oddsod - 9:01 pm on Feb 8, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: oddsod at 9:13 pm (utc) on Feb 8, 2013]
Maybe not if a number of sites contacted Google and forwarded copies of the SEO blackmail letter.
Google would be stupid to not grab on to this as a great way to let webmasters themselves moderate the quality of links. It works to their advantage! ;)
They don't have a problem with people paying other people. You need to recognise why they are against link buying - it ain't because money is changing hands without a commission for them. It's because they see it as corrupting the signals their algo relies upon. If people are charging others in a way that benefits Google and improves the quality of signal they use, I can't see the plex complaining. Can you?
And you can call it an SEO blackmail letter as much as you want but the letter itself will say it's an invoice for manual verification of your site quality before accepting your incoming link. Blackmail is illegal. Charging to perform a verification service is not really something you can sue someone over as you'll find if you get an invoice from cabbie (or me).
And a simple url shortener that provides no referral data will ruin your system.
I wouldn't be worried about that. If you aren't looking to "suck" credibility by linking directly to me then no worries, you don't need to pay as your link is not affecting my site's reputation.
Linking out advantages have never been proven...
Tell that to all the SEOs who are building OGL for credibility
... disavowing harms have actually been denied by Google.
It only when the Google FUD machine has denied it that you know it's definitely true.
[edited by: oddsod at 9:13 pm (utc) on Feb 8, 2013]