homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.43.155
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 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...

 

glengara




msg:3340888
 12:38 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Discounting only the identified paid links impacts the buyer more than the seller, and it's the seller G wants to discourage.

* A lot of effort is expended that could be otherwise be spent on improving core quality.*
[mattcutts.com...]

Some people are seeing the updated post as due warning by MC that developments in the paid links area are in the pipeline, and if they are they'll likely be aimed at link sellers.

And since it appears G doesn't use bans/PR0s anymore, they're likely to stick to discounting links, links that impact the seller though....

jakegotmail




msg:3340949
 1:38 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

fud.... next?

So they are going to drop 99% of news organization websites?

OK......

pageoneresults




msg:3340986
 2:08 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

fud.... next?

Before we classify this as FUD, I say we wait and see what Matt has up his sleeve.

I've seen what happens after Matt makes statements such as these. Usually some network is affected shortly thereafter. In this case, it looks like a few networks may be affected.

I've watched Google effectively target specific violations of it guidelines. Over the years many networks have come and gone. Google has been responsible for wiping most of them out. The others went underground.

That is exactly what the link brokers need to do at this point. Pull the damn sites down, lessen their exposure, and go underground.

Of course this won't be a blanket thing. It will probably only affect those who have been brazen enough to rub it all in Google's face.

randle




msg:3341015
 2:42 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, search “paid links” and you get a rather dramatic picture; The # 1 organic result being MC’s post on how to report paid links, and in the paid space guys PPC’ing to sell links.

I don’t dabble in any of that but sometimes ponder the fact that if you create a wildly successful and profitable search engine, based upon an algorithm that’s about 80% link pop based; what did you expect would happen?

glengara




msg:3341038
 3:01 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Brokers will be collateral damage but they'll have to go after the sellers directly to make any impact IMO.

mattg3




msg:3341055
 3:08 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

based upon an algorithm that’s about 80% link pop based; what did you expect would happen?

Especially funny as most of their income comes from aehm hold it ... selling links on their SE and other sites.. :)

Rlilly




msg:3341179
 5:03 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>selling links on their SE and other sites.. :)

Google does not sell links which manipulate thier own search engine or pass any pagerank juice either on Google or other sites.

Sell as many links as you want, just add the nofollow and you wont suffer any loss of trust.

reseller




msg:3341227
 5:49 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

glengara

Brokers will be collateral damage but they'll have to go after the sellers directly to make any impact IMO.

But even if Google penalize the sellers by preventing their sites of passing votes (reputation) as per Matt Cutts, the sellers sites would:

- still keep the same TBPR value as they did before the penalty.

- still rank on Google serps as they did before the penalty.

Would anybody call that "Google going after backlinks sellers"? I would call it a Farce :-)

Pico_Train




msg:3341242
 6:01 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Google does not sell links which manipulate their own search engine or pass any pagerank juice either on Google or other sites. "

They may not sell links to pass pr juice or other sites but they certainly manipulate their search engine.

If you pay enough money, you get a first page result. Plain and simple.

Whether you are in the natural results on page 1 or the "sponsored links" section on page 1, you are on page 1.

So if you can't get on page 1 you pay. You manipulate the results with money to appear on page 1.

Vary the amount you pay and you can get position 1, 2 or 3 at the top or 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 on the right of the first page. If you can't afford that, you can pay just the right amount to end up on the second page.

So what's the difference? And please spare me the "the google guidelines say".

mattg3




msg:3341262
 6:32 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sell as many links as you want, just add the nofollow and you wont suffer any loss of trust.

The point is the moral overtone, they can do obviously what they want .. to. :)

On the other hand the ads are "cheating" the socalled ethical holy ranking system. More money more times on page 1. The funny bit is the church of Google. :) Fine it's a business, but don't pretend your changing the world while you are clearly not. More money better position, pretty standard.

Just saw Picos post.

Rlilly




msg:3341293
 7:03 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>They may not sell links to pass pr juice or other sites but they certainly manipulate their search engine

No they dont. Confusing advertising or bringing it into the topic of buying text rich Paidlinks to spam the SERPS it not right.

It is like you saying the NYT is manipulating thier newspaper because one can afford to buy advertising on 1st page and you cannot....

glengara




msg:3341302
 7:10 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

*- still rank on Google serps as they did before the penalty.*

Thing is Reseller if ALL links on a page/site with "unapproved" paid links are discounted it would hit sellers where it hurts, their rankings...

Pico_Train




msg:3341330
 7:46 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Manipulating visibility is manipulating visibility.

Bread is bread.

Selling links, ahem ads, ahem traffic, ahem visibility, is selling links.

Buying links for buying traffic and/or visibility be it to get on the first page in normal results or in the paid advertising section is buying links.

Oh yeah, tobacco companies don't manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes either. Nobody tampers with their own product to increase sales do they?

Rlilly




msg:3341357
 8:31 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Buying links for buying traffic and/or visibility be it to get on the first page in normal results

First, text links ads do not create much traffic at all, if any. All they accomplish is knocking out other sites out of the index for days and days, while bumping others out of the top 10. It is SPAM, period. If it was for traffic, then why are you not advocating using nofollow?

Your method of madness would only create a situation like a "weapons race". Those who can spend thousands and thousands of dollars buying text links will dominate the SERPS.

jakegotmail




msg:3341372
 8:53 pm on May 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

First, text links ads do not create much traffic at all, if any
I beg to differ, perhaps you need to rethink your link buying strategy.

Those who can spend thousands and thousands of dollars buying text links will dominate the SERPS.

How in the WORLD does this differ from adwords. The big dogs dominate adwords. Mom and pops can't pay 10 dollars a click for that travel term.

Quadrille




msg:3341568
 12:37 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's a simple matter of knowing the difference between an HTML paidlink with no nofollow, and a javascript advertisement.

May be small beer to you - but to Google, it's the Pacific Ocean between one and t'other.

And while maybe you did not know that, I'm willing to bet one whole penny that most linksellers and link brokers can tell the difference.

And, not only can they tell the difference, they understand perfectly well why Google is after them. Don't let their protestations of innocence fool you for one second. They won't fool Google!

Rocket Science, it most certingly ain't ;)

Rlilly




msg:3341613
 1:29 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>I beg to differ, perhaps you need to rethink your link buying strategy

No need to, been online since 1997. Tried everything from accross the Jupiter Network to targeted sites in my industry. Text links simply do not generate traffic and have a very low conversion rate when they do.

>>How in the WORLD does this differ from adwords. The big >>dogs dominate adwords. Mom and pops can't pay 10 dollars >>a click for that travel term

It is completely different, adwords does not pass page rank, and text links are intended for that purpose. The big dogs also dominate the front page of the Travel Section in my local newspaper, so the Mom and Pops have to advertise further in or in the classifieds. The same would apply to getting the first store at the entrance of the Mall, its too expensive.....

europeforvisitors




msg:3341688
 3:05 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

They may not sell links to pass pr juice or other sites but they certainly manipulate their search engine.

If you pay enough money, you get a first page result. Plain and simple.

Really? I guess there must be quite a few of us who are waiting to receive very large bills. :-)

rekitty




msg:3341780
 7:08 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Text links simply do not generate traffic and have a very low conversion rate when they do.

That's bunk. The right text links can cost far less per click than adwords. I spend my *advertising* money on both text links and adwords and text links are often better performers.

You do the math: on the exact same site I can buy adwords for 2 to 4 bucks per click. I can also buy a text link for $150/month that delivers 300 clicks/month. Which would you pick?

I think Google knows this and is highly motivated to squash an often superior form of advertising to their own.

Pico_Train




msg:3341786
 7:24 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

"First, text links ads do not create much traffic at all, if any. "

That's not quite right. Text link ads can bring oodles of good traffic. On top of that, I suppose Yahoo is gonna get clobbered then by this latest threat? Nail those link sellers, nail them! Oh doesn't google sell links?

"Your method of madness would only create a situation like a "weapons race". Those who can spend thousands and thousands of dollars buying text links will dominate the SERPS."

Yes madness, complete and utter madness. Just to clarify things as well, those that buy text links in my niche don't outrank me either for my terms for several sites. I've only ever bought a Yahoo link, maybe I will ask to put nofollow on it so that I can piss my $299 away instead of saving for my child's education.

It's also possible that Google is buying goodwill, what do you think?

Pay people per post to spread good will in forums such as this one? I like to call these the Google Cheerleaders. Pay them to defend their latest venture to weed out anything that might compete with any of their products and counter any ill favoured notion that the boots are getting a bit small for them?

[edited by: Pico_Train at 7:30 am (utc) on May 17, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3342095
 3:15 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Pay people per post to spread good will in forums such as this one? I like to call these the Google Cheerleaders.

If that's the case, who's paying the purveyors of gloom, doom, and paranoia? :-)

Pico_Train




msg:3342115
 3:36 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wish I was being paid like you are EFV - ;-)

But I guess we are starting to go off topic there.

Losing trust from Google is their perogative(spelling?) given that the results are theirs to do with as they see fit but frankly whether you sell a link to help someone get on page 1 naturally or sell a link to appear on page 1 in the "sponsored links" section, you are still selling a link to get on page 1. Same difference, different rules.

Either way, I don't count on buying any AdWords or links, do just fine as it is.

Rlilly




msg:3342167
 4:21 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>whether you sell a link to help someone get on page 1 naturally

You just simply do not understand or choose not too. That is not a natural way of getting on page 1 in the SERPS, its manipulation, plain and simple. Getting on page 1 by buying Adwords is scales of economy, you either can afford it or not.

You would find your insinuations of my posts here being paid if you read some of my previous post in WebmasterWorld as being ridiculous, especially on Google Trademark polices.

europeforvisitors




msg:3342194
 4:45 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wish I was being paid like you are EFV - ;-)

But I guess we are starting to go off topic there.

You're also making life harder for the moderators. (And by the way, I'm not "being paid"; I'm just a grown-up.)

mattg3




msg:3342319
 6:38 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

If that's the case, who's paying the purveyors of gloom, doom, and paranoia? :-)

Realistic :)

thecityofgold2005




msg:3342348
 7:21 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Having been in search since 1998 it is fascinating to see another paradigm shift occuring. The winners will be the ones who recognise this and adapt acordingly.

arieng




msg:3342388
 8:26 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

The winners will be the ones who recognise this and adapt acordingly.

Exactly! And who will adapt accordingly? The most savvy link sellers.

Those who will benefit the most from this will be the sellers who can figure out how to do it without getting caught. For the careful link seller (all offers/agreements discussed offline, links carefully masked in editorial content) this will be a boom. I wouldn't be surprised it 50% or more the Internet's links get discounted to some degree, so these links will seriously be worth their digital weight in gold.

thecityofgold2005




msg:3342410
 9:07 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yeah that's one way people will adapt.

In the end link selling / buying will be impossible to stop. That's why I take the line I do on other threads about reliance on backlinks in search being a dead end.

mattg3




msg:3342575
 1:34 am on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

The winners will be the ones who recognise this and adapt acordingly.

Especially funny if your caught in this and some moron links on hundred pseudo domains dmoz clone content poor pages to you..

Can we now expect people selling links to you on their rubbish pages to your competitor?

Has anyone heared how Google safeguards against this? How can you possibly detect that a link is bought with a robot? All one can do is built some (bayesian?) pattern recognition on suspected sites, if you fall into it your doomed.

I can tentatively agree that one can maybe get a very limited view on themes with some basic word lists, but deciding that someone bought a link unless you monitor their bank/paypal accounts is kinda a weird and unbelievable claim.

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