Professional Webmaster Business Issues Forum

Yes.

If you add a nofollow that was never discussed before, that is a substantive change that would significantly reduce the benefit they'd receive from that link.

If that's so, why cloak at all? (rhetorical question)

:)))) Interesting difference in view points on same "situation". I guess it really matters how prospective changes if you look at it as link buyer versus link seller. By the way I think both are valid points, but this discussion really brings to light that both link buyers and sellers have to work thinks out in advance.

For the record, I don't have no follow on any of my outbound links, however I value inbound links even if they have no follow on them - what I mean is that I value traffic they bring. There is a reference to my site from wikipedia, and although it has no follow on the link, it brings a lot of traffic and I sure like it (once traffic is there it's on me to covert it ;) ...)

Well, you're the one who sets the price of the link.

I agree that you have the right to link however you want.
I would say there are only 2 possible benefits of buying a link:

1)increase of traffic
2)increase in SERPS (along with a possible risk to SERPS as well!)

Vince put nothing over on anyone. A contract has two parts

1)An offer, and
2)An acceptance.

The offer:

1) The offer: they offered to pay for a link for traffic because visitors would be interested
2) The acceptance: that's exactly what Vince agreed to - a link for traffic.

Really?

What if I ran the font size down? Changed the color? Moved the paid links to the footer? Instead of the sidebar? Gave the other links gold stars?

C'mon. Sorry, sounds like you look for ways to break contracts rather than honor them. Visit a site, see links, offer to pay for a link and find the link you payed for different than the other links on the site?

Why don't link buyers request that links don't have a nofollow added? I suggest it is because it would risk uninformed webmasters finding out about nofollow and realising that it is actually something they need to have on paid links; that is, trading upon ignorance and risking the future income and/or rankings of someone else by allowing him to enter into this kind of dangerous arrangement whilst ill-informed.

That isn't a legalistic interpretation at all, it's the very barebones basic of what a contract is.

Vince is 100% right, there's a whole link buyers' market out there preying on the ignorance of vulnerable people who just don't know any better. They're the deceivers: if they want to buy links for rankings & PR, why don't they say so up front instead of claiming to want the links for "traffic" from interested visitors.

If you don't want to give them a straight link, don't take their goddamn money!

I know if it were my algo and I wanted to get rid of a bunch of silly SEO'd sites the first thing I'd do is drop every page that had nofollow in it from the index.

The "nofollow" and the fact that the pages are being cloaked for Google are two different things. However, if the buyer wanted to buy linkpop & PR, why did they "cloak" their request in the guise of wanting traffic? Is "targeted visitors" some kind of a secret password in the link biz?

I know someone must be asking themselves at this point, "Is there really honor to be found within a den of thieves?"

This - "they need to add nofollow" - is a crock.

it represents G's redefining of the original purpose of the nofollow tag.

Remember back when we were so happy that the SE's had come together to create a proprietary tag that would help control blog spam?

My, my, how things change.

G talks about abuse of paid links. What about abuse of proprietary tags? (I hear EFV coming to post in G's defense right about now.)

G gave links value beyond simple traffic. The law of unintended consequences. The resulting game of cat and mouse is not going to be controlled through bullying or snitching. That will simply create a new set of unintended consequences - and collateral damage.

Vince, is it really necessary to worship at the alter of G's mandates? What G says becomes what we "need" to do?

If someone offers me $1000 for my house, and I accept, I wasn't 'conned', just stupid.

As for experience, the times I've received a unsolicited request asking me to sell them a link, they've just asked to buy a link, not specifying 'for traffic' 'for PR', for whatever'. And I would'nt care if they did.

Besides, there is a wide difference of opinion on what penalties (if any) are applied to those that sell no-nofollow links.

1st) How do you know the buyer 'cloaked' their request. Maybe it was like the OPs link buyer (they requested no JS links so their intention was to get PR) Maybe the main goal was not PR passing but they reviewed previous or current external links on VVVs site and saw an added benefit in VVVs site because he didn't nofollow his links.

2nd) Whether or not it was their intention from the beginning... when it comes renewal time the decision will partly be made on what they 'think' or see that they are getting now.

3rd) If Google sees the cloaking they will likely take a closer look at the site being looked at.

I have no problem with nofollows. I plan sell advertising on my site next year and the agreement will specify that any advertising on my site is nofollow.

I have no intention of deceiving the people that pay me

I sell books & DVDs now. When I sell something I describe what I am selling, warts and all. I don't sell knockoff China DVD imports and then tell the buyer that they didn't specify originals when they complain.