homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.159.110
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 169 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 169 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >     
Who is going to use the no follow in paid links?
I sell links should I use it...
proboscis

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 9:48 pm on Apr 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I sell advertising on my site and I know Google wants us to use the rel=no follow in all paid links but I haven't started doing it yet.

Wondering what all of your opinions are, should we start using it for all paid links?

 

jonathanleger

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 1:46 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Contrary to most people here, I hope Google can develop an algo that completely destroys the value of all paid links.

I for one would like a return to the days where actually creating good content, and having people who appreciate it link to it, was all it took to rank well. As it is, people who can pump huge budgets into buying links rule the rankings.

Frankly I don't understand why this is so difficult. Google already has the ability to understand related terms that match search queries.

Why not just extend that ability to analyze the outbound links on a page and decide whether or not that link is on-topic enough to count as a vote for the linked-to page?

sonny

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 1:52 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

google can kiss my!@$^&.

I have been selling paid links for years and I'm not going to underhandedly devalue my paying customer's links because of some underhanded post on an underhanded blog!

Good luck with that google!

cabbagehead

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:00 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

> " Contrary to most people here, I hope Google can develop an algo that completely destroys the value of all paid links."

Return? You're assuming such a Eutopia ever existed or ever will (again) exist. Gotta think more like bugs bunny and road runner ... even if they get rid of this tool, there will always be someone looking for some trick to get ahead of you. ... and it won't be with great content. :p

vincevincevince

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vincevincevince us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:11 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Serious question:
How can we edit the code from TLA to add no follow automatically?

Mister Markup

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:14 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have many, many pages that prove that one doesn't need to pay for links to get traffic and position.

My resume is #3 and my homepage is #4 out of sixty-eight million hits in a search for what I do. Some of my competitors have thousands, even tens of thousands of employees doing what I do, and many of them are Fortune 500 companies. But my homepage and resume are ahead of all theirs.

How? My sites - I have several - are all full of quality content pages. I started writing articles with the idea that potential customers might stumble across them and end up hiring me.

What I didn't know - because I was clueless about SEO for several years - was that the fact that many of my readers linked my articles would drive up my position in the SERPs.

Let me check... doing a "link:" search at Yahoo for just four of my pages turns up over six thousand inbound links.

When I post a new article, I'll pay for a few weeks of CPC or CPM advertising to jump-start it. But once my readers link me, I don't need to advertise anymore.

I have a page that's been in the top ten for a very popular query, which has over 190,000,000 total hits - for over two years. It's definitely a "money" keyword. But it has no paid links!

If you have to pay for links to build your traffic, you're publishing the wrong kind of content. Why pay for traffic when it's just as easy to build the kind of site your fans will link for free?

Play_Bach

WebmasterWorld Senior Member play_bach us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:55 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've decided to give nofollow a try and see what happens.

tictoc

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:56 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

one should add rel=nofollow attribute to ALL paid links

So you are saying no one but Google can sell advertising (paid links)? And that we should add all this code on our websites that Google tell us to add if we want to make money from advertising.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:07 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

tictoc

So you are saying no one but Google can sell advertising (paid links)? And that we should add all this code on our websites that Google tell us to add if we want to make money from advertising.

No. I'm saying you can sell advertising as much as you wish (paid links).

"But I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute. The nofollow tag allows a site to add a link that abstains from being an editorial vote. Using nofollow is a safe way to buy links, because it’s a machine-readable way to specify that a link doesn’t have to be counted as a vote by a search engine."

jonathanleger

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:12 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

You're assuming such a Eutopia ever existed or ever will (again) exist.

No, I'm not that naive. What I'd like to see is a return to SERPs not being so heavily skewed by cash.

Granted, that's always been the case to varying degrees, but before the boom of link buying it (IMO) was much less of a problem.

There are, of course, still examples that go against that (such as the guy above whose resume ranks #3 for his keywords), but most of what I see in the top 10 these days are heavily funded results.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:15 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

BillyS

For what it's worth, here is my policy:

- If you've got good content and I'm referring to that content in my content, you get a link.
- If I'm writing an article and I consider your website an "authority" on the topic then you get a link.
- If you want to advertise on my website then you get a no-follow tag.
- Send me an email about exchanging links and you go right in the trash.

Well said, BillyS. I subscribe to your policy ;-)

tictoc

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:43 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

No, I'm not that naive. What I'd like to see is a return to SERPs not being so heavily skewed by cash.

Yes, that is called every site having adsense on them...

jonathanleger

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:53 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, that is called every site having adsense on them...

Point taken.

calicochris

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 4:17 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've decided to give nofollow a try and see what happens.

Please tell us what happens Play_Bach man ... I'm too much of a coward to try it out. Perhaps a little not important site, but not on the important stuff right noww.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 6:30 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

google can kiss my!@$^&.

I have been selling paid links for years and I'm not going to underhandedly devalue my paying customer's links because of some underhanded post on an underhanded blog!

Good luck with that google!


Echo that!

I have one site where I could probably get away with adding nofollow. The clients aren't that knowledgable. However many have been advertising there for the past 5 years. They are limited to 3 per category which allows me to cherry pick the best vendors. In that sense they are true votes for these sites. Many of these sites I built as a result of the relationship that was created through these 'paid' links. No way I will add nofollow on that site.
On other sites, if I added nofollow, I would have to remove it soon after, since they would no longer be paid links.
I guess I'll just keep designing sites as if there was no Google.

Whitey

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 8:40 am on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting debate - but i don't buy any of it from any side Google or siteowners.

Most links are put there for the motive of positioning.
Most hyperlinked text keyword links are for the same.
Most genuine [ in Google Law ] links only comprise of a URL and are of little positioning value.

This is about business, with Google wanting better control over it's results and advertising, and good folks that depend on G's organic search for income with link support getting hit with FUD anxiety.

Content writers are smiling i notice. Link dependent good producing E-Commerce site's and link sellers would have a reason to cringe at where Matt's comments are directed.

[edited by: Whitey at 8:47 am (utc) on April 19, 2007]

nickreynolds

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 12:51 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've never used nofollow tags. My site is an information rich site, not a big fish at all - about 150,000 visitors per year, but quite big for my kind of niche. The site also has a directory of suppliers of the service that I'm giving info about. Suppliers pay a small fee (£5) for a normal entry in the directory including a link. Most if not all are looking for people to clickthrough. Only a very few would have the concept of increasing their page rank and would only see this as a by-product. A few will pay for a banner ad as well. Do I really need to put no-follow links?
I have been approached by a couple of companies to put a paid for link dealing with insurance for my niche. It is relevant but I'm not sure if they are paying for the traffic or the PR (my home page is PR5). I was happy as it was a relevant site to my site and content.
I also have links pages (unpaid) to sites that may or may not be relevant to my niche but at the time I did it it seemed link building was important (about 100 links in all).
So what do i do? Hold tight and hope that Google are looking for the obvious rogues or try to be whiter than white?

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 1:00 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I also have links pages (unpaid) to sites that may or may not be relevant to my niche but at the time I did it it seemed link building was important (about 100 links in all).

You may want to rethink your strategy with those pages. If they are your "typical links exchange" page complete with a submit link form, then there may be issues.

Try to be whiter than white?

lol! There are no colors here. If you've not been busted up to this point, that means the algorithmic solution(s) didn't affect you. ;)

I shouldn't use the term busted as what you've described is the same thing many of us do. Its a natural process and one that Google has no business interfering with. As others have mentioned, we are not here to provide temporary fixes for an algorithm that relies so heavily on link data for scoring.

If you're not part of the whole commodity link market, you should be just fine. :)

lammert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lammert us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 1:09 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

BillyS wrote:
- If you've got good content and I'm referring to that content in my content, you get a link.
- If I'm writing an article and I consider your website an "authority" on the topic then you get a link.
- If you want to advertise on my website then you get a no-follow tag.
- Send me an email about exchanging links and you go right in the trash.

In fact this fits my policy of the last year with one exception:

- In situations where I use free software like Wordpress, phpBB etc, I also nofollow the link to the base site of those packages. In that way I still give credit to the effort of all developers and all human visitors will be able to visit the source site, but I block the artificial PR boost those sites get from my pages.

I also, nofollow the links "Created/maintained by..." on my satellite sites to my own base-site. So yes, I treat my sites and third party sites equal :)

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 1:31 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

google can kiss my!@$^&.

Or it can do other things to your!@$^&, if it feels the need to protect its search results from manipulation. And why not? Google's attempts to purge and/or penalize paid links are no different from, say, TripAdvisor's attempts to weed out phony "user reviews" that hotel chains and other vendors post on its site.

That's the bottom line. Google Search (the topic of this forum) is a product, and Google wants to protect that product from being tainted by outside manipulators. End of story. Rants about AdWords, AdSense, your personal beliefs about antitrust law, Sergey and Larry's private jet, etc. may be cathartic, but they're beside the point.

aleksl



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:06 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

BillyS: For what it's worth, here is my policy..

Not making much with these, er? Or not in a competitive niche? Or was lucky to start your sites in last century?

jonathanleger
Contrary to most people here, I hope Google can develop an algo that completely destroys the value of all paid links. I for one would like a return to the days where actually creating good content, and having people who appreciate it link to it, was all it took to rank well.

What I'd like to see is a return to SERPs not being so heavily skewed by cash.

Not possible. You have to remove every site with Google Ads on them, and Google itself for that matter - one giant cash-skewed "search" engine.

EFV: if it feels the need to protect its search results from manipulation. ... Google wants to protect that product from being tainted by outside manipulators.

Let me remind you EFV, that Google began by scraping other people's content and putting their ads on it. They OWE webmasters their success, and they OWE webmasters free traffic in exchange for that scraped content.

Google has been created based on some holistic PageRank algorythm, that was ill-thought to be similar to book reference. A link is NOT like a book reference, it is created by bunches WITH EASE. Since than, it was a game of playing an algo - people would get more links, Google will develop filters to remove most notorious "players" and patch a what appears to be an obviously flawed algo. SO you have a TrustRank, a "sandbox effect", "on topic links" etc. etc. all this to protect a giant flaw in the search algorythm.

This was a funny ride until Google introduced paid ads. That really got internet kick in the nuts. No longer people had to create a good-quality content. All you had to do was scrape some, slap Google Ads on it, buy some links and you were golden. And the days of turning internet into a giant MFA garbage linkdump have begun.

So where does this leave "no-follow"? I would suggest ignoring it. It is one more step in the wrong direction, it will take webmaster's time to do and may affect your sites to Google's discretion. Unless of course one wants to play Google algo..but isn't it what Google doesn't want you to do in the first place?

trinorthlighting

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:14 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

OMG, Google owes webmasters for their success? Now I have heard it all. If you did not want to freely contribute to their success in the first place you could have and still can modify your robots.txt files and opt out.

aleksl



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:25 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

you could have and still can modify your robots.txt files and opt out.

I can't believe how many times I've heard that FALSE argument. Let's see...basic logic:

1. Google scraped content FIRST. They didn't get caught, like many other scrapers do these days, it was popular then to let scrape, there was no AdSense to slap on MFA scraper sites.
2. Then Google got big and popular.
3. Now they use OUR CONTENT how they want, and tell you "go block us, suckers".
4. Four, they are now sucking dry what free traffic is there for your sites - their motto now is not "organize world's information", but "the world's internet traffic must follow our paid javascript links only".

And the rest you should slap "no follow" on, so G can see and block.

Sorry for offtop.

lfgoal

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:30 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

"They are limited to 3 per category which allows me to cherry pick the best vendors. In that sense they are true votes for these sites."

That's another thing. Sometimes a paid link IS an editorial vote. You don't necessarily get to advertise on a leading site's pages if they have a problem with your site.

Having said that, though, I suppose Google is looking for sites that lifted to the lofty heights by spontaneous and freely given "votes".

stever

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:34 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Google's attempts to purge and/or penalize paid links are no different from, say, TripAdvisor's attempts to weed out phony "user reviews" that hotel chains and other vendors post on its site.

Unfortunately, they would probably improve their serps more by looking at thin (or fake) content sites like TripAdvisor...

activeco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:39 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

For sale:

PR6 Link on Non-Profit Website
Bid $10.00 for 1 month with 'rel="nofollow"'
Bid $120.00 for 1 month without 'rel="nofollow"'

jimbeetle

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jimbeetle us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:45 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sometimes a paid link IS an editorial vote.

Yep, on the two sites I have that I sell adspace on I approve the advertisers and the ads. I can't very well see not vouching for the link.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 2:51 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Everything Google does becomes #*$!ized.
Half the people will use nofollow correctly.
Half the people will use it to hoard PR.
Will G be able to tell which is which?
Design your sites as if there is no Google. Promote your sites as if there is no Google.

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:04 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

For sale:
PR6 Link on Non-Profit Website
Bid $10.00 for 1 month with 'rel="nofollow"'
Bid $120.00 for 1 month without 'rel="nofollow"'

That's commodity pricing and only applies to those engaged in the link buying frenzy. ;)

For sale:
PR6 Link on Non-Profit Website
Bid $300.00 for 1 month

There's a new market emerging. Commodity Links vs. Premium Links.

Those who can fly under the radar and charge a premium for well placed links. I'm not giving you jack if I'm sitting there in a block with 10, 15, 20 others who are doing the same thing, nope, not me. There's a guilt by association thing going on there. Don't surround my link with all those other paid links and get me flagged. :)

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:07 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let me remind you EFV, that Google began by scraping other people's content and putting their ads on it. They OWE webmasters their success, and they OWE webmasters free traffic in exchange for that scraped content.

"Scraping other people's content"? That's a pretty farfetched claim. Still, even if one accepts that argument, the fact remains that Google has the right to rank that "scraped content" in whatever way it wishes, using whatever criteria it deems appropriate. (And if you disagree with that, take it up with the courts that have ruled in Google's favor.)

Google even has the right to reward Webmasters who manipulate its search results by no longer "scraping [those people's] content and putting ads on it." So, if you're really offended by Google's "scraping" of your content, by all means sell paid links to your heart's delight, and make those paid links obvious. That way, you can breathe a huge sigh of relief when Google stops scraping your content and displaying ads on it. :-)

Play_Bach

WebmasterWorld Senior Member play_bach us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:14 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Part of my rationale for adding nofollow is that I don't want to spend the time anymore checking on the status of links people have posted to my sites. If/when the links have gone 404, or redirected, I'm hoping nofollow might offer some protection. Does that make sense?

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3313974 posted 3:24 pm on Apr 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Part of my rationale for adding nofollow is that I don't want to spend the time anymore checking on the status of links people have posted to my sites.

How were those links obtained? It sounds as though they may have a short life expectancy? If so, get rid of em if they are NOT generating real visitors. It also sounds like they are part of a reciprocal link exchange program of some sort?

If/when the links have gone 404, or redirected, I'm hoping nofollow might offer some protection. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. In your case, it may be best to review each and every one of your outbound links and just get rid of the ones "you" don't trust. If it was acquired through a link exchange, "you link to me, I'll link to you, submit here at my link directory type deal", those have little to zero value these days. The only time that they might present "any value" is when they are done in mass. And even then, there are risks involved and the maintenance factors just aren't worth it.

This 169 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 169 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved