This morning, Andy Greenberg wrote an article for the front page of Forbes' technology section - Google Purges the Payola. The article focuses on the ongoing battle between search engines and paid links - a battle that most see as unlikely to ever end:
To most users, the difference between sponsored links and advertisements is a blur. Take, for instance, the online site for the British magazine, New Scientist. Near the bottom of the New Scientist homepage are "sponsored links" that launch the curious to odd destinations including teeth whitening sites or German language sites that sell women's shoes--places that are probably only marginally interesting to most New Scientist readers.
In the byzantine coding world of search engines, however, the mere existence of such links bumps up the placement of those particular teeth and shoe sites when someone types "white teeth" or "schuhe" into Google's search engine.
Search engines hate this kind of paid-for popularity. Google's Webmaster guidelines ban buying links just to pump search rankings. Other search engines including Ask, MSN, and Yahoo!, which mimic Google's link-based search rankings, also discourage buying and selling links.
But as Web commerce has boomed, so too has the value of links--for everyone, including Google. And that's lead to innovation--or from Google's perspective, scams.
Tonight, as I was answering emails, I opened up some tabs and hit the "stumble" button - admitedly, I love StumbleUpon and the wonderful corners of the web it brings to me - and noticed an odd pattern. The first site I reached had this in the bottom right-hand corner:
Wow... Paid links - and sure enough, no "nofollows" on those suckers. Well, I thought, maybe it's just a coincidence. I kept stumbling.
The next site up had this in the footer:
No way! It's using a Wordpress theme that's been "sponsored" by a web hosting outfit. The theme links back to the creator, but the ICDSoft link is pointing to their site and has the link title as "web hosting by ICDsoft." Crazy coincidence? Yeah, probably, but I decide to start tracking as I'm stumbling - maybe it'll make for a good blog post (whoa... did Rand just break the fourth wall?).
Site #3 had this in their sidebar:
Links to Feng Shui and SEO Services without nofollows - why am I not surprised?
Over the course of the next 20 minutes, I stumbled another 16 sites, and found 6 more that featured the kinds of links that might fall under the heading of "Google Payola." Check it out:
There on the top is an advertising link without a "nofollow" on it. Who knows? Maybe the two sites are owned by the same people, or the site wants to give them editorial endorsement, too - totally possible, but very hard to tell. The next site, as you scroll down, shows a lot of questionable links (though again, hard to tell if they're truly "Payola").
Next up is a blog with a cute design and a post on Feedburner. But, on the sidebar:
BTW - From what I can see, Bizrate.com's links in their marketplace widget are direct and passing juice. And they're ranking pretty well for those four phrases on Google right now.
Next up we've got another site that looks pretty suspicious (just from the layout) and has a lovely list of very "run, don't walk" type links at the very top:
Then there's a blog with a nifty post on must-know Latin words and expressions: All well and good except... Look at the four image links in the top right-hand corner - nofollow's? Nope.
The next site has a pink theme to raise awareness for breast cancer - which is terrific. In fact, I don't even see any bad sidebar links. But, then I scroll down a bit more and see a familiar badge:
I personally think PayPerPost and other pay-to-blog services are terrific so long as they're disclosed. In fact, I'm thinking about using them for SEOmoz's premium content one of these days. However, they do certainly fit into what Andy discussed in his piece for Forbes and Google has railed about them in the past, so they probably come under the headline of "Payola," too.
Of course, finally, I had to come full circle. There's a large number of odd pages on Forbes.com and since this has been reported several times in the SEO world previously (and Google's probably removed the link value at this point), I figured it's fine to mention. Basically, on the bottom of many pages at Forbes, you get a drop down menu that looks like this:
Forbes' Special Advertising Dropdown
The problem is, when you look at the code of the site, you see this:
Forbes Noscript Tag Content
The pages they link to look like this:
Forbes' Mesothelioma Attorney Page
While there's an obvious indication at the top that it's a sponsored page (much like a sponsored section in a magazine), the links aren't "nofollowed" which I'm guessing is why the pages don't appear in Google's index (though Yahoo! and MSN both have all the ones I checked).
I suppose you could call that irony.
My point with all this isn't to "out" sites for selling links - no way. I've encouraged some of our clients to purchase links in the past and I suspect I'll do so in the future (though we generally try to be extremely careful about it). I personally think selling links and making a living off the gap in search technology is neither evil nor illegal (though I do think there's usually smarter ways to go about it).
What I'm really trying to show is what an immense quantity of websites are engaged in link practices that Google would consider "un-trustworthy." Yet, as you can clearly see in the search results of thousands of commercially competitive terms, paid links still rule. I think Danny Sullivan summed it up best in the Forbes article:
"Google will never be able to stop paid links altogether," Sullivan says. "They'll stop the obvious stuff. They'll create a climate of fear and a sense of responsibility. But some will still get through."
And so long as "some" get through, the economy of paid links will continue to generate revenue for a massive subsection of the web. The search engineers certainly have their work cut out for them if they want to tackle this problem in a scalable fashion.
p.s. One final frustration - I would have loved to link out to some of the sites that I posted about, but I'm seriously concerned about the "bad neighborhoods" phenomenon, which is frustrating. I hate worrying about whether or not a link from SEOmoz is going to hurt our rankings (as something has with this page) or if the engines might remove our ability to pass linkjuice if we're not careful where we link. There's got to be a better way, right?
UPDATE From Rand: Although I'm still conflicted as to whether it's the right thing to do, I've removed the references to the actual sites in question. It certainly makes the blog post less powerful and doesn't nearly illustrate the hypocrisy of the engines' positions on paid links (as showing the site helped to illustrate how many high quality, legitimate sites that probably have never heard of Matt Cutts or the guidelines for paid links engage in this behavior). However, I'm trusting Donna Fontenot's wisdom and pulling the specifics.
"My point with all this isn't to "out" sites for selling links"
And yet, you did out them. And no matter what else might have been the point of the article, that's all I could really think about throughout the entire thing. That bothers me...a lot. No matter how white hat any of us might like to be, I don't believe we need to be narcs. There's just something wrong with that in my mind.
If the sites you listed had done something to offend you personally, like publicly diss your site, then ok, maybe. But these poor sites have just been spending time creating great content, getting paid a few bucks here and there for it, and they wake up one Thursday morning to find a very popular site that Google DEFINITELY reads has outed them.
OUCH. Bye-bye rankings. Sorry guys, but all that hard work you did...oh well.
I don't know. I just can't approve of any of us going around narcing on others, and especially when it comes from a source that is most definitely going to get noticed by the spam patrol over at Google.
What if next week Google decides that having a section of "Neighboring Posts" like you have at the bottom of this post is a sign of spam? And then, what if someone like Danny outs you over at SEL where we know it'll get seen by Cutts. Ok, bad example. Obviouly Cutts would already know you have it there. But please just try to put yourself in the little guy's shoes before you out them. That's all I'm saying. If Google's got such a great spam algo, let it do its job...all by itself.
It really is bad enough that Google is stepping over the line without other webmasters and those in the SEO community rushing in to help them, and add the appearance of acceptability to what they are doing. The Sherman Act states:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"
If they wanted to actually practice what they preached, and kept their decision making process for penalties as proprietary as their algorithm, then that would of course been their decision. However, as soon as they introduced FUD into the equation, and publicly started to dictate how other webmasters were allowed to do business, and threaten them with dire consequences if they didn't sell advertising the way Google instructed them to do, it literally became the very "restraint of trade" that is made illegal by that act.
If webmasters such as Rand continue to try and kiss up by doing Google's job for them, and add to the appearance of legitimacy to this FUD, then it will only weaken the position of whoever eventually calls Google on this and tries to take them to court.
I was thinking the same thing. Obviously the little guys are the ones that are going to get hit the hardest.
Think of a large blog network (e.g. B5 Media). They can place reciprocal and inter-site links all across their network - and it has a legitimate business and linking purpose. No exchange of money. Nothing that wouldn't be done if it search engines didn't exist. Up and up all the way around.
They will (and should) continue to reap the benefit of this.
Google always wants us to act as if search engines don't exist and to build our web pages accordingly.
If search engines didn't exist - paid links still would be around.
I hope Google has a big change of heart on this. But since I suspect they are more concerned with driving up adword revenue than being relevant and right - we're in this paid-link war for a long long time.
While not trying to sound like a Rand fanboy too much ;-)
I disagree that anybody has been outed here.
If Google are actively looking for websites which sell links then surely they would have a better method of finding them than spending their time reading seomoz blog posts?
If Rand can find them by simply browsing a popular social media site then Google can easily do the same.
Hell, why don't they just search for "sponsored links" or something similar?
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Darren. There have been way too many examples in the past of outings being directly responsible for penalties that Google hadn't caught before. Many of the penalties/bans that have been reported on in the past only happened (with a hand job usually) after the sites were outed by someone.
I think the main point here isn't "look, these sites are doing something wrong" but "look, these sites *aren't* doing anything really wrong, though it is against Google's advice". Most of the examples are making it perfectly clear to visitors that these are not editorial links. They shouldn't have to do anything else in my opinion.
Build your site for users, not search engines!
Good point Will. I can't say this enough, it's Google-speak to term a link an endorsement. The web doesn't operate in that manner and neither does the law. Links existed before Google. At first they were a bragging point of how superior their algorithm was, and now they're something they wished fewer people knew had value. But even with Google out of the picture, you'll still have people clicking links so links will still have value.
To be honest - things usually happen that need to happen so if the "small guys" needed to be banned from google for linking to spammy websites or overly paid links - gets banned now instead of 6 week a year or 5 years... Whats the difference does it make it less wrong of them ?
- if a drug dealer gets caught now or 5 weeks from now whats the difference?
- Rand good job reporting, and any advice I could give would be to - Only buy links that are relevant..
rbowles, please tell me you didn't just compare buying links to dealing drugs. First of all buying and selling links is not even close to illegal. It's not even unethical! The only place that selling links is "wrong" is in Google's eyes. It is their right to ban whomever they want but does that mean Rand didn't do something wrong here? He's admitted he should have done this whole thing differently.
To answer your question, yes, getting banned now is MUCH different than being banned 6 weeks, or a year, or 5 years later. What kind of question is that? That's like saying it doesn't matter if you go to jail for a day, a month, or a year, it's all the same!
Only buy links that are relevant? At this point I hope this comment is a joke. Google doesn't say only buy links that are relevant, or more to the point of this discussion, only sell links that are relevant. Google doesn't want you selling ANY links without a nofollow tag applied. It doesn't matter if they are laser targeted in terms of relevance, they would still get you in trouble.
Since Matt Cutts actually does comment here (and therefore obviously reads here as well), then there might actually be a chance that he would find them faster via this post than random Stumbling. In my mind though, that's really not the point.
When someone who has a following in the industry starts making it look like it's ok to draw attention to other websites in this manner, assuring that someone at Google will notice, it both adds to the general fear that already exists, and sets a poor precedence for other bloggers, imho.
Additionally, Google is concerned about public image to the point of paranoia, and knows that Rand has a following. By outing them on this blog he has practically guaranteed that Google will have to penalize them... they know people are watching those sites now, and it's much easier to penalize the few that are in the public eye than it is to actually take care of the underlying problems at hand.
I would think this would also result in Rand being included in less conversations, for fear that he would do the same thing to them that he did to the sites of these folks.
I wonder if someone should contact each of the webmasters of those sites and direct them to Rand, so that if they incur some sort of penalty, they'll know who to thank.
Yes, maybe, err I don't know.
AND YET - when Danny 'outed' (if you must use that word) New Scientist on SEL Matt Cutss popped along to say, "Yeah, we knew about those. Anyone got the new Pratchett?" and toddled off again.
The result? NS still has a PR of 7 (although I think this is a slight drop on past years, but this could also be to do with the way that they have handled the addition of new sections to the site).
Yes, Rand and & Danny naming names probably means that these sites could be found sooner, but does anyone seriously think that any site which has a section called Sponsored Links isn't on some sort of watch list at Google HQ?
What do you expect matt to say? Oh, we didn't know about that one, turns out we can't really find paid links very well at all?
No, he probably wouldn't say "Wow - thanks for pointing that one out to us", but at the same time do you think that the people who built BackRub can't put something together to find pages that:
I don't..
yeah, you would think that they would have a better way to find them but the fact is they don't. Not algorithmically at least. That's why they are pushing webmasters to tattle on each other when they see paid links. While I don't think Rand was necessarily doing that in essence that is exactly what he did.
I don't want to get into a big discussion on it but I have to disagree with you here Donna. You can't really out a site for something that is of public record as a live website is.
And I don't want to get into a big discussion over semantics either. Outed, tattled on, narced on, whatever... Is "brought to the attention of" better?
"Outed" is, afaik, is the accepted industry term for this, actually. I don't know who started using it, but it's been the phrase of choice for a while. First time I saw it was in reference to a site Matt Cutts "outed" on his blog.
Donna - I get where you're coming from, but I think that just staying quiet on the topic or saying "I found a bunch of them but I can't tell you where" doesn't make for very good blogging or information. My point here has nothing to do with these specific sites (except Forbes, which Google already "caught") but with showing how incredibly saturated the Internet is with sites that "violate" Google's "payola" issue.
8/18 sites I visited in a half hour have links that might be questionable. Granted, I've got StumbleUpon set to show me only specific categories and maybe these are the most paid link heavy ones, but still - it probably means we're talking about hundreds of millions of pages Google needs to detect - and hundreds of thousands of sites that are great quality, totally legitimate websites who don't intend to violate Google's guidelines but just want to earn some money from their efforts.
As far as the actual damage to the handful of sites above - I've "outed" plenty of paid links in the past on SEOmoz and while I suspect that Matt & co. have probably reduced the value of those purchased links, I don't believe they've killed the rankings of traffic to those sites (and I doubt they'll do it with most of the above sites). Clearly they had already seen the Forbes issue and their content still ranks great - Forbes has a massive amount of search traffic and rankings from Google.
I understand your concern, but I don't think that staying anonymous and simply saying "they're out there" provides value.
Headlines > Ethics?
But that was before it was fun to pick on you, Rand.
Comments below deleted due to their descent into unnecessary antagonism.
With power comes responsibility.
I seriously believe the same information could have been presented while obfuscating the site names/urls/identities. We heard all about your mystery girlfriend for how long without knowing who she was? You were creative enough to make that interesting without outing her. I believe you could do the same here.
And I'm not picking on you, Rand, nor do I want to cause a scene. But this is an issue I feel strongly about. I feel sorry for the folks who put in time and effort on those sites only to see the wreckage and carnage that I believe could very well be dumped on them after this. I understand that you think no harm will come to them, but I think exactly the opposite. Sorry, that's my opinion.
And now I'll shut up because I don't want to be accused of being a bitch.
Donna - you know that I hold your opinion in high esteem, so you should never feel bad about posting here, even if it's to disagree or reprimand me.
I think that obsfucating the domains might have been the better move - and you're right, I probably could have shown off the screenshots without revealing the actual sites themselves (I'll try to make that edit this afternoon). I do, however, think that any "damage" will be very minimal - these aren't sites that are actively tyring to damage Google - they're just sites trying to profit off their hard work and good content. If anything, the post is meant to illustrate both the hypocrisy of the position and the obvious fact that it hasn't worked.
Google's been ranting on paid links for years now, and yet the web is filled with them more than ever. My point is that it simply is not scalable for the engines to use fear of penalties to police the web's natural economy. I'm hopeful that we'll see a change in both tone and substance from the engines to more accurately reflect reality.
And your points would be extremely valid, if only the whole "outing issue" hadn't gotten in the way. If you can just manage to make the points you are making without risking these people's livelihoods, then I'll be happy to endorse the post as being extremely worthy. I just can't get past the outing issue as long as its possible that people's hard work are being compromised.
Donna - fixed the post. Sorry it took so long - Mystery Guest got sick at work today and my evening was a bit busy with that.
As I noted, I'm still not sure it's the right decision - someone at the office said to me today - "either we believe they're doing is wrong, and that's why we're covering up for them, or we believe what they're doing is OK, in which case, there's no need to hide it."
Could someone else please ask Rand this, since he would prefer to not have to reply to me directly? I think the question itself has quite a bit of merit...
Why on Earth would you think either of those things has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Google will penalize those sites? Do you really think that the fact that Google hasn't spanked Forbes is a good indicator that they won't go after the smaller guys you highlighted? Many forum and blog posts out there have shown instances on multiple occasions where the big guys are allowed to get away with stuff that the little guys are made to suffer for. Aside from the one BMW incident a couple of years ago, which Google did indeed make a show of, I can't think of any other instances where Google has slapped a penalty on one of the major players.
Well as long as the damage is minimal right? Give me a break Rand! I assume you're going to be offering up your services for free should any of these sites experience a decline in the SERPs?
I'll definitely let MC and team know that I think it's a mistake to penalize sites for something that's nearly impossible for them to know is wrong, and yeah, I'd be happy to take up the issues of those sites directly with engineers.
However, I don't think that's how Google operates. They'll just pull the value of those links (if they haven't already) and that has a very tiny impact across the web.
This isn't about those specific sites - it's about how many sites are saturated with paid links and how easy it is to find them. It's about how Google can claim to enforce all they want, but the market will never know their policies or realize what they're "supposed" to do unless they print it in big letters every time you run a search at Google (and I don't see that happening).
Rand, two points. First of all, if Google devalues even just those links than you just did significant damage to someone. Either the site selling the links will no longer be able to sell them because they'll be worthless thus losing money. Or, if people continue to buy them, the people paying for them are now not getting their full value. Either way you slice it, you did damage.
Also, you keep saying that it's not about these sites specifically but then why go into so much detail on the site? Wouldn't a screen shot of the sold links (and nothing else that would give away what site it is) been just as effective? The point wasn't (so you say) to out these sites, it was so show they existed. The diversity in sections and design alone would have been enough to prove the existed. Also, if you just wanted to show sites were selling links, why not start with sites closer to home that I'm sure we all know about?
I would argue that sites can indeed suffer for selling links but that's really a much larger topic than there's space for here.
I gave this a thumbs up simply because you used "obfuscate" in a casual (if heated) conversation.
Donna, how dare you pick on poor old Rand who just put even MORE sites and or businesses in jeapordy.
In case people can't tell, that's sacrasm.
Rand, Donna's right and it doesn't much matter what you do now since the post has already gone out to your subscribers and I'd be willing to bet spidered. You screwed the pooch on this one and I think you owe a lot of site owners apologies and free help if your actions cause their sites harm.
I'm forced to come back to the earlier logic. Either,
A) The sites are doing something wrong and we owe it to our mafia-like code of silence to keep quiet about it
B) The sites aren't doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide (which is why this stuff is published in plain site)
I think you're trying to go with the former, and that's hard to stomach.
No, Rand, either you still don't get it or you are trying very hard to give that impression. Despite what I think the case is, I will go ahead and try to put it in the simplest terms I can for you:
Google is the one who is doing something wrong, and you happily served those poor sites up to them on a silver platter. It doesn't matter how you try and spin it, what phrases you drop where, how you want to cloud it, or how you edit the post to read now, it does not change the facts of what you did.
Changing the post 24 hours after you put it up is of course pointless. Not quite as bad as nothing, but pretty damn close.
Agreed, better late than never but not by much.
No no no. We don't believe they are doing something wrong, but Google believes it, and we don't believe we should be Google's narcs.
Dazzlindonna, thanks for putting it in plainer English than my unsent contribution to this thread.
If there is likely some small good to come of this discussion, it may be the realisation of how far Google's commercial values have been internalised in parts of our industry. And how much denial there is from those proposing "accepted" forms of manipulation.
The reason I didn't originally contribute to this discussion was the feeling that if I did I was being used by SEOmoz to whip up a beneficial storm. A feeling that has happened more than once lately (and was the reason I decided not to make the effort to write my first YOUmoz contribution in response to an earlier case).
Donna has a habit of making things very clear and easy to understand and in this case, she's 100% correct.
Outing these sites as you did is a very poor decision and I feel it is based on your desire and need to create sensational articles - our industry calls it link bait. It is certainly not a question of whether you determine it as being right or wrong. You are not a judge or a jury and this was not done with the greater good of the world in mind. This is about courtesy and consideration for other businesses which you lacked. These businesses are not breaking any laws but have been likely harmed by your actions. You also maintain the damage done as being minimal which is not accepting responsibility for your actions.
The fact that you are still conflicted is the most troubling part. Have you noticed how many down votes your article and the some of the comments on this post have? You have certainly succeeded with your goal of creating a sensational article but you lost a lot of respect from some SEOmoz readers including myself.
Oh gomer2, that's just because it's fun to pick on Rand.
I couldn't have said it better myself. It's nice to see others voicing their opposition on this issue as well. I think people may dismiss my point as "Oh he just doesn't like SEOmoz" which isn't the case, or at least wasn't until this post.
(6) comments with no more points then the first comment
- your bitching, .rb
p.s. (waiting for the thumbs down)
This was one of the points I made to the Forbes journalist. If NS want to sell links, that's their business. But if they're suggesting it has a benefit to the buyer in terms of SEO, when it's highly likely that (as was the case) Google knew or would come to know about them, then that's not great business practice.
I agree we should not be doing Google's job for them. I also think Google should allow water to find its own level.
The work that goes into building links or buying them shows committment of time and/or money - our industry is getting savvy enough to have developed the fact that a competitive space is buying links where they work.
Google drop links that are not relevant - but who cares if someone buys some where they are relevant - it is no different then taking time to get known by the site owners.
If someone in a space does a digg event - as was shown at the Paid Links Are Evil panel - there is a committment of time (which is money).
But Donna at least when SEOMoz gets a bad neighborhood ranking you are okay as the link was no follow....
It is a difficult space and the calls of what is white and black very much should be seen more as what works for a customer/yourself and what does not.
The early web days were a little wild west - but it was find things that will help get more traffic. People spend a lot of money on links... if they are at the right places or in the right way - they can boost traffic.
Some people are learning they may as well just buy traffic with the money.
Traffic exchanges may be on the way back... methods that were used at the start of the web could come back in refined ways if the engines keep making us pay.
It is okay to start inactivating keywords, doing outrageous expanded matches etc.... a little black hat in my opinion - but hey take it or leave it right.... pity Danny's No Google Friday's really worked - it would give the users of Google both searchers and advertisers a little more impact.
I agree with 100% Donna.... I am waiting for the algo that is blind to links.
So let's see what we have here: infighting due to "outing" websites that did nothing wrong. It's uncomfortable that a review of any website not displaying child porn is uncomfortable. And wrong. It should be perfectly ok to say "look, I think this is how these sites are making money - how can we apply that?" without worrying if the Big Bad is going to ruin those sites for being part of the conversation.
This isn't even about ethics, as much as Google would like to claim that, it's just about fear. This is totaly fucked up.
How about this instead: Yahoo doesn't seem to give a flying fuck if links are paid for or not. And yet they are getting higher marks for "customer fufillment" than Google. I've been reading about it all over the place, including forums and blogs (like this great one).
Maybe the discussion should be: Google is not the best any more. And they are being manipulative bastards. How can we help push the market to another more relevant search engine that is clearly out for money, honest about it, and not getting in the way of other people trying to earn a buck?
Bravo, rmccarley, bravo!
Thumbs up and a bomb pop for you.
(you don't happen to work for Ask or Yahoo do you? I'm not sayin...I'm just sayin.)
LOL No I don't.
"Distinguishing between legitimate and paid links embedded in text is practically impossible, especially on the scale of Google's massive index of every Web site."
Is sending a man to the moon easier than detecting contextual paid links? I doubt it. It's only a matter of time before Google engineers get it right. For the time being, SEOs can exploit the paid link loophole as they exploited hidden text, cloaking, keyword spamming, and META keyword spamming in the past.
SEO community is full of marketers who aren't technically adept. What seems impossible to marketers is a cakewalk to PHDs who eat natural logs for breakfast.
The problem I see with Google's paid link policy is that some of the highest quality links are paid in some form. The difference between those and TLA links is simple: the reason for payment wasn't to manipulate search results.
I'd like to see Google refine its policy to only target paid links where the intention of the payment is nefarious. Otherwise, paid or unpaid, a link should pass juice.
Matt Cutts insists that Yahoo! directory link isn't a "paid link." But he is wrong. It's both paid and highly editorial. And there are links like that all over the web - none of them should be discounted.
Agreed, but... As an Internet User I don't give a rats patooty about pagerank, inlinks, outlinks, or paid links. I want to find pages that are the most relevant to my search based upon the page content. Period. I hope that becomes the main (only) focus of search tech in the future. It will happen. The rewards will be huge. Plan for it.
Otherwise, paid or unpaid, a link should pass juice.
Agreed - I think if a link is on a relevant site, it should pass juice, paid or not.
I don't know. I just can't approve of any of us going around narcing on others, and especially when it comes from a source that is most definitely going to get noticed by the spam patrol over at Google.
I got a distinct feeling of uneasiness while reading the article for the the same reason as Donna. What bothers me the most is that I'm bothered! Most of the bad things that have ever happened in history have happened due to manipulation using fear.
If this was the "right" thing to do, then Google would be appealing to our better natures. But it knows that won't work, because it's about Google, not the betterment of the web.
Neither the SEO community nor the visitors are really on side with them. The strongest support they usually get is "well, it's their company". Wow, that's not exactly right up there with "I'd donate them a kidney if I thought it would help" is it?
I have an idea - lets ask the visitors. This is one time where I think Google is acting for Google, not for it's visitors. If it thought it's visitors didn't like ads or that paying for clicks was wrong, it wouldn't have AdWords.
No, it's a self serving action and deserves to be treated with all the dignity and respect all other self serving actions deserve to be treated: - i.e. I'll go along with your self serving action as long as it helps MY self serving actions, and not one bit more. Google is not a charity.
It beggars belief that someone could actually think that a commercial enterprise should spend it's marketing energies on making funny videos in the hopes of getting untargeted links rather than targeted advertising and networking.
But maybe this makes sense to a company that has a beanbag chair and lava lamp budget, but can't get it's departments to talk to each other to solve pressing issues...
Ian
Great comment. I guess it is how you look at it. For instance, They could be doing this to make sure they provide a natural selection of the best.
However, the world doesn't work like that and neither will Google. The person with the most money is always on top.
Even with adwords if you bid the most then you will be on top for that search term. I mean if you wanna buy links and rank in google then adwords can manipulate the hell out of the index. For twice the cost of most paid links of course. HAHA! I smell conspiracy.
Man, what a breath of fresh air. I didn't read any comments before I left my comment below. It's minds like yours that give me hope for this industry.
"I would have loved to link out... but I'm seriously concerned about the "bad neighborhoods" phenomenon"
"They'll create a climate of fear"
I believe this is the point where it's Google itself that's becoming detrimental to the internet. You worry about a totally natural behavior (linking out) because you might lose the goodwill of a near-monopoly? Aren't we slowly starting to see Evil materializing on the net?
Slowly?
I'm glad to see the "M-word" used in reference to Google's work here. They are leveraging their market dominance to require compliance.
It looks an awful lot like what Microsoft and Nintendo got in trouble for. This policy effectively says, "Do what we say, or you won't be allowed to market your product through us."
"I would have loved to link out... but I'm seriously concerned about the "bad neighborhoods" phenomenon" "They'll create a climate of fear"
Exactly. Why shouldn't Rand be able to freely link to potentially offending websites without fear of retribution? Now Google is able to scare sophisiticated bloggers and able to control their link activity? If Google can control Rand's linkage, it wont take long for others to fall under their long arm of the web.
There are countless documented cases of sites beeing blackballed for selling links and engagning in manipulative link schemes. but the recommended list (to my knowledge) doesn't require payment, a link back or even a backrub. It's just a kind gesture by seomoz.
Google is really playing hardball with SEO's and appears to love every minute of it.
The thing is, "A link = a Vote" was a great idea at the time, but that cheese has moved. Google can cry all they want, but it's never moving back.
I don't think nofollows will ever work the way Google wants them to - there are just too many webmasters and content authors who make links the only way they know how and have never heard of nofollow. The conscientious among these will disclose in words that a link is sponsorship rather than editorial, but is highly unlikely to use nofollow, as far as I can see.
That's my biggest issue with the continued expansion of nofollow. Too many webmasters have no idea that nofollow exists. So of course they won't use it. On the other side you have webmasters using it not only for its intended purpose but also to manipulate the flow of page rank within their site. No matter how much they spin they throw on nofollow it directly violates Google's guidelines and it is becoming another monster that Google is losing control of.
Matt Cutts says himself that webmasters can use nofollow internally to control the flow of link pagerank
which is fine, but that further muddled the definition of nofollow, making it more confusing for all the webmasters who may not regularily read or even know who Matt is.
Yup, but that just shows the hypocrisy. One of the main guidelines since they were published has been to build your site for USERS not ROBOTS. Using nofollow at all (let alone to manipulate PR) is only for ROBOTS. They created the whole paid link to build page rank when the debuted the AWESOME Toolbar PR tool and now they are caught up trying to fight it by telling webmasters one thing and then telling them to do the exact opposite.
Good Point
Concise criticism. I was trying to explain this to my friends about their blogs. It went right over their heads. They care about SEO, but moreso for its essence of writing good copy. Technical/HTML stuff get ignored. Are we for people or for robots? Or perhaps some sort of "cyborg" needs to evolve from this debacle...
As long as search engines used automated spiders there will be a technical aspect to SEO.
Does anyone else think that Google's crack down on paid links is a absolutely rediculous?
I own several websites, all of which link out extensively. Some links are paid, some are not. However, ALL of the links are relevant to my content. Why should I have to be afraid of the big G if I'm getting paid to point people to a resource that is actually RELEVANT to my content? Even when I was using TLA, I manually reviewed links to make sure they would be of interest to my visitors.
I can see the point with teeth whitening gels on a sci-tech site. As highly tauted as Google's relevancy is, you would think that Google would be able to spot these irrelevant links out a mile away and ONLY single them out.
How freakin' hard is it? Really? When an entire page's copy is about asteroids and towards the end there is a link for teeth whitening gel???
This is one time when I think the big G is waaaay overstepping it's boundries. It's my site, I should be able to link to whoever I darn well please. Google's job is to index my site, NOT dictate what I can display on it! >X-(
//Begin Joke
Anybody want to join the International Association of Webmasters Against Google (IAWAG)? I have the domains registered if anyone is interested. :-D
//End Joke
Why can't google do whatever they want with their system. Isn't that your point?:
"It's my site, I should be able to link to whoever I darn well please. Google's job is to index my site, NOT dictate what I can display on it!"
They can do what they want (as any company) and if you don't like it, then don't worry about being indexed by them.
I know you meant it as a joke, but my point is if you want to be part of the google world your need to play by the rules, even though those rules aren't that clear some times.
I focus on giving my visitors quality information, now if I want to start getting some profit at the same time, I should be careful and don't let my trust and my loyal visitors to go away because of that.
"I focus on giving my visitors quality information, now if I want to start getting some profit at the same time, I should be careful and don't let my trust and my loyal visitors to go away because of that."
That was the point of my mini-rant. I too focus on giving my visitors quality information. Usually, I don't get 1 cent for providing that information, but sometimes I do. My visitors trust is paramount.
What I have issue with is that Google is throwing the baby out with the bath water with this "Payola" initiative. They are making it extremely difficult for "mom and pop" businesses, like mine, to succeed unless we play by Google's rules. Who died and made Google the Internet Police?
Maria, as a whole, I agree that if you want to play the Google game, you have to play by Google's rules. Google isn't the only search engine and we do have alternatives. However, as the market leader in search, it is not a fair market practice to put in place policies that stiffle the social aspects that are what build the Internet in the first place.
How often do you read comments like what Rand expressed about being afraid to link to a site? When a search engine is creating such widespread fear that people are scared to link to other sites, that's going a bit too far, don't you think?
Search Engine != Internet Police
Search Engine == Categorized Index of Web Sites based on relevancy
If my content is relevant, what business of Google's is it if I'm getting paid for that content or not? Wouldn't that be Google imposing it's will on MY business?
EDIT: I too like the openess and constructive debate here. It's a refreshing change from needless censorship. ;-)
I agree with you in some points. May be is because I have never being banned by google that I think this way. It is more difficult playing by google rules when your business depends on internet ads and pay links (not saying that is your case), that is not my case. I understand is easier for me to focus on content and links that will improve my visitor's experience than for those that have to use other strategies to have get direct profit from their sites.
I've never been banned, nor have any of my clients. That doesn't mean I'm willing to cosign what Google is doing.
90% of my clients are local Mom and Pop businesses who only display content related to their "brick and mortar" store. These are sites with Zero advertisements on them. The very few sites that get profit from their sites are the few who have a shopping cart on them.
As squeaky clean as these sites are, I still have to do a tight rope act explaining all this to my clients so that what linking they do engage in doesn't appear to be "sponsored".
The issue I have isn't so much my business. It's my job to know what search engines are doing and how to work within their systems. For the sites I own and run, I play the game. If any of my sites were to get banned, it would be because I took a calculated risk and calculated wrong.
The people I'm concerned about are my "Maw and Paw" clients who think booting a computer means kicking it. It's hard enough explaining to a local, home town company that's been in business for 100 years that they *have* to have a web presence to remain competative. When you start going into why they cannot link to xyz.com site, their head starts spinning like something from The Exorcist.
Bottom line, Google is creating an atmosphere where big money and those "in the know" can succeed, but small companies, and the unfortunately ignorant can get banned or will perform poorly for doing things that are considered acceptable practice in the business world. Ever hear of a kickback? ;-) Some of these Maw and Paw companies make a good percentage of their living by promoting specific products or services in their store front. Trying to explain to them that they cannot do the same thing on their website is no picnic.
Seriously though, I'm not trying to bust your chops. ;-) I'm rather enjoying this exchange. :-)
I agree with you on the idea that we are talking about ads on the web. You should be able to add ads of whatever you like because in the long run the ones that should decide if they like it or not, if they border them or not, are website's users and they should rule the market.
My concern is that Matt started claiming FTC rules at a conference. Right then the issue became bigger than what Google wants to do with their site. They are moving from "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" to "do it our way or else". Nobody likes to be held hostage especially when money is involved.
Also, Google is trying to make webmasters guilty of something worng when they accept payment for links through FUD tactics and public opinion. It's just advertising. Some people are smart enough to by ads on relevant sites, others don't. As a webmaster that isn't our problem - we want (and deserve) the cash. The NY Times would never be accused of doing something wrong for selling an ad for toothpaste on any page of their publication. What's the difference?
I think I am going to have to "out" myself again for my paid reviews, because it certainly seems like I have been given some kind of toolbar pagerank penalty.
I have a good idea of the number and quality of links I had around the time of the last update, compared to recent times.
Whilst it might not have been sufficient to get a bump up to a visible PR6, a drop down to a PR4 just doesn't seem logical.
I haven't written any reviews where linking was a requirement, I always negotiated that links would be given editorially and I treat it as some form of "public consultation" - I am sure the time I spend reviewing the site, and the editorial value of the content created is much higher than the Yahoo directory.
All the paid review content I have written is still ranking well, and in general all my content is ranking as well or better than I would expect.
With Google providing that little green bar as a signal of quality, in many ways having it go down places a certain... stigma on a site, something that I have already had readers mention in blog posts.
Doesn't all this remind you of a medievil witchhunt where the innocent ones were the ones who drowned?
I thought Randall's comments above were perfectly on target - get a bunch of SEOs to fight over a practice where no one actually did anything wrong.
If I had to guess, I'd say that you probably got that penalty only because you're visible in the search sphere - frustrating? yes - fair? not really.
I'm sorry Andy - that sucks.
Just to clarify, that's not what he said. He said that the fight was over the fact that you outed sites that hadn't done anything wrong. Nice touch on the re-characterization though.
Rand it just gives me something else to write about. As far as I am aware I haven't done anything directly to incurr a penalty.
There is plenty of unnatural linking pointing to my domain along with the better links, but that doesn't mean that I was directly involved with it.
I really didn't want to comment. Honestly. This is a tired debate.
I'm tired of Google getting the good and bad exposure from this debate.
I'm tired of the press misinterpreting the real war here.
I'm tired of SEOs getting a bad rap from clueless journalists who are eating Google's "unofficial" press releases (aka corporate blogs) like a Vegas buffet.
I'm tired of all forms of advertising, including paid CPM banner advertising, getting thrown under the "paid linking scheme" bus just because they don't have javascript, redirects, or nofollows.
I'm tired of the White vs. Black vs. Gray vs. Blue hats jumping in and declaring their linking methods as winner whether or not they are for good or for evil.
I'm tired of people, SEOs in particular, not realizing the true long term effects of this short term debate.
Unfortunately in todays world, Google is king. And unfortunately, that means that most SEOs need to choose to adapt or take a stand.
If you understand trends and can sense an overwhelming yet subconscious sense of fear coming from all the text-based search engines, then you know that the one pillar that they built their house on is chipping away slowly.
Blame Facebook. Blame TiVO. Blame Wikipedia. Just don't blame another search engine. Social media optimization anyone? No one was doing that three years ago. SEOs are already evolving. Unfortunately, the search engines are not (they're failing miserably).
"He's tired... Tired of playing the game..." (alternate link)
LOL - well played. Love that movie!
From the song:
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I think the link has probably had its day. Google are just annoyed that the flaw in the system has been exploited so enthusiastically and yet they can't think up that next metric.
Perhaps the answer is to re-adjust the algo to focus more on page quality and content than on link strength and anchor text. Google's algo is too link heavy. Is it simply easier to scare webmasters into not selling links than it is to get all those PhDs to get their heads together on something newin the world of search? Has mass information retrieval really stalled this early?
My answer would be for Google to perhaps use better semantic rules to gauge the true meaning of a page, and then use smarter click analysis to work out what people actually require when they use those tricky queries with multiple meanings. SEO would then become less about keywords and links and more about actually generating thoroughly well written content in a way that reflects the page's meaning and subject area. This would lead to far better content.
Those not good at creating content don't get ranked, isn't that what Google want, great content in its SERPs? Isn't this a better ranking method, the better your content the higher you rank? And we all know that spammers want a quick and easy route. Good content writing is not quick, nor easy, so even spam content would be well written, informative content!
That's easy for you to say. :)
I agree with this to a point, but feel that Michale Gray has a valid counter arguement to this.
Sometimes people just want to buy stuff. How do you get a commercial site to rank if Google expects editorial? How is creating a digg friendly piece of link bait relevant to a pure play retail site?
Discuss...
I really have nothing to add to this post; it's all been said in the comments & much of it in a more eolquent way than I could manage.
All I can say is that I have a (probably very petty) issue with the Forbes article. Mr Greenberg contacted me directly, having seen a comment I had left on Sphinn about the New Scientist issue (I used to work for their publisher). I then spent over half-an-hour on the phone with him discussing the various issues.
Although I asked for some of the things I said to be off the record, most of it wasn't. And then when the article didn't appear when he said that it would, I emailed him sveral times asking if it was going to be written.
The result? No response from him, no quotes in the article, no way of getting that half an hour of my life (or of my company's time) back. I realise that my name and experience in no-way match those of Danny or Rand, but then I didn't contact him asking to help with the article.
Courtesy is a dying art - Discuss...
Ciaran - sorry about that. I can only empathize - for a couple years I'd get contacted all the time by journalists (even after the Newsweek article) and chat for plenty of hours without any mention of my name in a story where everything I shared was paraphrased or nearly quoted exactly. I just assume this is how the journalism world works - hopefully with the blogosphere, we can have a bit more responsibility.
To be honest I don't actually mind not being quoted (well, not that much!) It's more the fact that there was no response to my emails following the interview.
Oh well, better luck next time.
And is it childish of me to say that this is one article that will be getting no links from our blog?
;)
Material provided "off the record" means the reporter will use it and not give you credit.
Andy did exactly what you requested.
Just to repeat...
And like I said, it was the lack of communication. Anyway, whatever - let's move on.
off the record translates to "Don't attribute to me", not "do not include in the story"
And to me, what it doesn't translate to is use none of what I said on the record (although he's perfectly within his rights to do so) and don't respond to any of my emails asking about the story, after he's contacted me in the first place.
Like I said, let's move on..
A sweeping ban over paid links is just displaying a flaw in Google's model; I like any link - paid or not - that provides me with something relevant. Sure, many may be irrelevant ads - that's the way in any channel - but this really is Google's burden. They created this beast, and all the good and bad it creates.
Great post. Love the debate and opinions.
It looks like paid links fall into two categories: black-hat and white-hat.
Just call me "master of the obvious"...
I'm for the white-hat paid links; links that are relevant compared to the content of the page/site. (In my opinion, nofollow need not be applied to these...)
I am against black-hat paid links; links that simply don't make sense or are not related to the content. (In my opinion, these should simply be replaced with white-hat links or deleted...I guess the nofollow would work fine too.)
Perhaps the real question that Google is trying to answer is this: If a user with colored teeth is viewing a Science site, would the ad for a teeth whitening product be a black-hat link or is the Science site simply trying to help the yellow toothed searcher (white-hat link)? :)
What is REALLY relevant to the user? And where do you draw the line? What IF the Science site can prove they have 20% of their viewers who have colored teeth...then is the ad relevant? :)
Sorry...got a little carried away there.
Love the narc comment...I'm neutral about that comment, but I love the open honesty and non-editing nature of SEOmoz.
If I want to buy a link on a completely unrelated site, how the hell does that make it black hat, unethical, or any other pejoritive term?
Through their own (flawed) algorithm, Google made links valuable. The natural extension of that is the creation of a market for links. Does Google develop a more sophisticated algorithm? No, they resort to fear mongering and disinformation! This is Google's problem and has no ethical or legal implications, despite what Google would try to tell you.
James, sorry but there's no such thing as 'white-hat link buying'.
Matt's made Google's position very clear now. You buy links for traffic not to affect SERPs. So any paid link, targetted or not, would need to have a nofollow on it.
So you don't get any lift from Google... I think they should no do anything negative - just nothing positive... so the other engines that don't seem to have a problem will give a lift...
This is not white hat vs black hat - it is Google vs the other engines
Madre de Dios, this is the most interesting comment thread I've read in a while.
*sits back with popcorn*
Proceed, SEOs, proceed!
Haha. No stirring? No fanning the flames? Just sitting back with popcorn. You chill out while it gets all heated up in the comments.
Enjoy the view...
Becs and I have been taming our "thunder thumbs" lately (this is Scott's terms for how loudly I type when I get pissed off). I feel like I outgrew being belligerent on comment threads. How mature of me.
Brilliant! Thunder thumbs. I love it.
Wait. You type with your thumbs?
I hit the space-bar very hard with both thumbs when I am especially angry :D
Better than typing with your knuckles I suppose. Or your forehead.... (We'll leave that to the Glaswegians).
Good thing you didn't pick Scots as a whole or people from Sterling, as that's where the lineage goes if you go back further than 1935 :D The only country in the world in which Coplands outnumber Copelands.
/off topic nonsense
Would probably only have encouraged me if I'd have known. I'm dreadful. I should be nicer to people ;)
EDIT BY JANE: Do not worry, Mozzers. Will and I have taken this discussion to Facebook :P
One of the things that makes the Moz what it is (and pretty much my level on most things!)
Thats right! Don't tick off the Scots! *Clan Montgomery here :-D*
Will - she's from New Zealand...
outgrew???? drop the popcorn I am getting images of you and Rebecca sitting in Victorian chairs sipping tea in very expensive china
Apparently not, as the tone of this post prompted me to get involved again.
Well. I made a joke that was then blown out of proportion. Which is lame in so many ways. I'd be far better going back to work, and do all those things us SEOs supposedly do. What were they, again? Because from what I see, many of us spend our days taking shots at each other via blog comments.
And I don't think the cup is Victorian. It's more likely Pottery Barn :D And there is not enough Kahlua in it.
Got to love ya Jane... come on its Friday - I know it is before noon in Seattle right now but the blender is in the office and the Pina Coladas and Daiquiris will be flowing in about 3 hours....
You creep me out, Frank! How on earth do you know what's in our cupboards with such accuracy?!
I know the mozzers.... and there is no one who could stop you Rebecca and Scott come Friday happy hour
Okay did Rebecca just make a comment - maybe something about stalking and then edit it out?
I got a notice of a post that did not lead anywhere..... (I could have left the explanation off and added to the mystery of how I thought that)
?? Maybe it is just our comments system having an overload :)
I wanted to surpise you guys but it seems a little harder than I thought... interesting that this one is Seattle-based https://www.i-booze.com/
and why don't I see any pics of mozzers on the Monkey Bar MySpace apge??? Maybe because they won't deliver booze to you!!!
Yes, it's so easy for employees to be cavelier.
A typo from Brian? This really is the end of days. Anyone seen the Stay Puft Man?
Nothing is ever just black and white, there are always shades of grey .But if you are big enough then you can try and write the rule book. Won't last long term though. Its a battle Google can't realistically win which is why they try to fight through fear uncertainty and doubt.
Actually maybe there is another way round this. Perhaps one day Google will offer us "spamwords"...where a site owner can pay to have the link juice flow, then as long as it is monetized for Google ..well that can't be evil ..can it??
Yeah if they can't beat it, they will surely tax it in some form or fashion.
HAY GUYS, WHAT'S GOING ON?
Seriously though, wow have things turned childish lately when it comes to criticizing all of our SEO brethren. I <3 SEOmoz and their kind of style when it comes to posting about new or pertinent SEM info.
If you don't like it (or, for whatever reason, have some angst against an SEOmoz employee or otherwise), don't pay attention to it. That's what is so great about SEO - there aren't "laws" about how to go about optimizing a site or performing online marketing for a client. Don't agree with what someone does or a tactic of theirs? Do things your way. Show results.
And about disagreeing about Mr. Fishkin (don't know him personally so I won't call him Rand but I did see him & Rebecca @ SEMpdx) opinions - don't like what he does? That's fine. Just ignore it.
Christian, you clearly missed what was supposed to be humor, I an not trying to criticize anyone, I just thought I was the first one to use my baby picture on my SEOMoz profile.
There are couple people before me who did use baby pictures as avatars.
Christian - so, going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess... those were not your sites that were outed?
My 2 cents on nofollow (disclaimer: contains broad generalizations based on nothing):
The only persons who are aware of nofollow are people involved in SEO. From Google's perspective, the most valuable/honest votes/links would be from webmasters who are not trying to manipulate SERPs - and thus these webmasters would not be aware of these guidelines.
One could argue that the fact that a nofollow link appears on a page would be a sign that the site IS optimized, and thus its links/votes should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
OK Rand, I respect you and your opinions, but I feel like you picked the little guy on your examples.
My site was listed on the post, for selling 125x125 banners without nofollow link. That is fine. But you are probably aware that TechCrunch, Read/WriteWeb, GigaOm, Mashable and many other "authority" blogs do the same right?
Yet you did not consider the chance of mentioning them, how come?
Hi Danie, I'm writing from the luxury of not having a site listed. Having said that, I wouldn't worry too much about being outed - more about the fact that these are so easy to detect algorithmically anyway that they aren't going to pass link juice for long with or without an SEOmoz article.
However, the saving grace, is that I don't imagine your advertisers are buying 125x125 banners for their search engine juice - it's for branding and direct click-throughs mainly, so I would have thought you would be fine. I recommend reading Halfdeck's comment just above.
Will, I agree with you, and in fact my concern is not getting "picked" by Rand.
It is rather the fact that he went for the small guy when he was aware of much bigger blogs doing exactly the same thing.
Even his SEO friends are doing the same advertising scheme that I do on my site, including Search Engine Land, Search Engine Journal and virtually all the others using 125x banners.
It would have been a much bolder claim to list Search Engine Land in the "Google Payola" issue, right?
However these sites slipped the analysis, and I wonder why.
Yeah - you're right - I think it would have made the article more powerful if it were to say both 'look, loads of the big guys are doing it' as well as 'look, a large proportion of the places I stumbled are doing this'.
I think the message I see loud and clear is that Google is losing this war if it thinks people are going to self-label bought / sold links: if they want to identify them, they're gonna have to do it algorithmically.
Danie, our 125 ads aren't paid links in the sense that Google is concerned about, which is where people buy anchor text for ranking purposes. They aren't text ads that help in that regard. Moreover, the links go through an ad server. Click, and you get redirected -- and the redirected URL goes through an area on the site blocked from crawling in robots.txt. That, according to Google's guidelines, prevents them from passing any link love (which wouldn't have helped much anyway given the lack of anchor text).
through the server wipes them but what about ones that go direct... they are a link with an image as opposed to text... but a link.... then relevance would apply... or alt text???
I agree 100% with Will. The past several conferences I've been to the major theme about paid links, SE spam, etc is that its all based on the INTENT of the seller. If a google tech feels that you're selling for pagerank, they'll dock you. But your intent is obviously one of selling banner ads for branding and traffic values, not for PR passing. Same deal with the other sites you mentioned (TC, R/W, etc). They're brokered ads, plain and simple. I'm not sure how Rand misread the intent of your site.
Wow. This entire discussion and "intent" is only mentioned twice?!
Sorry for the double reply, I just found it baffling.
The entire SEO community apparently lives in fear.
Blogging about easy-as-hell-to-detect paid links isn't going to wake up the boogie man. Those sites will not get hit with a penalty. Anyone want to wage a bet? And the fact that you fear some of them will get hit with a penalty exposes your lack of understanding about how Google deals with spam.
In 99% of the cases, unless the problem is systemic (ala .cn spam), Google isn't going to waste resources on penalizing websites by hand.
Again, the paid link spam Rand pointed out in this post is algorithmically trivial to detect. Google doesn't need this post to detect those links. Does anyone have solid evidence that blatant paid link spamming cannot be detected? I've read many baseless claims, but so far haven't seen one solid evidence.
The consequence of selling links, as long as you're linking out to relevant sites and avoiding "bad neighborhoods", is you lose your ability to pass PageRank. That's all.
What does that mean? Imagine Google algorithmically pasting nofollow on your paid links. That's what's going to happen. Less PageRank leak. No TBPR dip on any of your pages. More link sales for you. Rand is doing these link selling sites a huge favor.
David Airy's case is indicative of that. Matt Cutts has always said be careful about linking out uneditorially to off-topic sites.
Let's not behave like superstitious villagers who believe breaking the mirror angers the Gods.
Excellent - take a bow man; perfectly put!
Wow, great comment. *golf clap*
My thoughts exactly
"In 99% of the cases, unless the problem is systemic (ala .cn spam), Google isn't going to waste resources on penalizing websites by hand."
This is either untrue, or my experience relates to the 1%. Still, your claim is so confident as if you received this statistic directly from the Google Penalty Department.
"Does anyone have solid evidence that blatant paid link spamming cannot be detected?"
Blatant, by definition, is something that is absolutely obvious. So the solid evidence you solicit would really be hard to come by. But this won't prove anything beyond how smart rhetoric can mislead people into thinking they have just read a good argument.
Halfdeck, although I do agree with your statement to a certain degree, I need to point out that there is no way, and I mean zero ways for Google to proof that a link on a website is a paid link. I am talking normal links here. Not banner ads or sponsored link ads that are clearly defined as being such. Just thought I would point that out..
What's "Google Payola"? :)
Hey, what's up with using your baby pictures???
It's my sister's picture, why? I use this picture as my avatar from 2003.
It's like granola but it tastes better to the trolls.
It refers to paid links.
The record industry notion of payola was that companies paid radio stations to play their music:
Funny I think Payola in music helped break through new music styles that may never been heard.... sort of like new sites that may never be seen!!!
Just a sidenote to the discussions
If anyone feels like "outing" me for writing paid reviews, be my guest. You can highlight specific articles, use nofollow if you feel it is necessary.
I personally feel that "paid reviews" will be the wave of the link building future. I suggest you charge more.
I know from experience and you can test it if you wish. That paid post get more indexed backlinks as far as google is concerned than paid links. If Google decides to crack down on paid links the way they preclaim, then I know reviews will be the next big thing.
It breaks down to common sense, links wrapped in relevant content equal indexed links in my opinoin.
Rand:
Leaving aside the philosophical quesitons about paid links, I am surprised to see you putting "Hosted By" link in the same category as other paid/sponsored links. You go out of your way to give Curtis a true (and deserved) editorial endorsement page and link to that page from the bottom of your site and Superb gives you excellent service.
Likewise, I am not clear that the WordPress Theme creator is a link that should be nofollowed. While many sites are unaware of the links they provide in badges and endorsements, I don't think Google is demanding we all nofollow these links or ones that come in Wordpress templates.
Paging Matt Cutts, :-), did I miss a memo?
That's a very good question and something I've been wondering about myself since I set up my blog earlier this year.
I did see my site get penalized when I unwittingly (out of lack of sleep and diligence) used a theme that had an embedded link spam thing going on in the footer...
I am beginning to be more aware of that which I do...
Thanks for the good response, Jonah. And Thanks for the great article, Rand!
I know Matt's had some severe criticism for sponsored blog themes, particularly those in Wordpress. I believe that post is here.
Rand:
Thanks, I guess I did miss the memo...but it does expose an (other) interesting inconsistency.
We can all agree that themes can expose users to some nasty and nefarious php tricks, hidden links, etc., but that danger is a different issue than whether a link embedded in a theme is inherently "evil".
What is the difference between paying for a great viral link baiting campaign and paying to build a really great theme to get links? I am not defending either practice, I just don't know why one is "good" and the other is "bad".
Matt was clear at SES that even though Digg Fishing and Link Bait delivered off topic links from outside of the expert community and produced links that had absolutely nothing to do with the main focus of the site, Google wanted to reward creativity. That was the rationale provided for why a quasi-animated (although strangely prescient) video clip about the paid links debate was a valid form of link acquisition while paying for links for a hosting company from a php site was not.
It would seem evident that this logic also extends to paying someone to create a high quality theme as well as providing these themes in exchange for a link. If Google wants to tell us they are rewarding creativity, shouldn't they be consistent?
I own a theme site and we wil continue to spread the word through the footer of our products. Google can kiss my ass on that one. It is not a paid link, it is more like people linking to us out of respect for our community. We advertise our site name there and nothing else. We have not tried to abuse it or force people to keep it there.
Grrr....
Rand
I know people who created their own theme for their site, and constantly had people ask if it was available for download.
Eventually they decided to provide a downloadable version, but rather than distribute a scruffy version, they hired a professional theme designer to clean up the code for redistribution.
The theme thus is obviously a joint work, despite someone being contracted for money to do some of it.
In the credits they included a link to the support thread on the original authors blog, a home page link to the authors blog, and a link to the person who cleaned things up.
The link to the support page contained the theme name, which was related to the business of the original author, but not spammy.
The author link to the home page was a very SEO friendly term, but 100% targeted
The link to the designer from what I remember was using his name as anchor text.
I know that that theme was removed from the Wordpress theme directory despite being extremely high quality (well, other than the sidebar loading first)
Google can push the fear and intimidation factor as much as they want about paid links but in response what they are going to see is new and innovative ways to manipulate their index. It will always be a never ending battle.
I have to agree. Paid links can be found on just about every site these days and even if engines could do something about it. There is no way to stop all of it.
With all the buzz about directories and paid links, I am sure new methods are being brewed as we speak to manipulate the index.
I was at a seminar earlier this week where the guy said he would do searches for Mesothelioma Lawyer while making a presentation explaining PPC ads, click on the #1 link, and then say to a previously snoozing audience, "That just cost them $150 dollars!" He stopped doing that because people thought it was mean. At least they woke up.
It made me snicker.
Oh, the guy now uses slides that don't link. He's quite well reformed.
Well the content and the links towards the footer don't have a nofollow at https://www.seomoz.org/dp/superb
I guess Google is ok with hosted link pages?
Yeah right! Its like twisting the so called rules? However I will put them in same categories as the sites mentioned above.
Nav - just FYI - Superb DOES NOT pay us for those links.
Ok, I wasn't going say anything but now I'm curious. You just linked to them because you're nice guys?! (it's possible I guess) A large logo on every page of the site plus a hosted page, that's some great free branding!
By not paying, does that include that you're not receiving discounts, hardward upgrades, bandwidth increases, free months, referral fees, cheaper hosting for clients sites, etc? Or maybe even a link to one of your sites or your clients sites on their testimonials page or elsewhere.
My goal isn't to out anyone, just to point out there are a lot of gray areas and different interpretations as to what "paid" means.
In my opinion, this area is so gray that the "paid" definition should be limited to one that involves money leaving one person or company's bank account and arriving in another's. Imagine a situation where we consider every favour, referral or perk to be payment.
Let me also make it clear that I do not actually know the conditions that surroung our links to Superb. Maybe they send us M&Ms. I know I've never seen any.
And given the difficulty Google currently has in detecting every paid link on the Internet, do we really want to suggest that they investigate the perks people receive for their non-nofollowed links?
payment does not have to be cash.... but I really think it is Google's job to down play inappropriate links... if they fit then who cares how they get there....
So true.
I can't imagine the carnage if Google tried to start guessing how people were paid, however. Bloody Rand linked to Frank Watson again, and that Aussie bought him a drink at SMX. It has to be a conspiracy to game the SERPs...
lol... if buying drinks for links were counted I would be blacklisted!!!
are you coming to ny?
SIGH! Another conversation that should be taking place on Facebook! Haha... but seriously: no, not going to NY but AM going to SMX London next month. Rebecca and Rand will be in New York.
i just had my facebook cancelled... maye for being aussiewebmaster as opposed to frank watson
Ah, you could have just changed your name!
EDIT: I assume you mean they kicked you off. How mean!
We linked to them because we love the service - they do give us a free box (we pay for the other 2 we have), but they did that long before we threw the logo on there. There's no contract or deal saying we have it there in exchange for hosting - we simply had a really good experience with them and felt that it would be good to share.
We're actually about to do the same thing with ExactTarget, who's managing our email subscription system. We had a good experience with them, so we want to share.
I think that SEOmoz is such a visible place, we'd be in serious trouble if we did the paid links route.
Fair enough. And good answer. If I recall, you did the same with Jarrod Hunt's company too?
This is a fine example of exactly why google *shouldn't* play link cop. The intention, partnership, relationship, or business deal cannot be implied by an external third-party so easily, nor should it be. Even investigative reporters require a paper trail.
Here's the scary thought: machines can only detect so much. Humans and human error eventually come into play. If it ended up in the inbox of an entry level quality-assurance tech who just completed training from Cutts Boot Camp about hosted pages on Forbes, etc; would the links/page have passed then? Possibly not.
But that's their judgement call, not mine. As a user, I've always appreciated the SEOmoz policies on corporate transparency. Full disclosure is the best policy when there are so many levels of gray.
Well that's a valid enough reason! I am sure everyone will have one or the other valid reason to give a link.
In your case its free box, and in other case its money. Isn't Free box = $$??
I come back to what I posted above. While Frank Watson (AussieWebmaster) is right and there are numerous ways in which one can be "paid", surely we must hope that Google limits its definition of a paid link to one that was acquired by money changing hands. And not in a metaphorical way. Real dollars, pounds, euros or what have you leaving one person's account and arriving in another's.
If Google began taking perks, favours and gifts into account, almost everyone would run the risk of being penalized. A free cruise in the Caribbean would be a huge perk. A bottle of wine would be a small one. Where do you draw the line of what a person is allowed to receive for linking to someone else? Since you really can't, I believe that it is not reasonable to take these things into account.
I agree Jane... what I think is the way to go is 'relevance' - work your algorithm Google and pass link juice according to appropriateness of the relationship....
Jane,
All I am saying is that the page is a perfect example of hosted link page with none of the links having nofollow. I won't mind a similiar arrangment with SEOmoz say for a exchange of bottle of wine every month :)
Jane,
While I understand that some small perks (a t shirt, a drink) could reasonably not be considered 'payment' (money exchanging hands), what happens if the perk is substantial?
We balk when a politician is given a mansion, or given one at well below market value (I know this is an exaggerated example, but it's a real one, too) - isn't that payment?
What good is money, if not to exchange it for a good or service?
You can't even burn the paper when it goes from one paypal account to another...
I addressed my views on this earlier.
If you are Google and you start assigning limits to perks, things are going to get far messier than they are already. And they're currently extremely messy. I feel that this discussion is rapidly deteriorating into a hypothetical quagmire where no one will ever be 100% right or 100% satisfied with the other's arguments.
Besides, how on earth is Google going to determine whether Rand's new mansion on the shores of Lake Washington was paid for by a link?
Exactly, Jane. Everything you said applies to cash just as much as it does to 'perks' or 'goods.' So why should goods be excluded, but not cash?
Is it because it makes you feel better? That's honestly not a shot at you, it's a serious question.
A link that I pay $1 for is not ok, but if I give you a material object worth $1, it's ok?
What if I give you a new BMW instead of $1?
I agree with you in one aspect - drawing a line between a small perk and a big one is hard.
My point is that I don't see why getting goods or services is any different than just getting 'paid.'
My point is simply that it would be too hard for Google to define what type of perks are all right and which should come with a search engine penalty. They'd first have to decide how much monetary value a perk would need to have before it was inappropriate, and then they'd have to monitor the gifts that everyone on the Internet receives from others.
Your argument is totally corrent, I just don't see Google being able to enforce such a policy.
Rand,
Good idea not to link to these pages if you've got reservations about their status with the engines.
I saw a presentation of a paper out of one of the major search engine's research arms regarding algorithmic detection of link spam and paid links. One of the fundamental assumptions the paper makes is that "good" sites never (rarely) link to "bad" sites.
The paper was well accepted and given the author list and the audience being presented to, I'd say we're going to see this kind of technology working in some form at some point (if not already in place).
I think another point this worth mentioning is AdSense. How is it different? And why shouldn't this content be penalized on sites? Because the ads are supposed to be relavent it's ok?
I have more of a concern that Google is doing this for one reason only. More $$. If Google can get people to jump ship from these other forms of link ads and sign them up for their ads, what's this going to do for their pockets? I'm willing to say a lot.
It should be interesting to see what kind of performance AdSense has in the upcoming quarters. For me, Google's actions are very suspect and they've opened a can of worms for which they with no acceptable solutions.
I have been saying this all along. Its a damn conspiracy. Adwords is paid advertising that can manipulate the crap out of the SERPs in Google. I think they are just tired of losing money.
Grab an adwords account and toss up $5 a click and you can own any search term you want.
Well of course there is that. In the small scope Google is justified because Adsense ads don't pass PR. On a grand scale they are telling everyone else to not make money the way they do.
But PR manipulation through paid links has the exact same goal - top positioning in SERPs, right? So how is Adsense any different? Adsense goes at the top of the page automatically, before the natural results. The only difference I see is that in one case Google gets the webmaster's money and in the other they don't. Google just want a share of everyone else's business, whether it pertains to search or not, hence Google Docs, Googlebase, etc.
Good point.
IMO, paid links are really no different from paying for a larger ad in the phone book or getting more shelf space at a grocery store. If a company can continue to afford paid links, the phone book, or shelf space, then they're most likely providing at least some benefit to the users...even if it is through affiliate links or things that Google would consider to be less than desireable.
We need a final tally of thumbs on this discusion. Someone should do an analysis of how to get audience participation like this. If anyone knows. Anyone?
No kidding - spirited discussion, broad participation, no name calling or death threats. This is a great community.
Well done all.
Rand has a little secret: public example. Worked for directories, real estate, viagra .edu spam, and now here.
Haha! so true.
It's interesting to find out how many companies are actually one major effort, which will always skew the statistics (it's like when you find out how enormous a company like Pepsi is beyond their recognized products). Good post and I'm actually checking out some of those sites you mentioned--learning lots here!
Rand,
Is it SEOmoz's policy to 100%, *never* buy links for their clients?
No, and you are missing the point of the post. Rand has accepted that it was not wise to "out" the sites that used to be mentioned above. His intention was never to out them, although I realise that many of you don't believe that to be true.
Rather, the point of the post was to show how link acquisition is both prolific enough to be impossible to stop, and often obvious enough to detect. It was also to point out how tough it would / will be for Google to detect every paid link, either algorithmically or manually. When looked at from this perspective, our policy on buying links doesn't matter all that much.
We've taken a lot of flak for this and while we are perfectly aware that those of you who are convinced of either our stupidity or our evilness won't be persauded otherwise, this post - as misguided as it may have been - was not written to hurt anyone.
"Rand has accepted that it was not wise to "out" the sites that used to be mentioned above."
He has?
Rand: "As I noted, I'm still not sure it's the right decision..."
and then: "I'm forced to come back to the earlier logic. Either,
A) The sites are doing something wrong and we owe it to our mafia-like code of silence to keep quiet about it
B) The sites aren't doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide (which is why this stuff is published in plain site)"
That's just a load of bull. If SEOmoz actually believed B) then you would have no problem pointing out a link on a specific page that you've bought for one of your clients. An actual example that we can see "provides value" to us, as Rand put it, so that we could learn from it.
There's many instances in which you don't disclose, or purposefully obscure, information for non-nefarious reasons. Many folks don't share their salary/income. My wife doesn't want pictures of our kids on the internet in publically-accessible areas. They're so adoringly beautiful, I'd love to show everyone. But she's afraid of what might happen if we do.
SURELY, all you folks at SEOmoz know and understand that, and understand why 'outing' the sites was bad form.
From SMG, quote from Rand:
Paraphrased: "I fucked up." This has been going on for a week now, so I'm not sure why you've jumped on it today. If you want to ask Rand about his post and how he feels about it now, seven days later, send him an email and I am sure he will write you back. He's addressed others' concerns via the telephone and email and if this upsets you this much, I'm sure he'll tell you his side of the story if you approach him.
How wonderful to get thumbed down for suggesting someone contact Rand about his post :|
"This has been going on for a week now, so I'm not sure why you've jumped on it today."
Forgive me, I went back and read a week's worth of blog posts, and a month's worth of comments on this post, just today. I never even saw the links that were posted to the specific sites. If my comments are not worthwhile due to temporal reasons, just say so. Or, just ignore them.
I realize my comments are trollish, but I don't read SEOmoz 'daily' for the chance to bring you guys down.
I'm just not convinced Rand actually withdrew the links because he believes it was bad form, or that he "fucked up" as you paraphrased. Rand, at the link you provided me: "I guess I just wonder where I went wrong..." There's more of the same in that very comment you paraphrased.
Your comment, Rand's, and the actions taken, seem more like 'cleaning up the mess' than "I fucked up." I have personally have more respect for "I fucked up."
edit:spelling
Artifexus - I'll try to address your questions the best I can.
I DO belive it was wrong to "out" the sites - but it was not a malicious mistake nor was there bad intent. I really did just want to illustrate how ludicrous I believe Google's policy to be.
Removing the links after they had already gone out in RSS (and are clearly accessible on other websites who scrape us) is an admission to a mistake, but I know it doesn't clean up the mess. For that I am regretful.
However - if you read the post all the way through, you'll see that I specifically say that I DO recommend our clients buy links - all the time! That's one of the big reasons I have such a problem with Google's stance.
Hope that makes sense.
"I DO belive it was wrong to "out" the sites"
If that's the case, Rand, and it's the first time I'm reading anything admitting that, then you get my thumbs up.
"but it was not a malicious mistake nor was there bad intent."
I don't think anybody was saying it was, at least not here, but I'm not going to reread 200+ comments to double check. The term I used was 'bad form' and I think the other comments amounted to the same. I really don't think 'malicious intent' was the major beef with people.
This is how I see things, and where I was going with my comments/questions (and I realize we're not discussing the main point of the article; most of the comments aren't): would you ever want anybody to do to your clients and the sites where they bought links, what you did linking out to sites in the original post?
If not, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen, I just wasn't getting why you were attempting to rationalize it after you were called on it. Do unto others...
There were a vocal few who did :)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments... many people who were offended by the post weren't so rational with their responses.
I find this entire debate amusing because Skitzzo who railed on Rand for "outing" sites has done exactly that back in June 2007:
https://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/06/11/google-selling-links/
In a post titled Google Breaks Own Guidelines, sells links for $1995, Skittzo "outs" a whole bunch of link buyers in one sweep by linking to the link selling page.
People need to climb down from their high horses, stop the ethical debate, and go back to writing about what works, what doesn't.
Well I guess Rand clears it all and we should put this thread to rest now!
I guess the culprits are now caught after seeing the latest PR update.
I've recently come across a few sites which have nofollow on their site, including their link back to me. Since then I have allows checked a site's nofollow to make sure I gain a link that follows.
Well my official statement on "paid links" is white hat or black hat they are here to stay. The only way to filter paid links would be by relevance and even then there is no 100% relevant filter method. It would be hit and miss for most sites. For instance, what makes a link paid vs natural? Is it because at the bottom of the list it says "Your Link Here"? No! That doesn't necessarily make it paid.
However, the majorn reason for paid links to be relevant is they alsy produce more traffic and they have the added benefit of passing some link juice. I think as long as you keep it in that frame of mind you will be fine.
The only real problem I see is when the links are not relevant to the theme of the website. Themed links are great and I am glad people can have there piece of the American dream online. This is what happens in a Free Market Economy. As gaps form between different technologies people will always find ways to not only fill those gaps but enrich themselves at the same time.
-D
I agree, paid links are here to stay. Buy links from related sites, you have nothing to worry about. If people are stupid enough to buy links from high PR unrelated sites, then the worst case situation is that this link will count for nothing and you have wasted your money. Your site will not be negatively affected.
How is this bad? Should we use "sponsored" signs and nofollow?
Thanks for an informative post. Interesting how I actually found this post, it was forwarded to me by an employee of TLA's when I raised the concern of nofollow's no being coded into their links. They didn't really want to answer my questions, but did have this post handy.
This will be a never ending battle. Google trying to put its foot down on ITS OWN theories and people manipulating those theories to gain traction. Frankly, I am sick of reactive movements based on Google's decisions. I know they are the 600 pound gorilla in the room, but when does it end? Of course, you would be stupid to ignore Google's interests if you are an SERP working on a current project, but it just gets old trying to catch the 'ever moving' target.