Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Nice find from Matt Cutts' blog post above (thanks annej):
Anytime you have a user that you’d trust, there’s no need to use nofollow links.
Many sites have highly trusted direct link ads.
Say our small town dentist buys an ad on the small town's newspaper website and the dentist has been working on the newspaper publisher's teeth for years. Plenty of trust there; it's a relevant ad for the local community, and it's useful for the newspaper readers.
Less than a year ago Google's rules didn't require nofollow on the ad. Today they do. What will their rules be next year?
In contrast I see Gooooogle ads to "Lower My Bills" and "Free Teen Chat" all over the web. I see these junk ads on scraper sites, on parked domains, and on MFA sites. Does Google trust these companies? Are these ads good for users? Do they add value to the web?
The hypocrisy from Google is rich in so many different ways. You'd think fixing their algorithm would have been easier than jumping the shark.
[edited by: tedster at 4:13 pm (utc) on April 25, 2007]
Many people are failing to see that fact that paid links do manipulate the results to an extent but the quality of results are not affected much, apart from the rare cases like meds and porn.Sice most paid links are useful and recomandable moreover I assume atleast 80% of the on topic paid links are useful to visitors, and people advertise because they are making profit, to make profit you have provide something useful. So logically no doubt that paid links in general are quality links.
Google has a fundamandal issue asking to put nofollow on all paid links, may be they can ask us to put nofollow on paid links that you will not recomand otherwise. May be that makes lot of sense. It is shame for google that it is promoting PR based paidlink sites through adwords at the same time pretending to kill PR passing through paidlinks. Why google would not kill the visible toolbar PR and allsites to PR0 that may reduce most PR based link buyers and sellers instead of scaring the paidlink advertising? There could be many other posibilites to handle this issue.
They have a tenth anniversary, and pay me to have a large graphic for a month. (If I were a moron) I nofollow the link to them.
After the anniversary, I take down the logo, they stop paying me. I go back to linking to them more demurely without nofollow because I like them.
It is blatantly stupid to say I have "nothing to worry about" in such a scenario.
Google are not mindreaders. They do nothing with 100% accuracy. There is absolutely no way they will do things "right" even if they try, as the above scenario obviously shows. How do they know, with absolute precision, I am not being paid for that link?
The obvious answer is they can't.
Let's get past the unrealistic foolishness please.
[edited by: tedster at 4:42 pm (utc) on April 24, 2007]
Get we get really real here. I mean, really, really, real?
Let's talk about PR here for a moment.
Has anyone taken a gander at the list of pages with PR10 lately?
Outside of Google's home page itself, how reflective are those pages in terms of importance of pages on the net?
I can kinda understand Mac, Intel, Microsoft from a user's perspective.
I can't remember the last time I spent more than 10 minutes on Adobe. And I doubt any "average surfers" ever visits Adobe after dl'ing Reader. But most people need it so ok. Now what about their 20 other PR10's?
Keio University? Huh? Did they discover the cure for cancer? Can never figure that one out.
And that leads to a whole slew of gov and research-type sites that illustrate an extremely important fact.
PR was created back in the day to reflect the internet of 13-14 years ago. You remember, right?
When only government officials and geeky college kids even knew what the internet was and could jump on. Or create a webpage, let alone a whole site.
Do those PR10s reflect the internet of today?!
Does PR reflect any type of reality to the "importance", "popularity", or "likelihood one will stumble upon a particular page" nowadays?
Can't ever remember the time I was surfing links and saw one pointing to National Science Foundation, Energy.gov or even half of Google's PR10 pages.
Or alot of people linking to Goog's job opportunities page?!
or their Privacy Policy page?
WWW Consortium is a great organization but what percentage of average surfers accidentally click to that page and immediately click back? 97%? 99%?
Let me go back to my Coke example.
It's the most widely known word in the world. PR8. Hmm, think the average surfer is more likely to visit Coke.com or Adobe's Incorporated Partners page?
Even in terms of philosophical importance, should Coke, who employs millions of people worldwide, have more or less "green pixels" than Apple's page on why I should download quicktime?
What's my point of this rambling?
PR was officially "broken" when the first 10 Fortune 500 companies got their websites on the net.
Google's as always is gaming themselves but not before they chew you up and spit you out.
At some point, webmasters (yes, i'm talking to you) need to see the bigger picture and stop worrying about the pennies they recieve from adsense or even the dollars they recieve from Goog traffic. (believe it or not, you can always find another source of income)
We are willing making a pact with the devil that we know can only end badly for us.
Simply put, would you willingly take $10,000 today knowing that if you do, you will never be able to make more than $100 2-3 years from now?
What say you?
If they are able to determine that your site is sending them enough eyeballs that they want to advertise on your site, then I'd say the relationship is pretty clear. Hopefully Google would adjust your page rank accordingly.
Google can easily determine if a link is sending traffic to another site and is beneficial to users. Google has data from the Google Toolbar, Google Analytics and other sources they can use to determine the value of links. Paid links getting clicks are useful and valuable to the user and the web as a whole.
So why the FUD campaign to scare webmasters about paid links? I suspect Google has looked at this data and found many paid links provide advertisers a far better ROI than Adwords (that's been my experience). Rather than compete fairly they are using their market power to scare both buyers and sellers away from paid links to destroy the market for this competitive advertising medium.
So why the FUD campaign to scare webmasters about paid links? I suspect Google has looked at this data and found many paid links provide advertisers a far better ROI than Adwords (that's been my experience). Rather than compete fairly they are using their market power to scare both buyers and sellers away from paid links to destroy the market for this competitive advertising medium.
Why make things complicated when there's a much simpler explanation, namely:
- Google has a formula called PageRank.
- Google knows (as we all know) that Web businesses buy and sell links to manipulate PageRank.
- Discouraging manipulation of PageRank improves search results for Google and its users.
Why should this be difficult for anyone to grasp?
On the subject of no follow, some time ago I put it on all my Amazon book links. I was not linking to them as a vote but as part of a business arrangement. My topic is a field where most of the related books are not found in local bookstores so I do link heavily to Amazon and of course I use my associates link. I didn't like the fact that links to Amazon would have as much clout as my links to top sites/pages on the topics I write about.
From what MC wrote in the past I thought it was my option to use nofollow. Has that changed?
I certainly see nofollow as optional and have elected to use it. For my sites, the results continue to be very positive. However, there are those here that have decided (for reasons? I fail to grasp) that they won't use it - no matter what. I wish them well.
[edited by: Play_Bach at 4:04 pm (utc) on April 24, 2007]
However, there are those here that have decided (for 'reasons' I fail to grasp) that they won't use it - no matter what. I wish them well.
Personally, I have no reason to. I'm not going to link to and/or even consider selling a link to someone until I'm satisfied that it benefits my users. At that point, I'm confident that my decision was justified and I don't need to tag that link as nofollow. I'm not running a blog where comments can be made freely. I'm running a freakin' website that one, provides the users with information and/or products/services they are looking for. Two, provides alternative resources that may be of interest to the users.
I've been linking to those sites the same way since the mid 90s. Why do I have to change my methods now? I'm not doing anything differently now that I wasn't doing then. What gives?
Okay, I will admit that maybe I didn't fully understand the value of the links I was providing way back when. And now I know I can offer that same link and generate revenue. Hey, I've turned into a businessman. What's different between what I'm doing and what every other successful website is doing? I say leave your links alone and let the search engines solve their own issues.
I certainly see nofollow as optional and have elected to use it. For my sites, the results continue to be very positive. However, there are those here that have decided (for reasons? I fail to grasp) that they won't use it - no matter what. I wish them well.
- All paid links should include the rel=nofollow attribute.
Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search. Paid links muddies the quality of link-based reputation and makes it harder for many search engines (not just Google) to return relevant results.How To Report Paid Links Spam
- Sign in to Google's webmaster console and use the authenticated paid links spam report form. If you use the authenticated form, you'll need to sign in with a Google Account, but your report will carry more weight.
- Use the unauthenticated spam report form and make sure to include the word "paidlink" (all one word) in the text area of the spam report.
As far as the details, it can be pretty short. Something like Example.com is selling links; here's a page on example.com that demonstrates that or www.shadyseo.com is buying links. You can see the paid links on www.example.com/path/page.html is all you need to mention.
Whoops, I just remembered there is a rule about not linking to blogs here. If that includes Cutt's blog would a mod please remove the link I did a few messages ago?
I'd suggest putting a nofollow on the link to Matt's blog, as clearly he can't be trusted :-)
As an aside I just added rel=GoogleBothasadukyinitsdiaper to all my outbound links and now my site went to number one for its main keywords. GoogleBothasadukyinitsdiaper must be the key to Golden City.
No Follow is designed by google to be the yard arm that allows the citizens to title tattle on each other and thus cut Googles costs of innovating a system that allows THEM to actually tell the difference algorythmicaly (SP) between natural links and paid links.
Be a good internet citizen and tell us who is being naughty. That way we have more cash for the investors and at the same time maintain our air of majesty.
Google loves the smell of fear and therefor tools like No Follow suit them down to the ground.
Just remember netizens.... Do No EVIL!
[edited by: tedster at 6:21 pm (utc) on April 24, 2007]
After the tag was removed the page went right away back to the regular 10-20 position.
IMO Google's Algo & PR concept is coming to an end right now with so much questionable stuff on top which is filling only the pockets of smart tricksters whilst too many authority publishers are getting cut off from the largest ad revenue streams in history.
If I were Bill Gates, I would simply hire a bunch of smart Indians, Chinese and Westerners to flatten Google by beating it's core strength ... SEARCH Quality.
This no follo pls. snitches help strategy does not look like a winner at all.
- Discouraging manipulation of PageRank improves search results for Google and its users.Why should this be difficult for anyone to grasp?
I hope everybody here understand that, but the idea to solve the issue sounds irrational. Most importantly it has a direct impact with the publisher's revenue. Google may ask us to put nofollow for the paidlinks that we will not recomand instead of all paidlinks (may be that is understood ;). This idea has so many loopholes that even a school kids can spot, may be google can sack some phds for those school kids.
I also can't imagine how on earth google can spot paid links even with a reasonable amount of accuracy? Some times I myself not able to recoganise the paid links which I put up on mysite, may the "paidlink" tag good idea, rel="paidlink_$50/3months" would be a better idea ;)
Okay, I will admit that maybe I didn't fully understand the value of the links I was providing way back when. And now I know I can offer that same link and generate revenue. Hey, I've turned into a businessman. What's different between what I'm doing and what every other successful website is doing? I say leave your links alone and let the search engines solve their own issues.
I completely agree to that.
Okay, I will admit that maybe I didn't fully understand the value of the links I was providing way back when...
Simply because, way back when, links did not have the same value that they do now. And that is directly attributable to Google.
The law of unintended consequences.
Like you, I think it is unreasonable for Google to be intruding on others' ability to monetize their websites - and the use of no follow is exactly that, an effort to disincentivize paid links just as it was originally intended to disincentivize blog and forum spam.
WBF
Go ahead - nobody is stopping you. If Google and the other engines downgrade your site at some point and you find them somewhere in Cyberia, so what.
No follow ... follow.... Bah Bah Bah. Anyone seen my sheep :)
If Google and the other engines downgrade your site at some point and you find them somewhere in Cyberia.
Hmmm, me thinks that is exactly where I want to be with a few tech related sites. :)
Like you, I think it is unreasonable for Google to be intruding on others' ability to monetize their websites
Well, Google would probably argue that it's unreasonable for SEOs and other businesses to intrude on its ability to deliver organic search results. Fortunately, all of us (including Google) have the right to make the decisions that we think are best for us, so everybody gets to be a winner.
And there's the rub. Who cares what "seems to" anybody? The point again that a few people seem to refuse to accept is that if this hairbrained policy were put in place, then EVERY link is at risk of "seeming to" Google to be something it is not.
For starters, if you EVER nofollow a link to a site, you must continue to do it for eternity, regardless of payment, because Google will have the data that such a link was previously nofollow and now is not, and is therefore possibly a "rogue" paid link.
Using nofollow to link to anything you do trust/endorse puts the scarlet letter on your linking forever.
It's wildly illogical to think that the rest of your linking will not be devalued too, since obviously the easiest spam tactic here is to nofollow some links you don't care about while selling links in the clear. That's one simpleton response to this simpleton idea that will cause Google to mistaken unfairly penalize sites that use nofollow.
If the simpleton idea is enacted widely, the most dangerous link to have is one in the clear from a site that liberally uses nofollow.
For a test I gave this no`follow" tag to a daily crawled and fairly high ranked url with 1 paid link and the page went down to around position 40.After the tag was removed the page went right away back to the regular 10-20 position.
Are you sure that wasn't the result of one of Matt Cutts Data Refresh / Data Push which has nothing to do with that poor innocent rel=nofollow ;-)
Those, who will use nofollow will get punished twice whilst many blackhats party nicely on the results generated by Google engeneers.
From where did you get all that info :-)
Well, Google would probably argue that it's unreasonable for SEOs and other businesses to intrude on its ability to deliver organic search results.
You seem inordinately focused on spammy paid links. That is Google's problem. They can fix it - it is their problem after all.
Let's assume that site owners are being compensated for their editorial review and bandwidth usage for outbound links. Google has (or should have) zero interest in that.
With very few exceptions site owners selling links are not a big enough factor to impact the organic search results. Let's get real. How many link sellers (either absolute, or as a percentage) have the clout to significantly effect the organic results. The cumulative effects of the small players will be largely self cancelling. The big players with enough clout to have an impact in anything but little niches can probably be identified pretty readily - players such as SearchKing.
WBF
that url stays very stable in its place as well as all that ruling MFA stuff does for that kw.
Instantly after nofollo was added our page went down. And it has been staying at the "normal" place since that funny tag was removed.
Just an observation ... no idea, if this is Matt`s refreshes or whatever. Ask him :-)
How about repeating that "experiment" again and watch on several DCs what will happen to the said page?
if this is Matt`s refreshes or whatever. Ask him :-)
Shall do, but for the timebeing Matt is busy with Ozzie [mattcutts.com] :-)
Use No Follow and flag yourself to google as someone who is hunting down search results.
Don't use No Follow and there is no flag to say you are a hunter of search results and therefor do not attract unwanted attention to your search for better search results.
Make sense?
Should do!
So then WikiPedia is hunting down search results because it uses nofollow? Smoke another bowl.
Google isn't hunting Wikipedia. It is hunting YOU!
