Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 36
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: October 25, 2007 - 1:39 pm
Posted By: Jill 352 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.highrankings.com)
Category: Link Building
"My guess is that the toolbar PR penalty is just that — a lowering of visible PR in order to make a statement."
21 Comments
Comments
Well said Jill :) I'll grab some popcorn too.
Spot on.
Except that it's apparently not just those selling text links. Copyblogger sells ad space (including ads for TextLinkAds) in the form of 125 x 125 images but not text links. Many blogs use similar ad template plugins but they haven't been penalized. Something else is going on here. I'm thinking manual PR adjustment of influential sites to discourage PR being used as an ad sales tool. It would also be interesting to see how many of those hit had ads/paid links to TextLinkAds and the other obvious link merchants that were recently hit. Paranoia anyone?
Not sure I understand the difference, Kal. Why would image links that are sold be any different to Google? They still normally have the ability to pass PageRank, etc.
And Copyblogger sure looked like it had a number of potentially paid text links on it when I looked. They're generally easy to spot by the keyword rich anchor text that would not be the "normal" way of linking to a site.
"I’m lucky enough not to be buying or selling links so I’m just a bystander at this point"
Don't speak too soon.
Unfortunately, whether you are a bystander or a criminal is decided by Google, not you. They've become cynical, greedy and vindictive enough not to care about some innocent sites getting dragged down during their intensifying showndowns.
It's just a matter of luck whether a site fits some pattern they filter for. And because they view an increasing portion of the internet as their enemy, those filters will just grow in number and harshness.
"There is no denying that at least in the case of the SEG site, the links do appear
as though they were purchased for the sole purpose of gaining PageRank
and/or anchor-text juice."
And yet Jennifer Laycock insists she is not selling PageRank. Well, guess what? It doesn't matter what she thinks she's selling.
"They've become cynical, greedy and vindictive"
It sounds to me like you're describing yourself - with perfect accuracy.
Halfdeck, maybe vindictive, not really cynical. But what exactly makes me greedy? Do we know each other?
This has been quite a touchy subject... and let's try and keep personal 'jabs' out of the discussion.
I do not understand the view that Google is "cynical, greedy and vindictive." And this is not the first time I have seen it. Google has always had a problem with people trying to falsely boost their rankings. They aren't trying to 'punish' people as everyone is trying to say... they are merely trying to ensure that they have the most relevant rankings. That's what has been their goal since their inception.
Correct me if I am wrong... but weren't all black hat SEO techniques considered white hat before it became penalized (or taboo) for doing them? This is the natural evolution of our industry... and just as harsh as mother nature is in natural selection... adapt or die! :D
"They're generally easy to spot by the keyword rich anchor text that would not be the "normal" way of linking to a site."
Really? You mean when you link to things editorially, you never give them good keyword-rich anchor text? I do pretty often. Why wouldn't I? Apart from helping the person I am linking to (who obviously has something of value to offer my readers, or I wouldn't link to them) it can also help my own site.
"And yet Jennifer Laycock insists she is not selling PageRank. Well, guess what? It doesn't matter what she thinks she's selling."
I find this interesting. If I sell you a new car and include a full tank of gas, am I selling you the car or am I selling you the gas?
Google assumes you're selling gas.
In answer to your question above Jill, image ads are different because they don't contain anchor text and so the intent is crystal clear. I can understand Google being skeptical of sites selling text links with embedded keywords, but why should Google punish someone selling image ad space on a domain they don't own? I see you use image ads to sell BaseCamp using your affiliate link. Wouldn't you be pissed off if Google decided that you were trying to game their system by linking to BaseCamp?
I didn't see any text links on Copyblogger that could be interpreted as ads. Perhaps they've removed them. If this truly is a bitch slap, I think Google need a much better system to determine intent. It's got to the point where you can no longer do what's right for your site from a usability perspective without risking a misinterpretation of intent. Google at least need to make a public statement about what exactly their aim is with this adjustment.
"Wouldn't you be pissed off if Google decided that you were trying to game their system by linking to BaseCamp?"
No, not in the least. Like Jennifer, I don't really care what Google thinks about what I'm doing.
As far as image links go, alt attributes are basically just as good as anchor text and could be used for similar purposes if someone so desired.
I don't think alt attributes and anchor text are in the same ballpark, personally, but I take your point.
However, if you don't really care what Google thinks, your statement is misleading:
"What I’ve never done, nor would ever do, is buy or sell anchor-text links in a blatant manner that
basically dared Google to penalize me."
"If I sell you a new car and include a full tank of gas, am I selling you the car or am I selling you the gas?"
If I take a girl home, she might think we're starting a *relationship* while I'm just in it for a quickie. [Admin edit] So she can tell herself whatever she wants but the reality is simple. I just want to get off then then leave.
Let's be real.
Those links on your home page footer
1) do not increase brand awareness because the links are hidden
2) they do not drive traffic because no one bothers with your sites home page (prove me wrong with stats if you have them)
So what are people paying you for?
TBPR 7 links. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you pretend you're selling traffic. People are paying you to manipulate search results.
Prove me wrong by turning those links into 1) image links and 2) using nofollow. Will people keep paying you for 1 click/month and no link juice?
There's nothing wrong with manipulating search engine ranking. That's what SEO is about. But to pretend people aren't paying you to manipulate the serps is naive. And being in denial about it doesn't help your credibility. Be honest.
The links aren't hidden. We wouldn't be an SEG advertiser if they were hidden. And guess what else? There was absolutely ZERO mention of Google OR PageRank in their advertiser rate card from 1 year ago. I just scanned it again to be sure. Just solid information on subscribers, page views and demographics. THAT's why we signed up, THAT'S why we have been happy advertisers for a year now and THAT's why we will continue to be advertisers, no matter what Google implies that they have done wrong. Shame Google Shame!
Prove me wrong by turning those links into 1) image links and 2) using nofollow. Will people keep paying you...?
I can't speak for other advertisers, but we certainly would!
lokipro,
"Correct me if I am wrong... but weren't all black hat SEO techniques considered white hat before it became penalized"
There are techniques, like invisible text (especially full of non-relevant keywords) that were never ever considered white hat. There is such a thing as basic ethics, so even if you do not know absolutely anything about SEO, you may still know that such manipulation is wrong. Regardless of penalties.
"they are merely trying to ensure that they have the most relevant rankings"
This false statement keeps coming back. It would be useful to realize that penalizing a site by not showing it for its own name is hurting relevancy, not improving it. See Jennifer Laycock's article series, part 3, last section. (NoFollow is for Blog Spam...no Paid Text Links etc.)
Halfdeck, maybe you haven't bothered to look, but that package we sell? It's not just the text link. That's one of FIVE types of ads they get with the package.
Thus my gas analogy. Those advertisers are also getting a 125x125, a 300x100, a listing in our resources directory, a Google AdWords style descriptive text ad and the "please support our sponsors" listing.
I realize that those who are deeply immersed in SEO/SEM can't fathom someone buying an ad for the branding or clicks it brings (because every link is ALL about PR, right?) but there are tons and tons of companies out there who either don't know or don't care about buying ads for PageRank. As Kalena (and David Wallace) have pointed out...our ad packages deliver customers. That's worth far more than PageRank to those who are not obsessed with it.
Besides, why should we switch them to image ads? Everyone has been saying our image ads (which aren't nofollowed) pass just as must "juice" and PageRank as the text ads (I disagree, but I'm still going to play off their point). Changing them to images wouldn't make a dif.
As to nofollowing them, again, I say why should we? We've sold those ads since 1996. That's long before they could have been used to manipulate Google and guess what? People still bought them. The ONLY reason to change them would be "because Google said so" and I'm sorry, but right now...I just don't see that as being a reason.
Besides, with our PR zapped to 4 instead of 7 there's no need to nofollow them. If you are right and people bought the 5-ad package ONLY for that front page text link, then we should start seeing a mass exodus of advertisers.
Perhaps you want to say that our advertisers don't know our PageRank dropped...and that's why they haven't left...
Well, Robert, Jill and I all had articles on the front page of the site this week pointing out the drop. So we're certainly not doing anything to hide it from them.
Just want to point to my comments, regarding SEG's comments on this article. I've commented at SEG (waiting for approval) and here at Sphinn in the thread based on Robert's post. Will also post as a comment in my original article, in just a bit.
Linking has been around long before Google came to be. You link to an article, you post a comment with your site URL, you link to a site you approve of, you publicize your business by writing articles, you post opinions in forums with signatures, etc. All of this equals links and can be seen as link building, whatever the intent is. So if you get a job from writing an article or a referral job from a forum post, could this be seen as a paid link, thinking outside the box? Same idea, different method. I remember exchanging emails with Robert back when I was starting off in SEO, before Google was even created. SEG has been a great resource for small businesses for many years and from SEG's sponsor page, has plenty of qualified traffic to send to an ad buyer. Its pretty obvious if a human evaluator looks through the site that this is what the focus is about, small businesses. And why shouldn't this business, SEG, be able to make a living online? Just my 2 cents. Btw Jenn, excellent series on no follow.
Thanks Daria!