homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.215.146
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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 139 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 139 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >     
Sell links, lose trust, drop out?
glengara




msg:3339910
 9:47 am on May 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Link sellers can lose trust, such as their ability to flow PageRank/anchortext." - Matt Cutts.

That mightn't be seen as a particularly serious consequence by sellers, unless of course it also applies to internal links.

For many sites the loss of internal "juice" would have some pretty serious consequences...

 

matrix_neo




msg:3343282
 6:01 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

The problem here is using paid links to increase PR and gain benefit in the organic search rankings.

Great. The actual problem behind the whole issue is poor search results (manupulated) according to google. When people talk about adwords they talk about the poor sites that are displayed through adwords on the first page. We all agree adwords links does not pass PR.

For example I make a crappy website and try every thing for a year to rank in google, and I fail because the great google knows my site is a crap, and now I pay a few dollers a click through adwords and displayed in the first page.

How my site suddenly become qualified with out any changes?

Is that site of mine on the first page not a reason for poor result overall? If anybody say no, do you think my ad will never get clicked if no then google is not sending traffic to a poor site for some dollers? And cant we do the same?

It is pure business, some where every body have to sacrifice. If ranking by links are so important for google then they must sacrifice some PR of which they dont have control.

thecityofgold2005




msg:3343288
 6:11 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

For example I make a crappy website and try every thing for a year to rank in Google, and I fail because the great Google knows my site is a crap, and now I pay a few dollers a click through adwords and displayed in the first page.

How my site suddenly become qualified with out any changes?

Your site has not suddenly become 'qualified'. You've bought a position in the section of Google's page clearly marked out as for paid links. The user knows this and can make a judgement on the basis of full information about the nature of your paid advert.

However, if you use underhand methods to buy your way to the top of the organic search results you are fooling both Google and the User. The user thinks your page has got to that position because it is popular whereas it is actually crap. This should not be allowed and is what Google wants to stop.

matrix_neo




msg:3343304
 6:29 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

The user knows this and can make a judgement on the basis of full information about the nature of your paid advert.

Google is marking it as a paid advertisement, I do as well. And google gives it an exposure simply for money, I do as well by passing PR.

Rlilly




msg:3343344
 7:13 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

matrix_neo, at least you honest and admit you a spammer selling links which manipulate Google SERPS and not for traffic.

glengara




msg:3343362
 7:47 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

No need to get judgmental, I may be "compliant" but that's just a risk assessment choice, not a moral one.

thecityofgold2005




msg:3343368
 7:56 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

This thread is getting circular.

The difference between the PR passing paid links on your site and Google Adwords is that with Google Adwords the payee is paying purely for click advertising, whereas with your PR passing paid links the payee is paying to manipulate Google in addition to click advertising.

menial




msg:3343379
 8:08 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

The fact is that a lot of sites have been buying links for PR manipulation purposes and not advertising. This gaming of the algorithm is what Google is trying to stop.

As it was suggested many times, why Google won't remove PageRank information for users completely? Sites buy links on high PR sites thanks to the information GOOGLE freely provides.

If they are serious about "PR manipulation" that would be their first and last step to "stop it". Instead, they try their own games with/against webmasters. Maybe they like their attention or something.

They throw meat to the dogs and then complain they have the cheek to eat it?

I think they keep the PR information for the public for one reason - to avoid bad press and scrutiny (that the "greatest" patent in the history of Google and human evolution is in fact easy to manipulate).

Marcia




msg:3343419
 8:38 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

at least you honest and admit you a spammer selling links which manipulate Google SERPS and not for traffic.

Now that is a completely thoughtless, unfounded assumption based on flawed personal bias. You have no way of knowing what anyone else's motivations are, so there's no need for any name-calling or launching personal attacks.

europeforvisitors




msg:3343420
 8:38 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

As it was suggested many times, why Google won't remove PageRank information for users completely?

Probably because the PR scale makes the Google Toolbar more appealing, which means that more people will install it and Google will be able to gather more user data.

Webmasters would try to manipulate PageRank with or without the toolbar PR gauge, of course. And if the toolbar PR gauge didn't exist, links from sites that could be assumed to have decent PageRank (as opposed to no-name sites that may or may not have decent PageRank) would simply become more valuable.

Dc71




msg:3343430
 8:49 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

That mightn't be seen as a particularly serious consequence by sellers, unless of course it also applies to internal links.

Any have a example of a site being banned due to selling links? Its text link ads owned by google that does this?

Rlilly




msg:3343437
 8:53 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

>You have no way of knowing what anyone else's motivations are, so there's no need for any name-calling or launching personal attacks.

You are off base completely and there is no name-calling or launching personal attacks. Infact it was a compliment. If you read carefully, the person states he/she sell links "I do as well by passing PR" That is spam according to Google.

ispy




msg:3343483
 9:25 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Funny how Google has such a taste for link sellers. Maybe they should take a look at Adwords and determine what the real difference is there.

europeforvisitors




msg:3343491
 9:29 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Funny how Google has such a taste for link sellers. Maybe they should take a look at Adwords and determine what the real difference is there.

There's a very real difference: Straight HTML text links pass PageRank; AdWords don't.

ispy




msg:3343527
 10:13 pm on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

"There's a very real difference: Straight HTML text links pass PageRank; AdWords don't."

Point well taken, sir. I am now all for the small guy losing trust. Paid links must therefore be "evil". "Evil" turds in the sandbox smelling foul ruining paradise.

Quadrille




msg:3343606
 12:58 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Except that it's the small guy - who cannot afford 5000 per month in paidlinks - who stands to gain from google's policy.

Keep up ;)

mattg3




msg:3343617
 1:29 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well I guess first came the big guys interest so that no one manipulates their search results then the holy war marketing claim. ;)

Why keep on insisting that Google does not make bog standard business decisions as one would expect of them, and pack them in some crusade marketing spin?

Divide and conquer the webmasterworld..

loner




msg:3343621
 1:48 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Funny how Google has such a taste for link sellers. Maybe they should take a look at Adwords and determine what the real difference is there."

Their money and not their money.

europeforvisitors




msg:3343638
 2:31 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why keep on insisting that Google does not make bog standard business decisions as one would expect of them, and pack them in some crusade marketing spin?

Whose "bog standard business decisions"? Do you have any idea how many businesses go under each year? Are you suggesting that Google should follow the example of businesses (including Web businesses) that fail because of their owners' greed, ineptitude, and inability to think beyond next week?

Helpinghand




msg:3343653
 3:06 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Links are supposed to be personal recommendations, as they establish credibility even before the visitor reaches a site. This dramatically increases the likelihood that they will buy.

.......but instead they are traded and swapped based on some form of entertainment value eg: pagerank. This is what the web has turned into and links should help others -but now it's like it's some kind of silly game and Google is to blame.

Websites should be buying links based on a website's offerings - not what Google says about it. If I'm to be penalised for buying a link, then shouldn't everyone that buys adwords from Google be penalised too? What if the link contained within an adwords ad, leads to a worthless/low quality website - I bet Google won't devalue a paying customer. --- Those site owners may be selling links too, that's fine, Google has it cash now, and can devalue the site.

But then Google would be attacking it's own clients, the very people that give Goog it's content. Google makes out it's devaluing certain links only, fine - but there's an awful lot of those link type, advertisers that probably spend quite a bit on adwords.

A link is a link, and people follow them - it's that simple, so why devalue link traders, the links sold still work well enough. The web is based on linking, so why devalue a basic structure - it won't clean up the mess as the mess is beyond a clean up operation.

Google may sandbox me

Google can reduce my pagerank

But they cannot force me to stop link buying or selling.

I will keep selling links, trading them and giving them away. I'm not doing anything to hurt anybody, so please don't judge me Mr Google.

[edited by: Helpinghand at 3:15 am (utc) on May 19, 2007]

Quadrille




msg:3343663
 3:32 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

You can do all those things and more, that's your choice.
Google won't judge you.
They may not list your site their index, that's their choice.
Don't judge Google.

reseller




msg:3343762
 8:49 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

It seems Google looks at selling paid links as a minor issue much much less serious than for example hidden text, sneaky redirects, gateway pages etc which usually panelized by deindexing the whole site.

Sellers of paid links are subject to very light NO ..NO... where the only minor risk could be that their paid backlinks risk not passing votes. Not a big issue indeed keeping in mind the large amount of $$$$ they had already earned and will earn in future of selling backlinks.

As such Google leaves backlinks sellers to continue business as usual, while buyers risk buying backlinks which don't pass link juice because only Google will know which backlink seller is "panelized".

Maybe we should call that a win-win deal among Google and Backlinks sellers :-)

matrix_neo




msg:3343790
 9:42 am on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

at least you honest and admit you a spammer selling links which manipulate Google SERPS and not for traffic.

Rilly, I have always tried to live by the guidelines of the google all the time, infact I have great respect for google since it is an innovative, friendly, skillful and extremely committed company. Having said that does not mean that I will not have a difference of opinon.

I welcomed most of the actions taken by google against spam including
Florida update (Many sapmmers quit),
sandbox(though I dont feel proud about the idea it helped to reduce MFA sites that time), Random data display for link:www.sitename.com command (Which stoped link chasers),
Big Daddy (Everflux that confuses seos),
Directory links and receiprocal links discount and many more.

But Regarding paidlinks let me make my point clear I am a Webmaster who own just a few high quality websites and sell editorial links. I sell links that are very relevent and useful to my visitors. I dont take money from everybody who owns a website, only qualified website can buy links from my website and I have a strict editotial guidelines, so it should be counted as a vote only, inspite of me getting some money for it. I have no objection that link brokerage sites vanishing from google, infact I would welcome since I believe that can be classified under serp manipulation.

My point is any link that qualifies editorially should be allowed to pass PR whether or not the webmaster take money for it.

reseller




msg:3343882
 1:07 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

matrix_neo

My point is any link that qualifies editorially should be allowed to pass PR whether or not the webmaster take money for it.

I agree that a link that qualifies editorially should be allowed to pass PR. Thats called passing vote by choice.

However, once money is involved, the links would be looked at as paid links. So how about adding that little cute rel=nofollow attribute to the paid links :-)

europeforvisitors




msg:3343888
 1:13 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

My point is any link that qualifies editorially should be allowed to pass PR whether or not the webmaster take money for it.

Aside from anything else, that approach isn't scalable. It's far more practical to treat any links from a known seller and/or to a known buyer as suspect.

reseller




msg:3343904
 1:27 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

And a greeting from Europe to EFV who never sleep. Don't they have beds in USA or something :-)

matrix_neo




msg:3343977
 3:36 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Reseller

I agree that a link that qualifies editorially should be allowed to pass PR. Thats called passing vote by choice.

However, once money is involved, the links would be looked at as paid links. So how about adding that little cute rel=nofollow attribute to the paid links :-)

With respect, Even if I add rel=nofollow or not google will never be sure if the money involved, then why should any one get paranoid about getting money for an on topic editorialy qualified link? Especially when you are not a known seller who never sell to a knon buyer, they will always fly under the rador otherwise they have the same risk as an innocent webmaster who does not know what is rel=nofollow. Hope you understand I am just not talking for myself.

I Will still get away with out adding rel=nofollow since I hardly sell 20 links per website. I will embed those links in to text and add few authority site links in the same manner and put a couple of dummy rel=nofollow links that can deal google for years. It wont be as easy as dupe content, hidden text, and spam links (guestbooks, blogs, forums).

I don't want to disrespect google or become a spamer, but I want to push the brainees in google to come up with better strategy and clarity of thought.

thecityofgold2005




msg:3344039
 5:09 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

matrix neo, if the competitors of the sites which your paid links point to work out what's going on, perhaps by using yahoo site explorer to study all the backlinks from the competing site with strangely high ranking, they will spam report the originating site in a second.

a few spam reports all pointing at sites from your good self and google will figure out what's going on.

if you're lucky these paid links will be devalued, if you're not (and you are spamming so this is what should happen) google will work out which sites are yours and kick them all out the index.

it is the human element of spam reports that complicates the situation you describe in your post.

you'd have to disguise any link whatsoever between these sites of yours (different ip, different whois. etc) to get away with it over any lenght of time. and, for me, disguise like this is a waste of time. designing clean sites would be a more profitable activity.

thecityofgold2005




msg:3344040
 5:10 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

or, setting up as the first professional spam reporting service... now that's an idea for the future..

matrix_neo




msg:3344106
 6:15 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

it is the human element of spam reports that complicates the situation you describe in your post.

Are you trying to say if anyone has a network of people who will submit paid link report once in a while about any particular site, can put that site out of the index?

Any outbound link on any website may or may not look like a paid link. You can always guess any link as a paid link but you can never be sure. Unless you get it confirmed by the website owner. Some times even being a webmaster of my own site I am not able to... Simply forget at times :)

I am not trying to game the google, if so I would be only asking how that could be done?

I am trying explain the lack of real weight behind this idea for the webmaster to follow. There is no real benefit for the webmaster or user with this idea.

wanna_learn




msg:3344115
 6:39 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

How do Google check the INTENTION of a webmaster who is selling Links from his pages?

Even if he has a clean intention why would he put a no follow tag or anything just for the sake of keeping google happy?

"Paid Link is a Paid Link" - This ideology is not going to work.

Yes a website which had no outbound Link gains PR and suddenly number of outbound links increase outrageously may be under "suspicion" but can not be declared as criminal, who knows?

rekitty




msg:3344144
 7:35 pm on May 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I sell links that are very relevent and useful to my visitors. I dont take money from everybody who owns a website, only qualified website can buy links from my website and I have a strict editotial guidelines, so it should be counted as a vote only, inspite of me getting some money for it.

matrix_neo, you are 100% spot on. Great post! Matt, Adam and any other SE engineers lurking out there... you might read that over a few times.

Hopefully Google's competitors will put an end to this silliness from Google. As Google wastes effort trying to find and discount paid links, I bet the the other search engines realize there is very useful signal in matrix_neo's purchased links that helps them improve their search results.

The search engine that is able to discern the true value of a link regardless of if it was bought, begged, borrowed or stolen will win the SE race in the end.

This 139 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 139 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >
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