Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So I pinged Google, and they confirmed that PageRank scores are being lowered for some sites that sell links
and
In addition, Google said that some sites that are selling links may indeed end up being dropped from its search engine or have penalties attached to prevent them from ranking well
and
Google stressed, by the way, that the current set of PageRank decreases is not assigned completely automatically; the majority of these decreases happened after a human review.
Seems like big news to me. Did I miss someone pointing this out already?
[edited by: tedster at 5:32 am (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
[edit reason] copied from another location [/edit]
Remember SearchKing? (And the subsequent lawsuit against Google that SearchKing lost?)
The majority of these decreases happened after a human review. That should help prevent false matches from happening so easily.
Ah-ha, now we know what those 10,000 "Human Reviewers" have been up to.
Here comes me Tin Hat...
Is it possible that some of these "Human Reviewers" have spent the last year posing as "Link Buyers" and "Link Sellers" in an effort to get at the link inventories that are being bought and sold? Does Google have a not so secret "Sting Operation" in full swing right now?
Now, if those "Human Evaluators" are a required part of this process in detection, what is the next move? Wait for a bunch of sites to start removing links (after this announcement) and detect for those? Wham, there go the ones our evaluators missed. ;)
I believe Google can only deal with those that are publicly available and exhibit certain footprints. There are still many other types of bought and sold links that have not been detected yet and probably won't be for quite some time.
Its been mentioned before, these types of actions will just force the link industry underground which in turn would make it even more difficult for the SEs to find them. With SMO (Social Media Optimization) in full swing, the SEs have got their hands full in dealing with link manipulation. They've shown us that it can't be done algorithmically, not yet anyway. Now it's time to get some hands dirty. ;)
Part Two...
Certain members in our industry will now go undercover (Snitches) to expose those link inventories that Google's own evaluators could not find. Like that isn't already happening? ;)
What if I want to advertise on other sites? If I use a text link then both are penalized for selling or buying a text link. If I advertise with a banner then it's ok because it looks like normal advertising? WTH? Many webmasters have little knowledge of SEO or tags like nofollow. And nofollow wasn't meant for this.
Because my WH sites are banned and linking between sites is now against Google's new Internet rules I have no option but to change my hat to the other one once again.
Because my WH sites are banned and linking between sites is now against Google's new Internet rules I have no option but to change my hat to the other one once again.
Sorry to hear about your problems there. I disagree with the linking between sites because I do site-wide on ALL my sites...WHY? Because they are good for my users...no problems at all in Google. I think they really mean interlinking sites that are not in any way related to each other, etc...
I've removed all external links, paid or unpaid, apart from those nested in articles which are now rel="nofollow".
I expect that this will be the normal reaction. An average site owner who doesn't read too uch in the way of SEO articles will take this to mean that they should just play it safe. People who do read SEO articles will do it to hoard their PR and protect themselves.
I certainly hope that G has a brand new basis for their algorithem that does not involve linking because they seem to be putting nails into the coffin of "natural" links.
I certainly hope that G has a brand new basis for their algorithem that does not involve linking because they seem to be putting nails into the coffin of "natural" links.
I think we need to first define what a "natural" link is. My definition would be those links that the SEs would have a very difficult time determining whether or not is was a bought link. For example, an inline link is a tough proposition for the SEs. That is a "natural" link in the true sense of the word.
With SMO being at the forefront of SEM right now, those inline links are going to create some interesting challenges for the SEs moving forward.
I'm not concerned. Is it a PITA? Yes. Is it insurmountable? No. Life and search will go on.
Is it possible that some of these "Human Reviewers" have spent the last year posing as "Link Buyers" and "Link Sellers" in an effort to get at the link inventories that are being bought and sold? Does Google have a not so secret "Sting Operation" in full swing right now?
I'd be surprised if they didn't have something like this in place. Plus just encouraging poeple to send in spam reports on competitors who buy links has got to have given them lots of data.
OTOH, the concept of Google doesn't scale that well either in the real world. Just as email has been crippled by spam, this SE business is a losing battle in the long run. Deep pockets are spending more and more money on content generation. Over time, there will be too many of those using the best tricks to compete with sites created by real humans with love...
The barrier to creating a site has to be greater and different to make SE's scale. Until a search engine can map a website to a human or corporate entity reliably, the situation will only get worse for most people.
I guess they are only taking action on select sites?
For them to say you have a good site but we are going to devalue it because you are now making money, seems almost illegal.
1) "Almost illegal" is legal.
2) Google already has a U.S. federal court precedent on its side.
Long term, it will cause serious issues with their results. A lot, I mean alot of big players buy links and searchers are used to finding them in the results.
Going to live.com or yahoo.com is an eye-opener for me now as far as re/discovering valuable websites that have been banned or penalized by Google. The question is - should Google care more about penalizing VALUABLE websites (even if they didn't follow Google SEO guidelines) or making sure such valuable websites are included on its search results? It seems now Google focuses on playing police instead of providing good results.
... or making sure such valuable websites are included on its search results?
That's exactly what Google must wrestle with, as I see it. Notice that they are not coming down with a ban on the biggest name sites. If they did, the end users would not be happy.
So then how can google penalize mom and pops site for selling links but not these large behemoths for doing it?
What a farse.
2) Google already has a U.S. federal court precedent on its side.
A precedent in one case does not mean they would automatically win every case.
This is a prime example of a monopoly dictating the rules of how people do business on the web which is very similar to what Microsoft has done with PC dealers in the past.
If you don't play their way you either get penalized or don't get to play at all.
Sound like an overbearing monopoly to you?
They're going WAY too far telling online businesses what they can and can't sell under option of being put out of business, especially links, while at the same time their business model is selling links themselves.
It's almost time, if not past due, for a regulatory intervention.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 5:55 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
A precedent in one case does not mean they would automatically win every case.
I think that link sellers would have a tough time convincing a court that their right to manipulate search results should take priority over a search engine's constitutionally protected free speech. Still, if anyone here is thinking about a lawsuit, I'm sure we'll all be interested in hearing how it turns out. :-)
They're going WAY too far telling online businesses what they can and can't sell under option of being put out of business, especially links, while at the same time their business model is selling links themselves.
Google doesn't sell text links. Google sells AdWords. To use a phrase that I first heard from Microsoft, they "eat their own dog food."
But never mind that. The bottom line is that Google has made its intentions clear, and you can either go to war with Google or find a way to enjoy peaceful coexistence. Take your pick.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 6:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
Where I come from, there's a saying, "Snitches get stitches." While the risk of a physical shanking is minimal (but should not be ruled out, given the bottom line to all this is The Almighty Dollar), karma - and enemies - can still find a way to stick something between your ribs.
Google doesn't sell text links. Google sells AdWords. To use a phrase that I first heard from Microsoft, they "eat their own dog food."
That line is so fine between what is and isn't an ad vs. a text link that there is very little difference between text links and AdWords.
The difference is we've been TOLD that our text ads/links should not help the advertiser in any way other than direct traffic only, it's dictating how to run your business.
But never mind that. The bottom line is that Google has made its intentions clear, and you can either go to war with Google or find a way to enjoy peaceful coexistence. Take your pick.
It doesn't have to be a war.
It will just go underground.
Time to just cloak "rel=nofollow" to Google and continue selling links in other SE's ;)
It doesn't have to be a war.It will just go underground.
Careful. You're giving Google an excuse to say, "If link selling isn't stopped, the terrrorists have won." :-)
Front PR is still at 8 and their pages with as little as 4 pharmacy links is rated with PR 6
I know thousands of sites with great content and real value for users but a low PR whilst tricksters are invited to clean up.
Had this story come from Yahoo or MSN nobody would even bother discussing it as the amount of traffic you would lose would be insignificant.
This is a prime example of a monopoly dictating the rules of how people do business on the web which is very similar to what Microsoft has done with PC dealers in the past.If you don't play their way you either get penalized or don't get to play at all.
Sound like an overbearing monopoly to you?
They're going WAY too far telling online businesses what they can and can't sell under option of being put out of business, especially links, while at the same time their business model is selling links themselves.
It's almost time, if not past due, for a regulatory intervention.
Amen, brother! I agree, something should be done...why are we all sitting here waiting for the hand of ONE Google to feed us? That is not good. We need to make sure we support MSN (or others) and help them spread the risk a bit...all eggs in ONE basket is never good. This has woke me up to the danger to be sure.
[edited by: WiseWebDude at 7:03 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
That's exactly what Google must wrestle with, as I see it. Notice that they are not coming down with a ban on the biggest name sites. If they did, the end users would not be happy.
However, most all of the adverts on the site are still ranking well for their anchor text, one of which is the topic of this discussion, lol
[edited by: kamikaze_Optimizer at 7:53 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
Not the pr 4 site on green widget info., selling links to a site that sells green widgets.
