Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
What you are doing is typically called the fallacy of denying the antecedent:
Anyways, arguing aside, I think the sad fact is that Google for all its posturing against Yahoo, is just as PFI as Yahoo is.
Since you can simply buy a link from a PR7 website on a monthly basis and pretty much get crawled and ranked immediately..
Isn't this PFI?
No, that's called manipulating the SERPS.
Or you could call it black hat SEO. It's against google's TOS and if you get caught, both sites will get ditched from the index.
A wholly different concept to PFI.
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
it most certainly is not against Google TOS to sell links on your webpages.
I haven't looked lately, but I bet $1 it is if it's for the purpose of maniuplating the SERPS.
If you just want to get crawled and in the index, you don't have to pay anything to anybody.
If you want to buy a PR7 link to rank better, that's a different matter.
As the resident philosopher here, I must respectfully point out that may not be true. There is evidence to suggest that getting high PR inbound links may make Googlebot crawl your site more deeply than if you don't have them. Thus, if I have a huge site, and buying a link on a PR7 page gets my site crawled fully, I am indeed paying for inclusion. Of course it is not Google I am paying; it is another webmaster. However, the net effect is the same.
One would expect quite the opposite.
I know my terminology might offend, but the fact is Google has significant PFI aspects.
Perhaps it's not something they market, but it's clear and well known fact that you can pay for inclusion in the Google index and get well ranked at the same time.
The interesting thing about this discussion is not really whether you can do this, but rather about the inevitability of search engine ranking being a result of how much you pay rather than how an AI engine thinks you should rank.
Google does not operate a "pay for inclusion" programme. You may, however, buy adwords which gets you in the door and I suppose one might mistakenly call that PFI.
You might also buy a PR7 link from any website offering links for sale. Regardless of what Google or anyone else thinks of the practice, it is really reaching to call that PFI because it might help you get your site listed on Google or any other SE. The point is, if your site has any links at all (paid or unpaid), a link is the minimum requirement to be spidered and possibly get into their database.
So what are you trying to get at?
True, but you CHOOSE to pay or choose to have a site that really sucks. Links will help you on all of above, but if you have decent site and link deep, Google will find, and index it. If you have a larger site, chances are that a few other people will link to you too. Also, that site was not built in a day (unless you have a ODP dupe) so Google will index it as you add more and more.
Let's say paying for a link helps it helps, but it's not PFI. Link to the main categories and Google will follow. Also, you can have that site link to you because they like your site, not just because you paid them.
I'm just talking about inclusions (PFI)...a PR7 helps on serps too...
Google maybe doesn't sell PFI but, Google's results has been sold for years. Ever try to get your site listed without SEO....good luck
Like said, it will cost to get results from Google or from Yahoo. PFI. SEO, CPC it's not free. No search engine results are for free not even Google.
It is really interesting how it is usually the senior / preferred members on WebmasterWorld that waste so much bandwidth personalizing their arguments and veer off topic into attacks and generally content free statements.
One would expect quite the opposite.
And that isn't a veered-off attack, content free and waste of bandwidth?
You asked a straight question in order to promote some discussion on whether or not google is PFI. I think you got that. The fact that people don't think that it is doesn't invalidate their opinion.
Seriously, to me you sound really p*55ed off at google for some reason. By all means vent, but don't take it personally if nobody posts what you want to read.
Back on topic, you asked a very specific question - "Is google PFI" to which, IMO, the answer is a straightforward "No". However, if you had asked "Can I perform well in googles SERPS in a competitive arena for free" then I would say the answer is "probably not - go buy that PR7 link to get you started".
I think the reason the thread veered a little off-topic is because people felt that they couldn't answer your original question in such a simplified way (i.e. just "no") without explaining their thoughts on it, most of which enevitably relate to positioning in the SERPS, not just getting into the index.
I don't know anyone who's ever bought a link just to get into google. I know plenty who've bought links to improve their SERPS postioning though.