homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.23.129
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support 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 160 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 160 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >     
Something different - Revenue model of the Future?
cabbie




msg:4543255
 3:29 am on Feb 7, 2013 (gmt 0)

While most of you are begging for, and heavens forbid, even paying for links (rofl), I get so many unsolicited links every day that my page rank is off the chart.
Now, I am more used to lurking in shadows, than being under the spotlight and I am feeling a bit uncomfortable.
Sure I get a kick at looking at the green bar, and it's something to tell and impress my friends, but as Donkey says" I aint got no friends".
And the thing is, these links aren't making me rich.

So I am trying to come up with a angle so something is in it for me.
And I have come up with a idea of charging the websites that link to my websites $5 each for the privilege.
What do You think?
A cool Million would be nice.

So while you are begging them, I am fighting them and making them pay or I will threaten to disavow their links!

This should be the revenue model of the future and Google should encourage it.

What could be a better recommendation that someone actually pays to link to you!
Page Rank, will become Paid Rank and the site with the most number of paid links to it wins!
As well as the attribute of No follow, we will have "Paid for" which Google will credit both the site paying and the site receiving.
So guys start expecting a email from me soon asking you to pay me 5 bucks or else.

 

matrix_jan




msg:4544422
 3:05 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I just wrote like 300 words to post here, but then deleted it because it's not worth it.

It's like arguing with a rich ignorant kid who's so much into getting richer that wants to charge everyone who looks at him.

bakedjake




msg:4544424
 3:18 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Folks, be mindful of the TOS please. Some of the comments in the thread are close to the line. Let's stick to debating the idea and refrain from personal attacks.

matrix_jan




msg:4544425
 3:32 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Let me clarify what I wrote. It's how I feel about the situation (hopeless) and not the person himself.

Also it would be great if this thread got closed, since there is no discussion in these 4 pages, only unanswered questions and responds of how broken the model is.

It's just that ridiculousness that drives people here. And it's gonna get bitter and bitter.

JohnRoy




msg:4544430
 4:38 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Cabbie, I already sent you the 5 bucks. (not). Please (don't) disavow my site. ;)

- - -

The following may only be read if you agree to sign over your house to me. If you disagree, kindly be so polite to stop. Now.

I understand from where this whole idea emerged. There's a similar thread about charging to remove links from defunct directories [webmasterworld.com...] but seriously, this idea seems to violate the Google TOS. "Build for your audiences, and not for the search engine". The disavow tool you mentioned, is officially not meant for this type of usage.

cabbie




msg:4544434
 5:09 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

There are already dozens of meaningful question about your broken model and you didn't even care to answer ..

Which question is troubling you, Matrix?

The only thing that bothers me is how much it encourages kool-aid drinking instead of building a valuable web resource.

I wonder if my model will actually help and encourage webmasters spending more time building a valuable web resource.
I don't have the time to police all incoming links to me, to see whether they are low quality or malicious in trying to harm my rankings.
I can possibly police them by automating my model by asking those incoming links to verify themselves.
This will give me more time spending on improving my resource.
If webmasters thought that they would be actually paid for any links to them, then they may spend more time concentrating on producing great content, instead of spending a disproportionate amount of time, chasing and paying for links.
See above about pyramid schemes. It's a terrific idea-- if you're at the top of the pyramid.

On the contrary, although at first it might take a pyramid shape , proper uptake of the model would trend it be more circular.
What would be left out would be low quality sites masquerading as good quality which is what is happening now.

You cannot "allow" (or disallow) publication of a hyperlink on a website you do not control.

That's why Google and Bing allow webmasters to disallow links with them

You are free to monetise your own content if you want.

But you have zero control over mine.


You are monetising your site by linking to my resource.Not the other way around.
I have no control over what you do, but I have plenty of control over the link you have to my website.

matrix_jan




msg:4544442
 6:01 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Which question is troubling you, Matrix?

It's all there, just go through the pages... Some are partially answered by other people but not you.

Now, let me ask you the biggest question. What keeps you from giving the green light?

I just want to see if you can see any flaws in the model, or maybe it's just not worth the time you're gonna spend.

The reason why this thread is so popular is because it's against webmasters. Usually threads are against search engines, in some cases against users. But this one touches every one here even though there are many (like me) who don't link to anyone at all.

Shepherd




msg:4544491
 10:41 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

You cannot "allow" (or disallow) publication of a hyperlink on a website you do not control.


While on the surface that may appear to be true the fact of the matter is that no matter what you put on your website if you are sending visitors to my site I have the control.

Samizdata




msg:4544493
 10:54 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

You are monetising your site by linking to my resource.

Wrong again - the site in question is not monetised in any way.

It sends you free and targeted traffic, and plenty of PR juice.

It asks nothing in return and does not even expect you to be grateful (as if).

I have plenty of control over the link you have to my website.

You have control over the free and targeted traffic once it reaches your site.

If you are incapable of monetising the traffic that is your problem.

But you have zero control over the link on my site.

To suggest otherwise is simply delusional.

Enough of this nonsense.

...

Shepherd




msg:4544497
 11:05 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

But you have zero control over the link on my site.

To suggest otherwise is simply delusional.


You link to my site, I redirect the visitors from your site to oblivion, what does that do to your link?

Samizdata




msg:4544514
 12:00 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

You link to my site, I redirect the visitors from your site to oblivion, what does that do to your link?

Nothing whatsoever.

What it does do is throw away your potential income from the free traffic.

A cunning plan worthy of Baldrick, feel free to implement it.

This thread is beyond parody.

...

lucy24




msg:4544522
 12:06 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

overlapping...

what does that do to your link?

What does it do to your visitors?

Nobody in their right mind objects to real links that result in actual humans arriving at your site. It's the fake links that start arguments.

The members-only store is the wrong analogy. Plenty of www sites require logins or even payment. Your local Costco does not operate in an unmarked building with carefully concealed entrances; members don't have to get permission to tell their friends about the store. The information is there for everyone. It's up to the individual human shoppers to decide whether to sign up.

Of course it's a pyramid scheme. If everyone pays someone else and it all comes out even, where's the benefit? You might as well keep your $5 and I'll keep mine. The system only works if some people are on top and some are on the bottom.

netmeg




msg:4544552
 1:44 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I suspect that it would be seen as gaming the system, and I suspect you will lose all that PR. Once it gets out, it'll no doubt be picked up by industry publications and written about, in some pretty fierce terms. No way Google won't see it.

But again, go for it. I'm curious as to how it goes.

oddsod




msg:4544560
 3:27 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I suspect that it would be seen as gaming the system

What system? Google's guidelines? I must have missed that bit in the guidelines. Google discourages people from paying for links - Google wants to see links that benefit visitors rather than ones meant for SEs. There is no better signal for Google than a site owner who's so keen on serving his visitors that he's willing to pay to link to a the authority sites that charges for it. This is the perfect way to reverse the years of people secretly buying links and corrupting the linking landscape.

The first one to send me such a message: I'll happily report the extortion attempt not only to google's abuse dept...

That could turn out quite funny.

Put in a complaint about any site and you're effectively telling Google the site is such a big authority and so not focused on profit that they don't give a hoot about SEO. Google could take such complaints as positive signals about the site and actually move it further up the SERPs.

The site in my profile is a non-profit, non-monetised site. It's an enthusiast site and I don't care about increasing traffic/getting more visitors. If people want info on my topic this is the only site of its kind where they can get honest opinion completely and utterly unbiased by any commercial interest. They can come if they want or not come, I'm not bothered, it earns me nothing. This is the type of site Google likes - a site that's got zero interest in SEO.

I'm happy to play guinea pig and send out the $5 demand emails and take a chance on a whole bunch of you "complaining" to Google about "extortion". Simply send me a PM with the wording of the email you want and I'll send the email from the address registered with Google webmaster tools. :)

In fact, if Google starts seeeing these complaints as a positive signal there may be money in creating a "complaints service"! Any webmaster wanting more organic traffic would pay you to put in a complaint to Google that they're charging for validation and the more such complaints Google gets the more they'll see his site as an authority site! ;)

I find it strange that people are coming out so strongly against this idea. If you get a demand for $5 to "validate" the link, you've got a choice of ignoring or paying. If you don't believe that being disavowed will cause you damage you can simply ignore the email. I suspect a lot of the protests are because people secretly suspect that being disavowed will have a negative effect on the traffic they get from Google and they don't want an environment where they have to pay to avoid being disavowed. ;)

netmeg




msg:4544569
 4:37 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

No matter what the arguments, it's pretty hard to justify that it's *really* being done for the benefit of the users.

Sure you can say that.

LifeinAsia




msg:4544610
 5:35 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I find it strange that people are coming out so strongly against this idea.

Why? It's a flawed business model based on incorrect assumptions. WebmasterWorld is a community that is based on helping people. Many people have pointed out the flaws in the plan.

If the OP wants to proceed in spite of the data provided, he is certainly more than welcome to. However, given the intense opposition voiced by members of his target market (webmasters), and his inability to change their minds, it seems like he can get a better ROI for his time/efforts focusing on a different revenue model.

I don't doubt that he can probably find quite a few gullible webmasters who will fall for the scheme in the short term. But as a viable business model? I really don't think so.

ken_b




msg:4544619
 5:43 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

If you get a demand for $5 to "validate" the link, you've got a choice of ignoring or paying.

You forgot the choice to remove the link.

Which is what I suspect a good % of recipients of such an email would do. It's certainly the first thing I'd do in response to such an email.

.

indyank




msg:4544620
 5:44 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

A new model that still depends on google, in 2013, for making money is definitely flawed. I can understand any old model that depended on Google that continues to do so, but not a new one. Where is the innovation?

This thread having crossed 100 posts just makes one thing clear. People are so stressed out and confused with all that google is doing, they just wanted a fun thread like this. Enjoy folks. I will be back again after this thread crosses 200 posts to have some more fun.

Samizdata




msg:4544665
 7:15 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

they don't want an environment where they have to pay to avoid being disavowed

Hardly surprising.

They probably know a "protection racket" when they see one.

...

Vamm




msg:4544669
 7:33 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Forget disavowed, forget Google. If you want to link to my content, you pay. Otherwise, I'll throw visitors coming from your site away. Not Google, but visitors.

Should work nice for certain types of sites. Like, if someone has a monopoly of some kind for a certain dataset. Similar to StatCounter with their global stats, a dataset which is expensive to legally reproduce.

FranticFish




msg:4544676
 7:59 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

This thread having crossed 100 posts just makes one thing clear

+1

I admit I was an early one to 'bite' but I found it hard to believe the OP was serious. I think there's a fundamental point (being overlooked) here: why do people link to other people?
(a) because they really don't expect PEOPLE to click the link, they're linking for Google - in which case they might go for a 'pay to link to me' scheme... OR...
(b) because the site they're linking to is not their core area and they wanted to refer their visitors to another good site.

If your IBLs are (a) - congratulations, you're an authority (on some level) and you've been picked up by spammers - feel free to do what you like to them, OR
If your IBLS are (b) - congratulations, you're an authority (on some level) because your content is being cited by genuine webmasters...

and you've just sent them an invoice for (as Samizdata says) the 'privilige' of choosing YOUR site as somewhere to send some free traffic with a recommendation.

Nice One. Good luck. As Netmeg says, please try it and let us know how you get on. I'm sure the quality links will just flood in henceforth.

Play_Bach




msg:4544677
 8:00 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I don't doubt that he can probably find quite a few gullible webmasters who will fall for the scheme in the short term.


Reminds me of the guy who ran an ad in newspapers back in the 80s saying "Last chance. Send $2" - apparently he made $25,000 off the ad before getting caught by the IRS for tax evasion.

FranticFish




msg:4544679
 8:07 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Not Google, but visitors

A paywall? Good luck!

Samizdata




msg:4544695
 8:31 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

if someone has a monopoly of some kind for a certain dataset

Which option would that someone find more sensible:

a) Encourage people to link to their site - where the valuable data can be sold.

b) Send emails to people who freely recommend the site saying:

"Give us money or we will damage your business".

Several posts in this thread appear to be advocating the second option.

I accept that they may be misguided rather than malicious.

Otherwise this thread would not be funny at all.

...

Vamm




msg:4544716
 9:22 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

@Samizdata
You still thinking Google when you say "damage your business". PageRank, Bad Neighbourhood, Disavow Tool, and the like. That's all things Googlish. I see Google made some inroads into thinking during the last what, ten years?

Samizdata




msg:4544736
 10:28 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

You still thinking Google when you say "damage your business"

I refer you to the OP and follow-up posts.

I have come up with a idea of charging the websites that link to my websites $5 each for the privilege...
or I will threaten to disavow their links!

For saving $5 you want to take a chance that a authority site... disavows your link?

that maybe enough to convince the website owner to send me a token amount of $5

Many websites are owned by businesses, big and small

disavow links will probably not harm their websites anyway...but who knows

Others have mentioned blackmail and extortion, but whatever you call it the intention is clearly to frighten people into paying protection money or else have their businesses attacked.

The threat is to cause financial harm by making their websites tank in the search engines.

It makes no difference that the person doing the threatening is - as in this case - armed with something less effective than a stick of wet celery.

The bottom line threat is "give me money or I will damage your business".

I defy anyone to support this supposed "revenue model of the future".

Assuming they ever took it seriously.

...

cabbie




msg:4544745
 11:04 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Fellow brothers and sisters,
my OP was meant to be light, playful, tongue in cheek, humourous, although I still meant every word I said.
Obviously, I am not as funny as I thought or these are not funny times :)

However,I think those protesting here doth protest too much.
Maybe you are the ones who have drunk all the Kool Aid ;)

You say my model is broken, but look at the one you are in now.
It appears nothing more than corrupted arbitrage.
Half the time is spent coming up with cheap link schemes and the other half trying to make profit.
You are at the mercy of Google, who are the police, the banker and the judge.
Looking at the threads here on WebmasterWorld and most people are trying to work out what went wrong with their scheme.


Google have created the problem of unnatural links by penalising sites for it.
I am simply responding by doing a scalable solution for me and that is having inbound links licensed or verified.
Whether, there is a small fee attached is immaterial.
As for the majority of my fellow webmasters here being against it,that is no indication to me that it wont work.
The valid sites that link to my site are all websites run by authentic businesses or government and edu sources.
They have contact addresses, they have disclaimers,they have privacy policies, they are businesses that understand mutual benefit.
Maybe that leaves half the guys out here?

Peace and Good Links to all!

netmeg




msg:4544746
 11:07 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Not everyone is link-obsessed.

Samizdata




msg:4544755
 11:36 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

I still meant every word I said

pay me 5 bucks or else

Have you got change for a couple of three dollar bills?

...

LifeinAsia




msg:4544757
 11:38 pm on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)

Not everyone is link-obsessed.

And not everyone who is obsessed with links is obsessed because of Google. In fact, a lot of people are "obsessed" with links simply because they are trying to build up non-Google sources of traffic. People asked for links and linked to other sites LONG before Google ever came into existence.

I, for one, have never paid for an incoming link (excluding advertising), nor do I have any intention of ever doing so. I will certainly never pay for the "privilege" of linking out. If anyone asks for payment for such a link, I will simply remove the link and they will lose the link juice and traffic from that link. And they will probably be added to my blacklist of sites that will never receive a link in the future.

Unless they pay me $5 for my time to process a "re-link request." :)

JohnRoy




msg:4544758
 12:00 am on Feb 12, 2013 (gmt 0)

OP Quotes;
  • Some edu sites are already doing that and it should become the proper practice
      Can you mention some?!

  • The valid sites that link to my site are all websites run by authentic businesses or government and edu sources.

  • Google are first on my mailing list

  • A cool Million would be nice.
      So you have content which is linked to by minimum 200,000 authentic sites and you're looking for ways to monetize?!?

  • helleborine




    msg:4544766
     12:33 am on Feb 12, 2013 (gmt 0)

    The OP just 'fessed to to his comedic intent...

    That makes more sense now, everything is back in its proper place in the universe.

    Thanks for the chuckle, it was very welcome.

    This 160 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 160 ( 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.
    Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
    © Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved