Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.80.8.44
Forum Moderators: open
Just had a sponsor contact us regarding a problem with Google. They claim that Google will grey out the PR of any sites which are using a mouseover to hide affiliate links.
They claim that Google will penalise both the sponsor and the referrer in these cases.
Eg. [a href="affiliate link" onmouseover="window.status='destination URL you want them to believe they are going to'; return true"]
This may also apply to any scrolling text on the status bar too?
Can Googleguy or anyone please confirm or deny this before we have to change an large amount of code. :(
Is there something you know that we dont?
Seems to me Brummie has a legitimate concern... and so do I. Seems quite lame to have such a brush off reply on a board that we read so often and have learnt so much from.
Mouseovers are not a new concept... and are in general used to hide affiliate codes...
I am so confused
Actually, having just taken a look perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the http:// and just use www.url.com, this is what google uses and it means their new algo shouldn't parse it as a link.
But I do feel that it is reasonable for webmasters to hide sponsor codes as long as the mouseover matches the resulting domain the surfer arrives at.
Can Googlebot tell the difference between a mouseover that says "CLICK HERE FOR XYZ" and "http://www.sponsorxyz.com"?
If Google can hide Sponsored Links on their own pages using "go to xyz.com" then maybe this is a big ole rumour!
HELP!
For those having issues with statusbar disappearing its the results of what certain types of sites do with popups and such. Theres details on how to make it stay on google by searching for stuff in regards to 'turn back on internet explorer status bar' or something fun like that for those who have had theirs go byebye.
In short I do not think Google penalizes for mouseover. Google uses it for their adwords and when they occassionally turn on their tracking code (i think)..
Personally, I highly doubt this will happen. My theory is that it's confusion about Google's penalizing the use of "hidden links" to manipulate PR.
Some of the best SEOs in the business read, post, and moderate here. And I haven't seen any of them give any credence to this rumor.
What I would ask is what is the newsletter writer's source? Did he get this straight from someone at Google? If he didn't, then its the writer's guess, and what is he basing that on?
Google does have a new filter coming out any day to catch "hidden links". This was announced at the PubConference by Matt Cutts. Perhaps this newsletter writer heard this, and extrapolated this to mean that onmouseovers are "hiding" links.
The hidden links that I heard Matt Cutts discuss at PubCon were things like invisible pixel links. I interpreted "hidden" to mean the user can't see any link at all. With a mouseover, a link is presented to the user, its not hidden.
It could be argued that some onmouseovers are deceiving the user about where he is clicking to. But I doubt Google will take action on this. Why? Because it would be using a sledgehammer when a scalpel is needed.
I know of many sites that use onmouseovers to present a text message in the status bar. I use a few of these in one of my sites. On my sales letter page, I have links to the order page. That link is an "adtracker" link, which redirects the user to the order page so it can track the link. I don't want people to see the adtracker link because it has a url that looks nothing like my site.
I think this is a legit use, and I can't see Google getting bogged down in the ethical minutae of how people conduct ecommerce.
In many ways this is like saying Google will penalize you because you use popups.
Chill out and wait until something happens before rebuilding your sites. I think this rumor will prove to be false.
I haven't seen the newsletter where someone said this, so I don't know exactly what they claimed. But I'll be happy to say that Google doesn't really care what someone does with their status bar. :)
Non-Spam URL's don't go gray bar on their own, not on multiple sites, multiple companies, multiple affilate networks.
The authors of the email that appears to have started this rumour don't seem as convinced by GoogleGuy as the rest of us are.
Not sure why no one has posted the text of the message that appears to have started this. It is worth a read to give some context to why anyone cared to start with. It's from an adult affiliate program, a commercial site designed to make money not friends. Depite so many free opinions that they are wrong... They still haven't reversed the demand to remove links with mouseovers and They are actually backing up the opinion with $$$.. They appear to be the ones that will lose most out of the move don't they?
Email Recieved 1st May
**********************************
<snip>
[edited by: NFFC at 11:18 am (utc) on May 5, 2003]
[edit reason] No emails as per TOS [/edit]
I don't like rumors either, unfortunately this isn't one.
The authors of the email that appears to have started this rumour don't seem as convinced by GoogleGuy as the rest of us are.
[...]
Depite so many free opinions that they are wrong... They still haven't reversed the demand to remove links with mouseovers and They are actually backing up the opinion with $$$.. They appear to be the ones that will lose most out of the move don't they?
Backing up their opinion is exactly right -- an opinion they formed by reading a speculative statement in a newsletter. But having money on the line doesn't mean they're right, and no, they have no more to lose than anyone here who uses affiliate links.
Anyway, I read over a dozen SEO- and marketing-related newsletters every week. There are only a couple in which I've never found rumors stated as fact, misstatements, or declarations that are simply false.
And I rarely see anyone back off later or write a retraction.
I think most other people here understand that you have no obligation whatsoever to talk about any matter or answer any question at this or any other board; even if you feel that itīs fine for you to say something helpful, it doesnīt mean you have any obligation to further clarify your (usually clear enough) words.
Thanks again, and, please, keep your (always appreciated) posts coming.