Again how in hells name is google going to know its just an R2 D2
Earl
I'm just an old fashioned girl who believes in software I suppose
d
Upvote
0
I'm just an old fashioned girl who believes in software I suppose
d
R
RayB
Again how in hells name is google going to know its just an R2 D2
Earl
Paid links leave all sorts of "traces" - relevance, position on page, sitewide, same companies linked out to by a "collection" of sites (big signal), interlinking etc
The list is endless - and they have the best collection of brain power on the planet figuring this stuff out.
Of course, they can't detect it all - but they can and will detect a lot, and they will get better and better at doing so
Upvote
0
Your all bleeding Paranoid Google can't tie its own shoelaces
Yes that's right Earl, thick as two short planks.
d
Upvote
0
R
RayB
You may need to edit the above, I think the word "right" was included in error?
Well, it reads better without it to me........
Upvote
0
Well come to think of it, if they think they can algorithmically determine if a site is buying paid links then they must be as thick as two short planks.
All the 'footprints' can be very easily duplicated by a competitor to make it look like someone has bought a link on their site.
People could even mix in real paid for links with competitors links who have not paid for a link, google would have no way of knowing the difference.
People could even give links away for free, and use the same footprint, but never sell a link - to the algo it would look like they are link selling.
Also google either wants webmasters to use no follow, which could be interpreted by some as "this link has not been verified by the site owner" (after all, thats what the tag was introduced for, blog/forum/guestbook spam, anywhere a link can be added by users)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_googleblog_archive.html
or mess around with redirects (which some people may not be able to do themselves, and can impose a performance hit, albeit small, on a server).
If you dont want to mess with redirects, or cant for whatever reason, and you have verified the link, and it was not added by a user at will, then surely it would be misleading to put a tag on that implies the opposite of that fact?
There are some people that just sell any old link, and there are the spammy blog type postings that Matt used as a example, but there are also links that have been verified, that are obviously ads.
If google gave two hoots about the user (as Matt implies in his post) then surely their guidelines page would have stressed that you should have a HUMAN readable disclaimer in cases where it is not clear that something is a advert, that the users can understand. If their algo is this flawed that it cant cope with the way the web is progressing, then thats their problem, they should change their algo - NOT the entire rules of the web as most people know it.
Just adding a tag that only other webmasters and search engines can understand is not helping the user, as the user landing on a page with a dodgy paid link post is not going to know unless their is a human readable disclaimer.
Google only wants a machine readable one, or another way so they dont see the link directly.
I know of one site that pulled its paid links, due to google, those paid links were not the type Matt is on about in his post, the site in question has been around for longer than most sites on the internet, is well respected by many, and no one to my knowledge other than google ever had a problem with those paid links.
Its a shame also, as the site always donated all of the money it earned from those links to fund scholarships etc.
If google wanted to make a difference, they could start by removing the public display of Page Rank. After all, its people selling page rank that is the problem in their eyes (although I dont think I have ever met anyone that sat down and said, hey I think I will build a site so I can sell page rank, people sell links because their is a paid market for it, the fact page rank gets in the way, is simply because google invented it in the first place without thinking it through properly.).
Certainly easier than trying to police the entire internet....
All the 'footprints' can be very easily duplicated by a competitor to make it look like someone has bought a link on their site.
People could even mix in real paid for links with competitors links who have not paid for a link, google would have no way of knowing the difference.
People could even give links away for free, and use the same footprint, but never sell a link - to the algo it would look like they are link selling.
Also google either wants webmasters to use no follow, which could be interpreted by some as "this link has not been verified by the site owner" (after all, thats what the tag was introduced for, blog/forum/guestbook spam, anywhere a link can be added by users)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_googleblog_archive.html
or mess around with redirects (which some people may not be able to do themselves, and can impose a performance hit, albeit small, on a server).
If you dont want to mess with redirects, or cant for whatever reason, and you have verified the link, and it was not added by a user at will, then surely it would be misleading to put a tag on that implies the opposite of that fact?
There are some people that just sell any old link, and there are the spammy blog type postings that Matt used as a example, but there are also links that have been verified, that are obviously ads.
If google gave two hoots about the user (as Matt implies in his post) then surely their guidelines page would have stressed that you should have a HUMAN readable disclaimer in cases where it is not clear that something is a advert, that the users can understand. If their algo is this flawed that it cant cope with the way the web is progressing, then thats their problem, they should change their algo - NOT the entire rules of the web as most people know it.
Just adding a tag that only other webmasters and search engines can understand is not helping the user, as the user landing on a page with a dodgy paid link post is not going to know unless their is a human readable disclaimer.
Google only wants a machine readable one, or another way so they dont see the link directly.
I know of one site that pulled its paid links, due to google, those paid links were not the type Matt is on about in his post, the site in question has been around for longer than most sites on the internet, is well respected by many, and no one to my knowledge other than google ever had a problem with those paid links.
Its a shame also, as the site always donated all of the money it earned from those links to fund scholarships etc.
If google wanted to make a difference, they could start by removing the public display of Page Rank. After all, its people selling page rank that is the problem in their eyes (although I dont think I have ever met anyone that sat down and said, hey I think I will build a site so I can sell page rank, people sell links because their is a paid market for it, the fact page rank gets in the way, is simply because google invented it in the first place without thinking it through properly.).
Certainly easier than trying to police the entire internet....
Upvote
0
R
RayB
Ken, I got as far as reading this, and then had to comment:
Reading what the official blogpost said (I actually posted the exact quote here a few posts back) - Google is penalising sites SELLING links, not those BUYING them.
A competitor CANNOT harm your site by buying links to you - you are clearly a bright guy - so what are you ( or I?) missing here...?
Reading what the official blogpost said (I actually posted the exact quote here a few posts back) - Google is penalising sites SELLING links, not those BUYING them.
A competitor CANNOT harm your site by buying links to you - you are clearly a bright guy - so what are you ( or I?) missing here...?
Upvote
0
Just going by
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/information-about-buying-and-selling.html
where it states
and from that one can assume that google can take action against anyone violating there guidelines....
[added in a edit]
there is also this bit on that page
bolded the bits of interest..
[/added in a edit]
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/information-about-buying-and-selling.html
where it states
It includes both *buying* and selling links as a violation of google guidelines now,
and from that one can assume that google can take action against anyone violating there guidelines....
[added in a edit]
there is also this bit on that page
bolded the bits of interest..
[/added in a edit]
Upvote
0
I presume Google Adwords will be decommissioned then as that is essentially buying and selling links
Upvote
0
They dont pass page rank, but they do usually have a link which is not 'no followed' in them directly back to a advert about google. So technically, as the guidelines, if I recall correctly, state links must be no followed, or redirected, then according to their guidelines, they are being naughty.
Although the link is generated by javascript, what is to stop another search engine from parsing that javascript and following the link? Google is claiming its the practise itself that is bad, not just the page rank bit, they claim other search engines feel the same.
If thats the case, why not put a no follow on their adsense advert link to google, just so no other search engine, that may parse javascript, either now, or in the future gets misled?
Although the link is generated by javascript, what is to stop another search engine from parsing that javascript and following the link? Google is claiming its the practise itself that is bad, not just the page rank bit, they claim other search engines feel the same.
If thats the case, why not put a no follow on their adsense advert link to google, just so no other search engine, that may parse javascript, either now, or in the future gets misled?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Thats sort of the problem in a nutshell, google is looking at it from a 'irrespective of how bad your site is' point of view - they have imposed a blanket ban. So the bad sites and the good sites are in effect being treated the same. Some kid selling viagra links on his blog is treated the same as say for example a eminent scientist who sells links to carefully researched, carefully considered sites.
They created page rank, and they for some unknown reason, continue to display page rank values on the toolbar. If people are going around trading little bits of green on a toolbar, then why dont they turn off that feature so people dont know if a site has page rank in the first place?
Their algo should discount really bad sites anyway, what they are basically implying is their algo is *so* flawed, it cant tell good content from bad content, and relies on the number of links from other sites. Fix their algo, remove public display of page rank, or have manual penalties for only the bad offenders - not everyone.
They should also stop putting ads in serps, many users cant tell the difference between a ad, and the first real serp result, so they are just as guilty really....
They created page rank, and they for some unknown reason, continue to display page rank values on the toolbar. If people are going around trading little bits of green on a toolbar, then why dont they turn off that feature so people dont know if a site has page rank in the first place?
Their algo should discount really bad sites anyway, what they are basically implying is their algo is *so* flawed, it cant tell good content from bad content, and relies on the number of links from other sites. Fix their algo
, remove public display of page rank, or have manual penalties for only the bad offenders - not everyone.They should also stop putting ads in serps, many users cant tell the difference between a ad, and the first real serp result, so they are just as guilty really....
Upvote
0
i really cant see how google can monitor this amongst teh small players
site owner a has a pr 7 site
over a period he sells 10 links to relevant sites
now they are paid links.. but how the hell is google going to know they are paid for ?
i think they will be concentrating more on marketplaces as i cant
see google being able to enforce this 100% correctly
also relevance..
how woudl google determine relevance
lets use teh following example
site a is about debt
but they have a link from site b which is about prepaid debit cards
now prepaid debit cards are usefull for people with DEBT because you can get a mastercard regardless of age, credit history etc etc
so the 2 sites are relevant but i woudl love to know how google are going to establish the relevance accuratley
samething for home related sites and fish .. fish are "house pets " and form part of a home
woudl love to know
site owner a has a pr 7 site
over a period he sells 10 links to relevant sites
now they are paid links.. but how the hell is google going to know they are paid for ?
i think they will be concentrating more on marketplaces as i cant
see google being able to enforce this 100% correctly
also relevance..
how woudl google determine relevance
lets use teh following example
site a is about debt
but they have a link from site b which is about prepaid debit cards
now prepaid debit cards are usefull for people with DEBT because you can get a mastercard regardless of age, credit history etc etc
so the 2 sites are relevant but i woudl love to know how google are going to establish the relevance accuratley
samething for home related sites and fish .. fish are "house pets " and form part of a home
woudl love to know
Upvote
0
Not sure that they can the recent high profile publicity stunt was a hand job, so unless I'm mistaken they can't see the woods from the trees.
Upvote
0
J
JustOneUK
I'm with Ken UK,
Pulling pagerank would be a good start - does it matter if no-one knows what their pagerank is? It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Also I think that if you followed SEO conversations recently you may have picked up on the fact that a lot of so called "expert" SEO's (perhaps even some on this forum) were parping on about how pagerank doesn't affect SERPs - if that's the case
A) What's all the frikkin fuss about?
B) When are those "experts" going to eat their words?
The problem - in case anyone noticed - is not so much in the passing of pagerank but the passing of ANCHOR TEXT off of the links - it's the ONLY way to affect the SERPs (combined with a morsel of pagerank)
James - SEO Daddy!
Pulling pagerank would be a good start - does it matter if no-one knows what their pagerank is? It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Also I think that if you followed SEO conversations recently you may have picked up on the fact that a lot of so called "expert" SEO's (perhaps even some on this forum) were parping on about how pagerank doesn't affect SERPs - if that's the case
A) What's all the frikkin fuss about?
B) When are those "experts" going to eat their words?
The problem - in case anyone noticed - is not so much in the passing of pagerank but the passing of ANCHOR TEXT off of the links - it's the ONLY way to affect the SERPs (combined with a morsel of pagerank)
James - SEO Daddy!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
You may need to edit the above, I think the word "right" was included in error?
Well, it reads better without it to me........
You got me laughing on that one
Upvote
0
R
RayB
Fantastic - so back to ranking on quality and relevance of content, instead of links..............happy days
Upvote
0
I don't think there can ever be true search results based purely on quality and relevance of content. As long as sales for businesses are partially based on search engine results, there will always be that extra push to get ahead of the competition.
I also think it's theoretically not possible to get accurate relevant content based on search terms. The search keywords and phrases people use are so vague that it's impossible to tell what is truly relevant and what isn't to a person who is searching. Maybe if someone could search on Google for "Car insurance company which insures younger drivers, has a pass plus scheme and can get insurance as close to £xxxx as possible", then the resulting searches will be truly relevant.
I also think it's theoretically not possible to get accurate relevant content based on search terms. The search keywords and phrases people use are so vague that it's impossible to tell what is truly relevant and what isn't to a person who is searching. Maybe if someone could search on Google for "Car insurance company which insures younger drivers, has a pass plus scheme and can get insurance as close to £xxxx as possible", then the resulting searches will be truly relevant.
Upvote
0
R
RayB
Yes the last lot was high publicity, but I missed the evidence that it was a hand job.
A link to the official Google announcement on this would be appreciated; cos I'm bugger*d if I can find it
Upvote
0
Yes the last lot was high publicity, but I missed the evidence that it was a hand job.
A link to the official Google announcement on this would be appreciated; cos I'm bugger*d if I can find it
There isn't an official release as to how G did what they did... but they hit high profile sites that were known for selling links, hence the assumption that these were all hand jobs. As far as I can see they are fire fighting.
Upvote
0
R
RayB
I'm curious, what makes you say that?................what have they buggered up during this cull?
Upvote
0
J
JustOneUK
I actually agree with that policy
If you go about posting "buy a link on my PR7 homepage - $1000" then you deserve to get knocked. Especially when you visit the site and it basically has about 40 random websites listed in an altogether empty directory.
If they just HID the pagerank part of their algo from everyone - no one would be able to sell links on the context of PageRank. :|
...or am I missing something here?
Upvote
0
They know that they can do very little about the more savvy on the web however, by taking a high profile stance they will scare off the little people.
Upvote
0
Nope it is on the money for me. G invented their PR system, it worked, then gets abused, they want it back... I'm with you ditch it... it has to be the easy option... obviously they want to keep it for some reason.
Upvote
0
One important part of this whole debate in my opinion is the fact that without some kind of clean up the web will suffer in the same way as email. Email has been hijacked by the scamsters and blue pill vendors to such an extent that without taking measures (filters etc) email is all but becoming unusable.
If a web search increasingly serves up trashy results, spammy sites and page 1 results simply go to the highest 'bidder', people will turn away from it and this will hit us all.
Clearly Google want to avoid this at all costs as their business models rely on quality search results. If my business relied on my search engine serving up dependable results I'd be putting a significant effort into ensuring this happened.
Taking this to the extreme Google could elect to simply remove sites from the index if there was even the slightest suspicion of wrong doing. This has happened on several occasions in the past and put people out of business.
I understand the complexity of finding and removing paid links but if you lower your sites and simply elect to punish suspected dodgy activity you make things easier for yourself. Google are a private company not a public service, they do not owe a duty of care to include a site in the index.
d
If a web search increasingly serves up trashy results, spammy sites and page 1 results simply go to the highest 'bidder', people will turn away from it and this will hit us all.
Clearly Google want to avoid this at all costs as their business models rely on quality search results. If my business relied on my search engine serving up dependable results I'd be putting a significant effort into ensuring this happened.
Taking this to the extreme Google could elect to simply remove sites from the index if there was even the slightest suspicion of wrong doing. This has happened on several occasions in the past and put people out of business.
I understand the complexity of finding and removing paid links but if you lower your sites and simply elect to punish suspected dodgy activity you make things easier for yourself. Google are a private company not a public service, they do not owe a duty of care to include a site in the index.
d
Upvote
0
RedEvo,
I agree with what you're saying, but I feel the biggest risk here is actually to the innocent being penalised for essentially nothing.
If the their target was purely the sellers, Google would be cleaning up the internet for the reasons you mention. Take away PR from the toolbar and you will remove their ability to sell.
Buying links will still continue, but the buyers will need to become more savvy about where they are purchased (focussing on sites with good relevance and content).
If they start punishing buyers of links, their is (as has been mentioned before) a very real danger of companies buying links for their competitors that will put them at risk.
When that starts happening it really will be down to the big companies using their budget and crushing the smaller competition - they can afford to buy more links for you.
Ultimately, I agree with shutting down the sites that are selling links, purely as a money making exercise rather than to business/topic alligned sites. I don't agree that any buyer of links should be punished as there is too great a risk to internet business for this rule to be abused.
James
I agree with what you're saying, but I feel the biggest risk here is actually to the innocent being penalised for essentially nothing.
If the their target was purely the sellers, Google would be cleaning up the internet for the reasons you mention. Take away PR from the toolbar and you will remove their ability to sell.
Buying links will still continue, but the buyers will need to become more savvy about where they are purchased (focussing on sites with good relevance and content).
If they start punishing buyers of links, their is (as has been mentioned before) a very real danger of companies buying links for their competitors that will put them at risk.
When that starts happening it really will be down to the big companies using their budget and crushing the smaller competition - they can afford to buy more links for you.
Ultimately, I agree with shutting down the sites that are selling links, purely as a money making exercise rather than to business/topic alligned sites. I don't agree that any buyer of links should be punished as there is too great a risk to internet business for this rule to be abused.
James
Upvote
0
Buyers of links will be 'punished' by the fact the links they have bought will not have a positive impact on their sites with respect to link juice - although they may still provide click traffic. As you rightly say, the act of buying the link being punished could be abused although I think this is being over played.
I have no issue with buying exposure on other sites, and to my knowledge neither does Google. It's the deception that's the issue.
I'd like to see the cream rising to the top rather than those with the deepest pockets but hey ho, why should the web be any different to the rest of life
d
Upvote
0
Fantastic - so back to ranking on quality and relevance of content, instead of links..............happy days
Never happened - Google is and always has been a links driven search engine.
As for all these arguments about PageRank and reliance on links etc - Google has a very long history of trying to sift the wheat from the chafe in terms of determining link value.
That's why link development generally tries to build for quality, not quantity.
As for PageRank itself - sure, Google have been devaluing this for a while - why do you think Google have updated PR on a quarterly basis for the past few years?
Upvote
0
J
JustOneUK
Fantastic - so back to ranking on quality and relevance of content, instead of links..............happy days
and the judge of that quality would be?...........
Upvote
0
J
JustOneUK
Coz they make the rulz (if you wanna rank in their index)
yeh, yeh.
So how will they know you are 'quality' when all the links to your website are no-follow?
Upvote
0
R
RayB
But that will never happen to any site, so surely this question is purely hypothetical?
Upvote
0
lol ... How this can be possible ? surely you will get few links with do-follow.
Regarding 'QUALITY' site we can judge that by getting their position in search result for most used keywords.
If your site is ranking well for most of the your related keywords then the site is well optimise and can be considers as QUALITY site.
Upvote
0
Not really, it could just mean the site has more money to spend on link baiting campaigns, staff to blog full time, or it could have forced reciprocal linking (which still, sadly seems to do very well in google for some people).ol ... How this can be possible ? surely you will get few links with do-follow.
Regarding 'QUALITY' site we can judge that by getting their position in search result for most used keywords.
If your site is ranking well for most of the your related keywords then the site is well optimise and can be considers as QUALITY site.
The site could be stuffed full of keywords, or employ other more blackhat techniques.
The site could have money to run competitions, or offer free gifts for links to their site. The site could be full of 'controversial' rubbish that people link to to show something is bad, incoming links on their own dont mean a site is automatically quality.
The site could be ran by someone who has the time, or money, or influence to get loads of links from other sites, without having to pay directly for them with cash.
A site ranking well for a particular keyword does not always equate to quality in google, it may do often, but not always. It often just means they spent more time and money on SEO than the competition did.
Changing to nofollow on paid links may just ensure that the people with more to lose from a google penalty will comply, but those who dont care, who set up spam sites by the dozen, or the thousand dozen, or link to the viagra sites etc for money wont comply and the ratio of spammy sites getting proper links could actually increase. They may also end up being more likely to hide the links better now, making it harder for the end user to
see a link is a advert, ie its not longer in a sidebar or footer, its hidden in the content.
Not to mention some people will twig they could start using nofollow to manipulate page rank on site etc...
Upvote
0
R
RayB
On this point Ken - Matt Cutts has come out once or twice and said this is perfectly legitimate method - to sculpt the flow of PR through your site.
That said, personally I wouldn't bother - he said somewhere else (can't find the link just now) that the benefits would be fairly small
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated: