Have I been captured by enemy blackhats? Tortured and thrown to the dogs? Or just relentlessly interviewed over email (and in person)? Well, since the first two sound painful, let's go with door number three.
- First off is an interview on social media marketing, with a few nifty spoilers that I leaked for anyone who's interested.
- Next, we've got a bit of a more personal and industry focused interview and again I tried to toss out a bit of new information about what we're up to here at mozquarters (yes, I'm cheesily coining that term).
- I think I actualy forgot to link to this interview on mobile search (a topic about which I still have plenty to learn).
- Finally, there's this fancy video interview with myself and Michael Gray (conducted by one of my favorite people, Michael McDonald), wherein we try to solve the paid links debate, but come to no particular conclusions. Watch out, though, it's 18 minutes long (yeah, that's how into paid link debates we are).
Let me just make a few quick points to wrap up on the paid links issue:
- If Google could reach every publisher, every marketer and every webmaster with their pitch on paid links, they could legitimately request that everyone who buys and sells links does so using "nofollow"
- However, as it stands, I'd guess that less than 10% of the demographic that needs to know about paid links and "nofollow" has heard about it (and probably only 50% even know what nofollow is).
- As such, if the 10% who know (us) go around using nofollow, we're basically hampering our own ranking efforts and helping our less-informed competition outperform us. That seems pretty ridiculous.
- And, from a Google engineering standpoint, trying to detect paid links is still going to be a major part of what the search quality team does, and the 10% of us who obey the rules aren't going to make one ounce of impact on what they have to do, which is to algorithmically scale paid link detection and devaluing.
- Thus, if I were Matt Cutts, this is what I'd say publicly about the issue:
Paid links, in Google's opinion, pollute the search results. The people on the search quality team are spending a lot of time and brainpower fighting back by detecting and devaluing paid links. Thus, if you're a webmaster, we'd urge you not to buy links for the perceived value that you think they might provide in helping to rank your site better. We've got a ton of very smart people cutting off the flow of link juice from those links and you're going to be wasting your money. If you want to buy links for traffic or branding or other marketing purposes, that's great, but be aware that we're not going to count them in our rankings.
If you can't get enough of the paid links stuff, I'd check out Michael Gray's slides from the paid links presentation.
BTW - I'm still waiting on official word about a bunch of other issues from the conference in general and from Google in particular, before I can blog about them. Hopefully that dispensation will arrive in the next few days.
The thing that originally separated Google from all the other engines was it's revolutionary way of ranking sites.
Since then they've tweaked the algorithm to accommodate people gaming the system to the point where:
1. They're struggling to find new ways to rank sites that people don't already know about... and
2. They're becoming a lot more focused on making money than in the early days when they were more interested in being one of the coolest and innovative tech companies
So I'd like to see them bring back the old Google - the company that would be focused on coming-up with new, revolutionary ways to rank sites instead of running around manually removing sites, scaring people into not purchasing links for fear of being banned and creating tools to get other webmasters to nark on those that are purchasing links.
Sorry for the rant - Great interviews Rand and I really liked Graywolf's presentation and slides.
SiteMost, wouldn't it be great to go back to the early days? I always think of Google's beginnings as a time of wonder on the Web. We're in a period of 'disenchantment' now, for sure.
I wouldn't say 'disenchantment' but instead it's a time of opportunity for the search engines to step-up to the plate and come-out with something completely different (like Google did in the early days).
Yep, i think we're ready for something completely different.
you mean like, webcrawler, lycos, hotbot, infoseek?
those old days? lol..
Oh yeah, remember those? And whole hosting companies that would fold and go under overnight (there was one called Big Hot Yellow if I'm not mistaken--took my first site attempts with it--although on second thoughts maybe that wasn't such a bad thing! :))
or worse... having 1500 domains hosted at a company BEFORE Internic became netsol and bought your company and locked out your password and that stupid fax thing to get the domain names..... arrghh.. i'll stop here before flames erupt out of my ears and expletitives flow out of my mouth..
Maybe we should start a blog just for us old timers, so that these young'uns can know what we all went through when the Web was in its Stone Age? What a thought.
only a tiny percentage of web users know about the existence of 'nofollow' - being in the search industry can sometimes cloud our perspective of what the 'average' user is. although the 'average' user is certainly becoming more technically savvy, a huge number of people who use the web are not particularly proficient at using computers at all... this is part of google's appeal, as even someone who has never seen a computer before can figure out how to use the page.
I think google should (and i'm sure they actually do) focus on combatting spammy links (whether paid or not) and not worry too much about relevant links (whether paid or not)....
Great information Rand, as always.
Do you think Google might be trying to corner the market value for paid links?
Good point!
I agree with Michael. If Google can catch 10/11 paid links via their algorithms, I don't see the point of Google trying to scare us. There's no point. They are just trying to push their contextual advertising, instead of pure normal links.
It is all so American...
Make them fear you and be a hippocrate...
If only Google was founded in another country then we even wouldn't be having this discussion...
So GO Michael and Rand! Tell the world the truth and hopefully you have enough people in the field listening to you to make a difference!
Great video! I'd love to see more video on seomoz, there's always good content!
I see it kind of hard for Google to find paid links. I know Google has a lot of very smart people, but how are they going to find a paid link to a relative site? I don't think that google could find all the paid links... There would be a way to get around it.
What if Wikipedia started selling links for better content? (laughs)
Great interview - "The little guy gets smacked more than the big guy" how true...
Google created the arena for monetization of PR and now they want me and you to fix it with nofollow. I say get rid of the toolbar PR and it will help alleviate a lot of the misguided link buying. If that happened then people would by links for good reasons like traffic and relevancy. Google then could stop worrying so much about people buying links and start chasing down link networks which is a bigger issue.
I absolutely agree with you. That is a good point. It's hard to figure out what Google's agenda is. They are either really unorganized or really smart and have something up their sleave that we are blind to.
If I had to bet I'd bet they just grew to fast and lost control, now they are attempting keep people's trust buy pretending they got a handle on it.
Rand: need I say? Great post! Loved the video.
Google should also think about the fact that not everyone is trying to game the system. There IS a difference between a link network to manipulate PR and a local small business buying a link on a web site that would reach their audience.
Determining intent is going to be impossible.
Rand, Google is totally lost with the link PR algorithm.
I have a link exchange page with about 30 links on them, maybe 10 to 20 are link exchnge that I made over the past 7 years on my business Website. A few weeks ago Google deindexed the page.
Google says in its GQG that excessive link exchange is bad...
So 10 to 20 links exchanged over the past 7 years are considered evil by Google?
What's up with Google it is on a crusade again? I mean I am not worried about my site because we have thousands of solid links to it, but the 10 new Websites that I was giving a thumbs up are now up the creak without the padle...
Shame on Google!!! I hope Matt C and MiniMe can figure out how to do it without drowning every little Website out there..
Google would score some serious points if they made a statement like that Rand.
The worst part of what they (well actually only Matt Cutts has come out saying this, not Google) are saying is that it is due to some US legislation regarding marking your ads as ads. Bollocks! 95%+ of said paid links are marked as paid somewhere in the text around the link. Why? Because it's good for users and most people that can actually sell links for more than a penny are VERY concerned with their user's experience (unlike all those MFA sites' owners that Google is paying). The addition of javascript/nofollow has totally nothing to do with marking your ads as sponsored for your users as they never even notice this (or they'd have to be one of those 'power users' hitting the source code??!?).
Do they think we are complete idiots? Stop throwing the smoke screen and just tell it like it is. It's extremely annoying and condescending to be fronting this as the reason... if Google really was concerned about the legislative side of it, their request would be something more like this:
"please notify us of ads you've seen that aren't marked with the word ad clearly"
Google could stop about 90% of the link buying in 30 seconds by turning off page rank in the tool bar. Why they arent doing this is beyond me.
I agree that the idea of manually devaluing millions of links is really ridiculous, but I think that there are some webmasters who underestimate how much Google can discern algorithmically.
Link networks are easy to spot by Google if the link brokers are lazy and don't work hard at segmenting their clients from occupying the same sites. It's the pattern of interlinking that tips them off.
Then there are issues of placement. Even the "under the radar" link brokers are often placing links in boxes titled "Sponsored Links" and then placing 7 unrelated text links in the same table or div.
I don't think that Google will ever battle against single in-context links (they're impossible to algorithmically devalue) but I think you will see them get much better at devaluing the visible network brokers and links that are obviously sponsored.
I enjoy ranking my sites without purchasing links, but I can see Michael's point - if you don't get links to your site, there will be no traffic. It's tough to rank a site at all if you have no backlinks.
YES! To Michael McDonald's statement of, "This is a problem that's been created by Google's value of the links or their emphasis on the importance of the link."Google's stance, algorithmically, is that links equate into endorsements. Matt's comments back this up. But it's nonsense when it hits the real world rubber of controversial issues, or negative PR that link to the site their flaming.Great tidbits in the other Q&As Rand. Thanks!
Thanks for the links to Greywolf's powerpoint.
Yeah...looks like we missed quite a doosy of a presentation. I would have loved to see the look on people's faces through some of those slides. Michael's wit and sarcasm must have made that a hoot to sit through.
As someone that deals with small businesses and web sites, they have no idea this exists. Most everyone I meet that has a tiny clue, thinks they must optimize their meta tags to rank first in Google.
After trying to explain some things to them, their eyes glaze over and they just nod and move on. Most would jump on the chance to buy paid links if it meant more business.
only if you tell them it's what they should do..
tell them paid links are bad.. and show them this from MSN...
"The following items and techniques are not appropriate uses of the Live Search index. Use of these items and techniques may affect how your site is ranked within Live Search and may result in the removal of your site from the index. - blah blah
- blah, blah, blah
- Using techniques to artificially increase the number of links to your page, such as link farms."
Rand, regarding your thoughts on the biggest blunder in SMO. I've been publicly saying the winning company in that fake "review" was great and have recevied a load of comments and emails from people saying I was a sucker for believing the scam. It's even affected my own credibilty on occasions.
In fact the company is a really good company (an one I will use for a long time) its just unfortunate that a lot of people no won't try them out to see.
Yea, bring up paid links again... not like I've been worked up about it for the last week as it is! This is one of those issues that gets dumber and dumber the more you read or think about it. I can't imagine Google winning this one but imagine the consequences if they do.
Still, I like your imaginary Cutts Quote. :-)
Rand how is it going?
I am still in China for 10 more days but figured might as well chime in a bit.
To link or not to link and how do you do it?
Sounds like the never ending story with Google.
I probably be going on the fringe by comparing it to safe sex, but putty much that is what Google is saying to us.
So, I say different strokes for different falks..do it how and the way it makes it feel good for you...
And honestly, I wish Google would stop preaching Puritanism, and take care of its own house of MFA, Proxies and the multitude of unanswered Spam reports!
Rand, thank you for taking the tim to answer my social media questions. I really appreciated the great tips and ideas that you gave.
David
Seems like you have been busy
Look forward to seeing what you mean at the end
Rand, you only get put in the Hot Seat if you deserve it! Great interviews! :)
Great interview...
Surely Link Baiting pollutes the search results more than paid links that are relevant to a business/brand?
In my opinion people will just start to produce poor Link Baiting attempts - ones that are 'cool' rather than 'relevant'. They will still get the links in as the idea may still be fun and interesting, just not relevant! How is this going to help in quest for the perfect search results?
Link Baiting is simply tomorrows paid link! Then what will Google say? No more paid links, no link baiting... ????????????
Didn't enjoy this post too much to tell you the truth.
I only said that because the info doesn't make a different of you know or not.
Thanks for the heads up - I'll do my best to make tomorrow's posts a little more directly valuable.