Paid Links - Don't Ask, Don't Sell
Following Matt Cutts' recent announcement that Google will allow users to report paid links, Andy Beard has taken the bold step of submitting his own content to Google's webspam team, in the hope of getting some official statement out of Google. I certainly hope he gets a response, but it seems unlikely.
The disturbing truth is that the only noise out of Google about paid links comes from Matt Cutts' "personal" blog postings. And Matt's stance on the need for machine-readable disclosure of paid links seems to contradict everything Google has ever said about building sites for people, rather than for search engines.
There's obviously a considerable gray area regarding what constitutes a paid link, and Andy's post does a good job of listing many cases where a link may be motivated (directly or indirectly) by financial gain. If Google is serious about identifying and penalizing "paid links," and would prefer that webmasters avoid them, it would seem that the obvious first step is define what constitutes a "paid link." But rather than offering such a definition, or at least some clear guidelines, Google seems content to remain silent while Matt drops hints and spreads FUD.
It's also very troubling that, while no precise definition has been offered, the only "paid links" Matt seems to be concerned about are the cheap ones. Buying links for a few hundred dollars (through TextLinkAds, PayPerPost, ReviewMe, etc) is bad. But links gained through multi-million dollar corporate partnerships are okay.
Currently there's a live link to Google at the bottom of every page of Adobe.com. Are we to believe that this is simply an editorial endorsement of Google by Adobe, and that it has nothing to with the partnership between the two companies? That would be an odd coincidence, since Google's ubiquitous presence on Adobe.com began in in May of 2006, just a month before the announcement of an agreement to distribute Google's toolbar with Adobe software (terms of the deal were undisclosed).
Maybe trading links for financial compensation is okay if it part of some larger business dealing? What about a more clear cut case? Andy says:
Companies are allowed to buy links from the Yahoo directory, which is well known to confer a large amount of trust to a domain, and has been propping up Google's algorithms for years. Will we soon see Google state that the Yahoo directory should be made nofollow for all paid inclusions? Matt Cutts has previously stated that the Yahoo directory is OK because there is editorial review.
So it's alright for Yahoo to sell links because of their "editorial review." Certainly the paid reviews that Andy submitted to the webspam team required much more editorial review than the Yahoo directory can afford to give to the many sites it receives, so if Google's stance on the value of "editorial review" is consistent, Andy should be in the clear.
But then, Matt Cutts doesn't speak for Google, according to his blog's disclaimer, so we're left to wonder about Google's official stance on "paid links." Hopefully, some day soon they'll tell us plainly, rather than making us read between the lines of their employee's personal blog. Is that too much to ask from the company that pledged to "Do No Evil?"
Andy Beard wrote:
Thanks for linking through Kevin
For some reason I didn't receive a trackback, and I was lucky to spot it on Technorati.
Kevin Henney wrote:
Odd about the trackback - it shows as successfully sent on my end. No big deal.
Bravo on trying to get a statement out of Google, I certainly hope they offer some clarification beyond Matt's vague blog posts.
Brett Evans wrote:
beating around the bush is more fun....heh
Court wrote:
Wow, Andy is pretty brave to submit his own content to the webspam team. I don't want anything to do with that group! I'm not selling any links yet but I still don't want them to know that my site exists!
MoneyNing wrote:
Why worry about the details? If you like the program, go with it. If you don't like it, it's your choice to opt out.
Vic wrote:
Awesome post I will surely back link to it.
Angie wrote:
This is such a tangled web, when it comes right down to it. You tore down the premise just as well as I ever could have hoped to do and I second all of the questions you ask in this article.
I wonder, too, about a link like this: Say you just ate some great cereal. You tried a new General Mills product and want to blog about how you and your kids think it's just the best breakfast cereal in the world. You write a glowing review. You link to the General Mill website.
So, how does this look any different from a link you may have been paid $50 by an online paper supplier to add to your blog? It doesn't, really. This whole issue of Google finding a way to catagorize paid and unpaid links looks to me to contain way too many gray areas.
Health Club Fanatic wrote:
This theory of being able to report anyone is just crazy. There are too many people that could cheat the system and get competitors crushed. Just like with PPC fraud, there is really no way to stop it unless a better front end is implemented.
Web Designer wrote:
Allowing webmasters to report other webmasters is plain wrong. The only people going around noticing things like static links are webmasters who either buy or sell text links, do SEO etc. So, in essence Google is saying "Go ahead tell us about your competitors you want us to penalize,,, we don't mind and encourage it"
Google started out by scraping the web,, scraping everyones content,, they put on their site "we're not evil".. a few years later they turn there database into a Pay Per Click engine allowing anyone to buy their way to the top. They make billions. Oh during that process they come up with Pagerank which is a visual indicator of where webmasters stand (sorta) all the while slowly inventing SEO. They vaguely release rules on how you can optimize your site but then start penalizing people who do it too right. Now they want webmasters to report each other...
What it comes down to is Google wants your money. They don't want you paying other webmasters. They want you to fail so you have to buy your way to the top. Google has shareholders and that's who they care about.
Google should be paying webmasters directly, not for advertising placement but for allowing them to include our sites in their database. Like Youtube sharing some revenue with content producers. It's no different.
Can I also say,, providing misinformation is big in business/government and it's no different on the web. Having said that.. I wouldn't believe one word coming out of Matt Cutts' mouth.
John Bennett wrote:
I've never bought or sold a link on any pages yet, but I've been reading and many people suggest it as a good practice to build your site with links to high PR pages. Definitely wouldn't be worth it if Google determines a way to prevent/penalize it.
Study Guide wrote:
Very interesting issue indeed. But then again, how dare you question Mr Cutts... ^^
Paul Hancox | InternetInfluenceMagic.com wrote:
Wait a minute, aren't Google ads "paid ads"? Or are they saying that there's a disclosure there already, because of the "ads by Google" notice.
Besides, how on earth are Google going to start arbitrating and adjudicating on the hundreds of millions of links across the Net that are commercial in nature?
Seems a bit silly... :)
Nigerian Scam Baiter wrote:
He seems to be speaking for all of google even though he says he doesn't. God, some people are just way too loyal to Google.
Aseem Kishore wrote:
I don't really agree with their stance on paid links. There have been many occasions when Google uses links from it's own blogs and sites to promote other sites, etc. They should follow their own rules!
ScottUA wrote:
Interesting post! I agree that this whole thing seems like a double standard. Some sites can use paid links, but for the "little guy" it's illegal. While I don't do it myself, I disagree that Google should come down on sites who try to get that extra edge.
mlankton wrote:
I understand why Google has a problem with TLA. They are solely in business to manipulate serps. Google has an interest in making sure that serps mean something. The reason that adsense, adbrite, and the like are different is they use javascript, not a hard dofollow link like TLA does.
trademark registration wrote:
I think there needs to be a consistent definition of "paid link." Your post exposes the inconsistencies, and I think that should be addressed first and foremost, before forming a solid policy on the matter.
Kristy Lee Cook wrote:
I'm kinda on the fence about this. I can see both sides. However, I think trading/buying links between to Webmaster's isn't any of Google's business...or Yahoo's or MSN's.
I can live with the "catch me if you can" mentality that many Webmasters are developing against G. But don't start whining and crying if G catches you and sends you a nice deindexing or penalty.
Technology Slice wrote:
I stay well away from any sort of paid linking. It's not worth the drop in traffic that will essentially earn you more.
Quentin wrote:
Personally I don't think it makes no difference what so ever. A link is a link is a link!
Rasesh Tanna wrote:
Seriously, not worth it. As if you get penalized ... it will take you a lot of work to get out of it!
Quentin wrote:
I'm still 50/50 on this myself.
Post new comment