 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't get the big deal..
My philosophy is that the publisher is simply choosing to allow advertising on their website.. A crime? I don't think so. So perhaps the motivation of the person buying the link is purely PR.. so what? who cares? That is exactly my motivation when asking for a free link, why shouldn't it be when paying for a link?
The publisher doesn't deserve to be penalized, because they are simply making money off their hard work.
The advertiser doesn't deserve to be penalized, because they are simply trying to drive traffic to their website and are willing to pay for it. Anyone who claims they haven't invested money in increasing their PR, is simply lying. I have invested money even though all my links are free, simply by spending more on ISP costs searching the web trying to find good links. Perhaps you didn't intentionally work for your PR - you still have unknowingly spent money and time getting that PR.
Some may choose to take the shortcut and simply buy one link. Some may do it the hard way and chase down a multitude of sites asking for links. Either way, they have paid for that PR in some form.
Having a diversified set of links to your site is always going to be better in the long run .. not too many eggs in one basket!
If Google wanted to take the PR selling possibilities from people, all they would have to do is disable the toolbar display.. of course, you could still check in the directory for a vague idea of how high a site is ranked, even without the green bar ; )
| 7:46 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with daamsie. Where is the rule that states links that you obtain have to be free or reciprocal? Unfortunately, the web is still afflicted by the notion that everything should be free. But the simple fact is that nothing is free. Time is money and all the time you spend trying to obtain links or PR is worth something. So in a sense, you are buying PR. Even hiring a seo could be construed as buying PR.
Those that consider this as spam or illegal or unfair, are usually suffering from PR envy or a case of "If you rank higher than me, you are spamming somehow." (I think skunkworks said something like that above).
| 7:54 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|My philosophy is that the publisher is simply choosing to allow advertising on their website.. A crime? I don't think so. |
The publisher doesn't deserve to be penalized
True, and I doubt that Google would ever directly penalize a site for allowing advertising as long as they are noe explicitly selling PR.
|The advertiser doesn't deserve to be penalized, because they are simply trying to drive traffic to their website and are willing to pay for it. |
Also true, and I doubt that Google would ever penalize a site *just* for buying an ad.
But the advertiser does not receive any guarantee that the PR from that ad link will be passed to them. It is not the publisher's to sell. Google can decide which links it will and will not have pass PR.
If the links from a certain type of link from certain high PR publishers cause damage to search results, you can be sure that they will consider filtering out those links from the PR calculation without ever *penalizing* anyone. The publisher will retain their PR and the advertiser will have the PR from all the links to their site that Google decides to count.
Google's actions are not limited to the "penalized or banned" that are tossed around here. There are many, many smaller steps that they can take, that you might never even know that they have taken.
| 8:14 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google has made it clear that Pagerank is their "own opinion" [webmasterworld.com] of a webpage.
The interesting part of the discussion is not if you are allowed to sell/buy (text)links or not. As long as you do not mention Pagerank - Links are just another currency on the web.
The interesting part will be how far Google will go in limiting Pagerank and Page Rank passthrough benefits from clearly bought links and how they will identify "bought links".
| 8:53 am on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The gray area of this subject is never ending. Black is white and white is black.
Heck with it.
Among the strong opinions I have.
First: PageRank is like the American Legal System. It may not be perfect, but it is the best system there is. I hope Google keeps it and before they eliminate it, disable the toolbar and PR showing in the Google directory.
Second: Never count on Google for a majority of traffic. Diversify. Diversify. Diversify.
Third: Everybody needs to rewrite their definition of the word spam. (My competitor is beating me! whine, whine, whine)
Fourth: Three full months into the year 2003, and Google's New Year's resolution to communicate better with webmasters is failing miserably. It is widely believed that both the spam report is useless and emailing Google is pointless.
Fifth: There is a lot of truth to Brett's post on Entropy, part two, which did not attract the amount of attention it deserved.
| This 185 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 185 ( 1 2 3  5 6 7 ) > > |