homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.25.229
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

This 101 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 101 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
Why cant we sell links, its just another form of advertising
will google really ban a site or filter if one sell links
zeus

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



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 5:06 pm on Aug 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

I dont get it why cant we sell links to other sites, do we really get filtered or baned by google (internet) can it really be that they should tell us what to do.

 

Swanson

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 11:42 pm on Aug 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

There is a potential here to use mis-information in the past to form opinions on how google does things now.

Lets be honest the web is not getting smaller, google indexes billions of pages and websites.

To really think that google gives a crap about selling a few links on your website and whether they could or could not be violating some sort of rule is paranoid.

Google uses complex algorithms to try to "clean" it's index - it really does not have a "google police" that checks the 50 billion odd pages in its index.

Think of google as you would the police (in the uk) - it is more interested in the big guys that create the majority of the offences. The little guys are unimportant, and efforts to stop them are futile - as there are declining rewards vs effort.

Now the way it works here is that there are 2 points of view -

1. "sell links its ok, just advertising"
2. "dont sell links, google doesnt like it and you can get banned"

Here is the reality - I have sold links for years and have been fine, I have sold links on spam pages - I have created pure crap websites and got pagerank 7 on those domains. I have never been banned for that. I have been banned for other things and I have been re-included. I have spoken to people at google and you know what there are real people there that understand about the way the world works.

So to finalise, anyone who says "there is a big brother" is a born victim who had never gone outside the comfort of their own website, has never even tried to push the envelope (yes that does mean not playing by all the rules) - and the sad thing is that they project to everyone else that is how it works.

Well it doesnt. Look at Geosign Technologies, they got an investment of $160 million - they are ppc arbitragers (now that isn't playing by the rules). Look at Mezimedia, they got bought for a potential $360 million - they are ppc arbitragers (again where are the rules).

You see, the way it works is that the more people that give you advice on what they think google does or does not want - the more you should just do it.

Do you really think that google wanted to stop you making money out of your own website by selling advertising space? What the flipping heck is adsense?

I repeat, the whole concept of adsense is the title of this thread.

Swanson

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 11:56 pm on Aug 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

The key point that has been mentioned is that sites found selling links on the basis of passing pagerank may be hit in the way that the site is prevented from passing pagerank to sites it links to.

So what, if you just sell advertising space and don't sell it on the basis of pagerank then who cares.

If you sell it on the basis of pagerank then you are an idiot - or the buyers are, and in that case who cares?

incrediBILL

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 12:26 am on Aug 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

it really does not have a "google police" that checks the 50 billion odd pages in its index

That's somewhat true that they don't police every page, but they do have people that investigate web spam if your competitors think you're playing foul and rat your site out to the "google police" they can and do zap sites.

Lets be honest the web is not getting smaller, google indexes billions of pages and websites.

Let's be really honest, most of it's auto-generated crap that if their spam team could accurately identify would be tossed out.

Do you really think that google wanted to stop you making money out of your own website by selling advertising space? What the flipping heck is adsense?

I repeat, the whole concept of adsense is the title of this thread.

Actually the concept of the title is selling links WITHOUT Google taking a cut.

The concept of AdSense is Google with their finger in the pie.

I sell links for cash, have always sold them, started before AdSense or even Google existed and will probably continue until the internet model makes it out dated or I expire... not because of any silly webmaster guidelines.

internetheaven

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 1:34 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google uses complex algorithms to try to "clean" it's index - it really does not have a "google police" that checks the 50 billion odd pages in its index.

No, they actually specifically requested that other webmasters rat out their fellow webmasters (no honour amongst "thieves"?) to Google and even gave out some private Google contact details to report them.

Actually the concept of the title is selling links WITHOUT Google taking a cut.

WHAT IS ALL THIS "ADSENSE/ADWORDS" NONSENSE! Neither adsense or adwords provides link popularity to the site being linked to. Google IS NOT against anyone selling links! They are against people selling link to manipulate their link popularity algorithm. Sell as many links as you want! Just put them in javascript or just simply add the nofollow tag and Google will not care less. If you are really selling links as "advertising" then you will not be bothered about these rules.

If you are selling Pagerank and anchor text only, then Google does have a problem with you and (partly) justifiable reasons too.

pageoneresults

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



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 1:46 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just put them in javascript or just simply add the nofollow tag and Google will not care less.

Okay, if there are no penalties for selling links other than the site selling may not pass PR, why would I even bother going through the process of wrapping them in JavaScript, which by the way is not 100% foolproof these days.

Of the total number of sites out there, what percentage of those Webmasters do you think even know about the nofollow attribute? And, of those that know, what percentage are using it?

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 2:47 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

If Google figures out that you sell links, then the worst that will happen is your links won't pass PageRank to other sites.

If you were a link buyer, would you be prepared to guarantee that in a written contract?

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 3:04 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just put them in javascript or just simply add the nofollow tag and Google will not care less.

That contradicts with Google's underlying principal and advice to webmasters - webmasters should develop their websites in a natural way (as if there are no search engines)!

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:03 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

That contradicts with Google's underlying principal and advice to webmasters - webmasters should develop their websites in a natural way (as if there are no search engines)!

What's "natural" about purchasing links?

buckworks

WebmasterWorld Administrator buckworks us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:25 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

What's "natural" about a business that sits on its hands and doesn't promote?

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:30 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

What's "natural" about purchasing links?

It's called advertising! Is advertising unnatural or supernatural?

But you seem to miss (or avoid) my point anyway! If I do publish advertisements on my site, why should I put nofollow tags on links and act in "unnatural" way? I would not put the nofollow tag "if there were no search engines"!? And this is called contradiction in Google's principles!

artek

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 8:44 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

I sell links for cash, have always sold them, started before AdSense or even Google existed and will probably continue until the internet model makes it out dated or I expire... not because of any silly webmaster guidelines.

That's right incrediBILL, it is called in free enterprise. G may need better legal department to advise them on corporate law in case somebody proves without doubt that their algorithm penalizes websites for conducting normal business activities.

What's "natural" about purchasing links?

It is natural, legal business transaction: one entity providing service to another entity for a fee.

There is related tread in supporter's forum: [webmasterworld.com ]

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 10:26 pm on Sep 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

But you seem to miss (or avoid) my point anyway! If I do publish advertisements on my site, why should I put nofollow tags on links and act in "unnatural" way? I would not put the nofollow tag "if there were no search engines"!? And this is called contradiction in Google's principles!

I didn't miss the point at all. What we're talking about here is Google's choosing the lesser of two evils:

- Recommending the "nofollow" attribute, a JavaScript link, etc. to prevent what Google clearly views as an unnatural transfer of PageRank, vs...

- Letting its search results be corrupted by what it regards as an unnatural practice (the buying and selling of text links).

What's "natural" about a business that sits on its hands and doesn't promote?

Where has Google said that businesses can't promote themselves? Businesses merely can't expect free traffic from Google if they promote themselves in ways that interfere with the validity of Google's search results.

G may need better legal department to advise them on corporate law in case somebody proves without doubt that their algorithm penalizes websites for conducting normal business activities.

Tell that to the federal court that ruled for Google in the SearchKing v. Google case.

Look, there's no need to even think about Google's guidelines unless you want free traffic from Google. If you do want free traffic from Google, it's only fair and honorable to respect its rules--or at least to be honest enough (with yourself and with others) to acknowledge that Google has the same right to send or withhold referrals as you do.

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 7:54 am on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

I didn't miss the point at all.

You did.

What we're talking about here is Google's choosing the lesser of two evils

Choosing the lesser evil is STILL choosing an evil... Whose slogan was "Don't be evil"? Why did Google come to this zugzwang situation? What went wrong?

DamonHD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 9:46 am on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Because the world isn't a perfect place and G has to take the best available choice in a world with far too many freeloaders, scammers and sociopaths?

I understand that the sociopaths pretty much by definition won't see what the problem is, but many of the rest of us do, and the problem here is not Google.

BTW, I do have a few paid links, but in general they have to pass my editorial scrutiny and/or get wrapped in an "ad" div or whatever. They have to pass broadly the same sniff test that I'd apply to a normal link freely given.

Rgds

Damon

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 11:10 am on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

I understand that the sociopaths pretty much by definition won't see what the problem is, but many of the rest of us do, and the problem here is not Google.

It's a nice argument, isn't it - "pretty much by definition... the problem here is not Google"?

Ahh... I've just learned I'm sociopath for not seeing a problem outside Google's PR algorithm. The world isn't a perfect place! That's why they have to change what they do and the way they do it according to Google's perfect algo?! Who's the sociopath, Damon?

DamonHD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 11:59 am on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

No, that's an interesting misreading of what I wrote. Have you considered a career in the law? B^>

Sociopaths don't see their antisocial behaviour as a problem. Which makes it even more problematic, of course.

Google owes the sociopaths and others amongst its users no favours, so Google can do what it likes with its algorithms. As it happens, I think that Google tries to be fair and often/usually succeeds.

The sociopaths don't try to be fair, but try to game/corrupt the (SE) system for their personal advantage, and unfortunately succeed quite a lot of the time right now.

Rgds

Damon

[edited by: DamonHD at 12:41 pm (utc) on Sep. 2, 2007]

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 2:42 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe Google should honor people's right to buy and sell links by introducing PFI. After all, why shouldn't Google get a piece of the action, if selling straight HTML links is just another form of advertising?

Obviously, Google couldn't use PFI for all types of pages, because that would eliminate most noncommercial pages from its index. But it could require a monthly fee for any page that it identified, via profiling, as being the bestower or recipient of a paid link. Everyone would be happy: Google because it was earning more, users because Web clutter was reduced, and the members of this forum who have been clamoring for the chance to participate openly in the marketplace for what were once organic links.

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:01 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

After all, why shouldn't Google get a piece of the action, if selling straight HTML links is just another form of advertising?

Because there is no way you can be 100% confident "straight HTML links" on a certain site are purchased/sold or placed there for free!

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:19 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Because there is no way you can be 100% confident "straight HTML links" on a certain site are purchased/sold or placed there for free!

Google doesn't need to be certain. Google is a search engine, not a criminal court.

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 4:33 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google doesn't need to be certain.

So much the worse!

A website can be downgraded on their index only because of Google's perception that they might purchase links?!

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 6:10 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that you're getting worked up for no good reason.

- You can buy or sell links in the way that Google recommends, and your Google rankings won't be affected.

OR...

- If you don't care about Google rankings, or if you're willing to take chances, you can ignore Google's recommendations.

That's the bottom line. You have the freedom to choose, so make a choice and live with it.

pageoneresults

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



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 6:34 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you don't care about Google rankings, or if you're willing to take chances, you can ignore Google's recommendations.

EFV, I believe the worse that can happen to "most" is that the links just don't pass PR, no big deal.

Let's remember, we are but a small portion of the Webmaster community. We might represent 15-20% of the sites in the indices. What about that 80-85% who are not aware of what we are discussing? Is Google going to penalize them? Nah, the easiest thing to do is just negate the value of the links, bottom line. Most wouldn't know the difference.

Now what about Yahoo!, Live and Ask? How does all of this affect them?

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 7:08 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Pageoneresults, the OP asked two questions: One practical ("do we really get filtered or baned [sic] by google") and one philosophical ("can it really be that they should tell us what to do"). If you're correct in your answer to the practical question--and, apparently, in assuming that the answer will never change--then there's even less reason for people to get worked up over being "told what to do."

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 7:31 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Look, there's no need to even think about Google's guidelines unless you want free traffic from Google.

Look, I do not need free traffic from Google if they do not give free traffic to my competitors. It's simple as that!

Some of our competitors finally give up and start to do unnatural things - like adding nofollow tags to their "straight HTML links"?

Robots metatags, robots.txt file, sitemap.xml, now we have nofollow tags... More and more and more content devoted only to Google! What's natural about this?

For instance, why doesn't Google follow only those links that have follow tag?! That would save them a lot of processing time and they would not complain that have to index billions of pages? ;)

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 9:31 pm on Sep 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Robots metatags, robots.txt file, sitemap.xml, now we have nofollow tags... More and more and more content devoted only to Google! What's natural about this?

Just for the record, the robots exclusion protocol was invented in 1994, four years before Google was founded. Sitemaps aren't unique to Google or required by Google, and "nofollow" (which is an attribute, not a tag) isn't a Google invention and isn't something that Google requires.

In any case, you seem to be telling us that you wouldn't be happy even if Google blessed the buying and selling of links. You'd still be frustrated by robots.txt, sitemaps, and other "content" that you think is "devoted only to Google."

This discussion is going around and around and around in circles, so let me state my position one last time:

- Google has published guidelines for site owners who want traffic from its search engine.

- You can comply with those guidelines, or you can choose not to.

- If you choose not to comply with those guidelines, and if that choice turns out to be the wrong choice, the responsibility--and the consequences--will be yours alone.

wildbest

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 8:52 am on Sep 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just for the record, the robots exclusion protocol was invented in 1994, four years before Google was founded. Sitemaps aren't unique to Google or required by Google, and "nofollow" (which is an attribute, not a tag) isn't a Google invention and isn't something that Google requires.

Just for the record, I'm working with computers since the time before computer mouse was invented. Stop teaching me. Don't pull my words out of context. Stick to the main topic of this discussion. Discussions are useful only if there are arguments, not slogans cited again and again. Use words to explain what you think. Don't use words as a shield to hide behind when you have no arguments.

In any case, you seem to be telling us that you wouldn't be happy even if Google blessed the buying and selling of links.

Why do you speak about yourself in plural?

You'd still be frustrated by robots.txt, sitemaps, and other "content" that you think is "devoted only to Google."

I'm frustrated by Google violating their own principals and webmaster guidelines! This became too obvious with the introduction of nofollow tagged links (or links tagged with nofollow attribute, if you prefer). It isn't true that this "isn't something that Google requires". Certainly, IT IS something that Google requires! This latest requirement by Google is the prime reason we have this discussion here!

This discussion is going around and around and around in circles.

For the reason why is that happening, please see the top of this post.

- Google has published guidelines for site owners who want traffic from its search engine.

Did I say I don't want free traffic from Google. I think I did, but nevertheless will say it again. I do not need free traffic from Google if they do not give free traffic to my competitors. It's simple as that!

Quote:

Quality guidelines - basic principles

- Make pages for users, not for search engines.

- 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.

Well, looking at a competitor website that use nofollow tagged links, I don't feel comfortable explaining why should I do the same? Except may be, to improve my Google PR!

- You can comply with those guidelines, or you can choose not to.

Do you really think you're saying something?

- If you choose not to comply with those guidelines, and if that choice turns out to be the wrong choice, the responsibility--and the consequences--will be yours alone.

Sorry. Can't see a reason why the responsibility--and the consequences--will be mine alone? For I'm complying with Google's webmaster guidelines:

Quote:

Quality guidelines - basic principles

- Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

Certainly, "nofollow" tagged links do not help my users. And certainly, I won't tag my links "nofollow" if search engines didn't exist!

These were my arguments why contradiction in Google's underlying principals is growing? This is what I've explained in my first post on this thread.

inactivist

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 2:42 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

This discussion is another fascinating example of the scope of Google's "Webmaster Mindshare". Look at all the time, energy, and emotion wrapped up in this one little bit of website development.

Yes, you can ignore the 800lb Gooorilla if you want to, but the big fella casts a long shadow, so you really can't ignore him, can you?

Substitute 'Microsoft' for 'Google' in all of the above discussions, and I'm sure that people wouldn't be so eager to defend the behemoth on free market grounds. (Not that I agree with the antitrust whining about Microsoft, but it is kind of interesting how how the difference in perceived motives changes the tone of the discussion.) Yes, Google has every right to do what it pleases with its intellectual property, every bit as much as Microsoft.

The fact that a significant percentage of websites would be hard-pressed to survive without traffic from Google seems not to even enter into the discussion. At some point, this fact will begin to break down the perception that G can do no wrong. It's happening already, but since webmasters are a small minority, I doubt that there's much that's going to change anytime soon.

DamonHD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 8:20 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

OK, but demanding that Google does something to its end users that benefits *you*, and also demanding that it do the unkind things to your competitors, even if it suits *only* you, seems bizarre.

Yes, the point about 'read M$ for G' is well made. But expecting the 364kg(!) ape to spin on a dime and do something bad to everyone but you AND you ignore its guidelines is not going to work with either G or M$, more to do with the difficulty of repealing the Law of Gravity than any sort of bad corporate culture.

Rgds

Damon

JS_Harris

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 9:14 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just a thought, if everyone places "nofollow" on every link, internal and external alike, Google will fall down and go boom but Yahoo! and MSN will keep on going. Who has the better algo again?

What if the next version of wordpress comes out with nofollow on everything by default?

Or what if someone who is feeling entrepreneurial creates a widget that automaticly converts all links to nofollow at the touch of a button and everyone decides to have "no google" days to shut down the behemoth?

Google had better tread lightly because in all reality its webmasters who decide the future of the net, not Google, and if webmasters decide to shut down links and be rid of google... they can make it happen. Talk about a major weakness in a link based algo!

The thoughts keep coming, that would make an excellent rollout campaign for a startup search engine company.

Step #1 - sign up your sites and we'll rank them.
Step #2 - ensure all your links have nofollow added.
Step #3 - sign up a friend and receive free credits on an advertising campaign with us.

A link based algo is looking weaker all the time isn't it?

JS_Harris

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 9:24 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

More thoughts because of this link stuff... Don't like your current page rankings? robots.txt block your own entire site, nofollow all links, wait a week or two and remove the robots.txt and remove the nofollow and Google will be forced to re-evaluate your site. It would work because negating your sites link value will force the pages to drop, when they do, turn your own link love back on and get re-evaluated. Getting re-evaluated is often hard to accomplish even with a bunch of new incoming links. You'd be forcing your hand.

I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already tried tanking their own site, or supplemental pages after some changes, to force it to be re-evaluated. Trying to improve a ranking otherwise can be like banging your head against the wall if Google won't re-evaluate it.

JS_Harris

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3425600 posted 9:33 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

For the record, i'm not anti-Google. I'm simply frustrated with the link nonsense. The net was healthier before Google placed value on links imo.

Fact: my competitors aren't all playing by the rules because of these link issues and they aren't all getting caught. This problem isn't going away.

This 101 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 101 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
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