Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 61
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: October 25, 2007 - 1:59 pm
Posted By: St0n3y 257 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.searchengineguide.com)
Category: SEM Industry
30 Comments
Went Hot: October 25, 2007 - 1:59 pm
Posted By: St0n3y 257 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.searchengineguide.com)
Category: SEM Industry
30 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- 5 ways to improve rankings through ... (21)
- Importance of Documenting Your SEO ... (21)
- Fixing duplicate content in SEO sit... (19)
- How to Switch Your User-Agent to Go... (19)
- Google passes second link’s anchor ... (18)
- Top 10 URL Design Failures of Famou... (18)
- Enterprise SEO and the art of the p... (17)
- The ProtoViral Posts, So Far (17)
- How a Search Engine Might Rank Book... (15)
- 20 Must-Read Blogs For Freelance Wr... (15)
Latest Comments
- You should try SeoDigger for keywords research - you'll see what you compet…
- The only reason I use Twitter is because people I follow are on it. If th…
- LOL…
- Those two pages have no impact on the validity of Michael's test. A pag…
- its been great reading your insigthfull tips..and it really help on how to …
- Ahh yeah... the numbers are live and kicking right now. This made my night.…
- Cool - one thing I have to add is to analyze your conversion rates by scree…
- So BOTW hiring editors from the world's most pathetic directory is a good t…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX Local & Mobile - San Francisco, CA (July 24-25) See the agenda, and register now!
• SMX Sao Paolo - Brazil - (Aug. 7-8)
• SMX China - September 23 & 24, 2008
• SMX Stockholm - September 23 & 24, 2008
• SMX East - NYC - (Oct. 6-8) Registration is now open.
• SMX London - November 4 & 5, 2008
Comments
Robert's statement is a textbook example of the best way one can respond to criticism / attack...use plenty of facts to buttress your argument and keep the emotion out of it.
Thank you, Todd. I appreciate that.
As Robert said in the post, a lot of people saw Jill's original article ( http://sphinn.com/story/10895 ) and considered it an attack on SEG.
It may not have been intended as one, but perception is reality.
I didn't personally take Jill's comments as a specific attack but it did raise an eyebrow. She's prone to being abrupt.
However, I guess there is a difference between how you'd write to a finite audience in a forum or your own newsletter compared to an article for a site like SEL. Is it possible she's not that familiar with the kind of advertising sold on SEG? Was she being lazy?
The part I agreed with is the idea that marketers need to continue appreciating tried and true web site marketing tactics that work.
I agree that Robert did a fine job of clarifying things in his response.
This Google glitch has sure made for some interesting reading.
I didn't view Jill's article as an attack at all. It was her perspective at that time, and Robert did a commendable job addressing points of concern and correcting possible incorrect information. There are folks like me who just know SEG has no "link farms" and yes, like Lee, I did raise an eyebrow or three at that :)
Robert, I loved this from you:
"Knowing we've done nothing wrong, why should we bow to Google's demands that we make changes that have no benefit to our visitors and are solely for the benefit of a search engine? On principles's sake, we shouldn't."
Thanks Kim. :-)
Watch this in case you really want to understand what happend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHeD3WymWa0
I promisse you: it's the best 1 min you could ever spend tonight!
I totally agree with Robert and suspect that those who are equally sure that Jill Whalen and Doug Heil are correct are viewing this from a strictly SEO link value perspective. In my humble opinion, links on a Web site are primarily for the benefit of the human visitors. Whether they are also good for SEO and PageRank or not are secondary considerations (at least for some of us).
I've known Jill a long time and I read her remark about SEG as a quick off the cuff comment, not a deliberate attack. I think it sounded more shocking than she meant it, probably because she was typing as a response to first impressions of SEG after not seeing it for so long and because (being so busy) she was probably in a hurry. So the comment itself didn't raise an eyebrow. BUT I was concerned about how the general webmaster community would interpret the comment. Being who she is and the industry reputation she's built up, Jill has incredible influence over a large number of webmasters and SEOs who absorb her material. No matter her intent, her remark definitely has the power to hurt SEG and their reputation. I think Jill should have considered this and worded her comments much more carefully. Robert, I thought your post was very restrained and logical. (Have you been borrowing Alan Perkin's bionic tact implant? heh heh). You should blog more often!
"How much PageRank value could a single link from that page really provide? I don't even pretend to be an expert on PageRank but it seems obvious to me there is very little, if any PageRank value."
You claim you don't know much about PageRank yet you assume that a link on a TBPR 7 page with 200-300 outbounds will pass very little PageRank value?
If you aren't an expert why are you jumping to conclusions about something you don't understand? As you plainly stated, you are not an SEO.
"she doesn't know a thing about traffic patterns on our site or what our audience looks at."
So how much traffic exactly leaves the site from those home page links? Jill obviously don't know. But do you?
BTW, one of your "sponsors" you link out to from your home page is linking from his blog sidebar to
usaonlinecasinos.org [USA ONLINE CASINOS]
adultinteractivechat.com [ADULT INTERACTIVE CHAT]
freecasinos.ws [FREE CASINOS]
So you are literally linking into the porn/casino neighborhood. Anyone who links to SEG is taking chances with joining that online ghetto.
I hate to triple post, but I asked John Scott, an advertiser on SEG, exactly how much traffic he was receiving from SEG on a monthly basis. His response:
" You can quote me on this, but do so in full, not taking anything out of context.
My traffic from SEG is less than 1,000 UV per month. It's pretty steady, except for this month. Slightly higher, but I haven't looked into why.
I do not however advertise there for the raw traffic. I advertise there, and have for over a year, because when I track my conversions, good ones are coming from SEG. That is, they are converting.
I first bought an ad placement for v7n Directory, but since the referrals were such high quality, I bought another ad package for my forums. Both are still on SEG and I have no plans to cancel."
I can also vouch for the good traffic and conversions from SEG. We too have ad sponsorship with them with strong conversion rates over time. I can assure you that the decision to advertise was all about value for money exposure and nothing to do with PageRank.
Halfdeck,
You have my word that I am in process of contacting Robert to check on that ad. Robert reviews every single advertiser that goes live on our site, but we obviously can't check back in on them on a daily basis. (To note, we actually turn down quite a few advertisers for being irrelevant or for having links like the ones you pointed out. Anyone who knows Robert and I personally knows he's not lying when he says that.)
If someone now has those text links running on their site, there's no way Robert would link to them. (Due to the adult links.) As soon as I get in touch with him, I'll have him stop by with an update.
Halfdeck,
I'm in the middle of getting the kids fed and ready for school so maybe you could throw me a bone and let me know which sponsor you are referring to? robert@searchengineguide.com
That way I can dump the advertiser and have everyone fed, dressed and off to school asap. :-)
Thanks,
Robert
I've been working my way through all our advertisers...haven't found it yet. As Robert said, if you could drop us an email with the name, we'll get it taken care of. Otherwise, it may have to wait until this afternoon since I'm chasing my two toddlers around this morning.
I've posted this as a comment under Robert's original post, but thought it would be approriate to post here as well, especially since white hat surpremecist Doug has ruined Robert's thread like he does with most of them.
So here we go...
First, it's important for everyone to know that I have already personally emailed Robert with an apology for appearing to attack his business model. As I stated in my article, we happen to be good friends, and have been for a good 6-7 years. I would hate to have something I said in an article come between our friendship, and my one big regret with the whole thing was using SEG as my example, when I could have chosen any of the other sites that had previously been mentioned in the other posts on this topic. Robert responded that there were no hard feelings at all and that he just felt it was necessary to clarify some points for the community.
So for anyone looking for an out and out mud-slinging brawl, it's not going to happen here!
With that out of the way, let me explain why I did choose SEG to use as my example even though they are friends. For one, I know that Robert has always appreciated my outspokenness on all SEO issues, and I had hoped he would take my article in the spirit to which it was intended...me reporting on why Google may have reduced the toolbar PageRank of SEG. Remember here folks, I'm not the one who reduced their toolbar PR. I was just trying to make sense out of it.
When I saw in the previous posts on this topic that SEG was a Google target, my first reaction was complete shock. I thought, "Huh? Why in the world would SEG's toolbar PR be reduced?" I've obviously known they've been selling ad space for years, but never thought of that as something Google was targeting. It was only when I visited their home page and saw all the text links at the bottom that I thought, "Ahh...okay...exactly the thing Google stated they were going to start targeting."
That's really all their was to it. No judgment on my part as to whether what happened was a good or bad thing, simply a reporting on why it probably was happening.
To comment on Robert saying that I was being lazy in not looking at their advertising packages, I have to whole-heartedly disagree with this. Why would I need to look at that? Why would it matter to me or to the point of the article what their ad packages were? The package they're selling was obviously of no interest to Google, as they are the ones who lowered the toolbar PR, not me!
All in all, I believe my article was a fair representation of what was happening and it was in no way meant as an attack on SEG or anyone else. The one thing I wrote that was wrong and that I would like to retract at this time was calling their paid text link ads at the bottom of the home page, a link farm. That was admittedly an overstatement, and done more as poetic license for maximum affect to the reader. But it was an inaccurate label as link farms by the definition I've always used for them are something completely different. (Link farms are a group of sites that get together to all link to each other.) Clearly this is not what SEG's links are, as all the sites that advertise do not all link to each other as far as I know.
Whether the SEG ad buyers' purchase their ads for PageRank or anchor text purposes (as well as for direct traffic purposes), who knows? I suspect many or most of them do, which is perfectly within their right! That doesn't make them idiots at all, as Robert seemed to try to suggest that I was saying. But let's be honest, text links such as those on the SEG home page can often provide a nice SEO benefit (which is why Google hates them). People buying them for that purpose is not surprising, nor is it dumb. It is simply good business sense. You do whatever works for you in this business, and that's fine.
My major point in the article was really to wonder out loud what those who do advertise for the anchor text/PR benefit would be doing in the future if/when that is taken away by Google. I wrote about buying text links back in Feb. '06 which may be worth another read now that it's all coming to a head.
I do hope that people will re-read the original article in light of Robert's comments, and see that my intent was certainly not to attack Robert, his business model or SEG. And to Robert (and Jennifer) I do sincerely apologize if it came across that way, and also for using the incorrect and inappropriate "link farm" phrase to describe your links.
For the record, I did immediately post a link to Jennifer's article on this topic with my original article as soon as I saw it.
I will also post a copy of this post/comment with my own article and point to Robert's post here for reference.
Thanks for listening!
"so maybe you could throw me a bone and let me know which sponsor you are referring to?"
Sure thing. Email sent.
Thanks Halfdeck, that advertiser is no longer an advertiser with Search Engine Guide. We do (sincerely) appreciate you pointing them out because as I said...while Robert screens EVERY advertiser, we can't always go back and check them on a daily basis to see what they add down the road.
As for Jill's post... I appreciate the apology. Jill's entitled to her opinion and it's no skin off my back if it differs from my own. That's why I made the editorial decision to run her article. I still disagree with her on many points, even from her most recent response above, but there's no sense going in circles.
I don't mind if she's wrong. ;) (Sorry Jill, couldn't resist.)
I like to add one last thing.
First, Robert, if you are not selling PageRank, there is absolutely no reason not to use nofollow on your ad links. If your advertisers don't care about link juice at all, they wouldn't mind the nofollow. I pay daily for Google AdWords. Why? I get no link juice out of AdWords, but I get a 1000% return on my investment. Every $1000 I spend turns into $10,000. So it doesn't bother me one bit that AdWord links flow no juice.
If you are selling PageRank as part of a package, then nofollow would make no sense. I sell links on my sites. I do not nofollow them. Why not? Because my buyers are paying for link juice. Using nofollow would be cheating them out of their money. So I have two choices - keep selling nofollow-free links or pull the links. Nofollowing them is not an option.
But you cannot insist that you don't sell PageRank on one hand and then refuse to use nofollow on the other. It just doesn't wash. I don't care about the fact that you don't use nofollow or the fact that you sell links. I do the same thing. It's business. But I do like to hear people thinking clearly about the issue instead of twisting reality out of convenience or personal interest.
Second, there's a benefit to being limited to SEO tunnel vision, in that its obvious to me that *some* "advertisements" (some, not all) pollute the web. As a marketer, you're focused on your business and serving your customers. That's a good thing. But you cannot remain blind to the fact that what you do regarding paid links can negatively impact not only your users or your business but the web as a whole.
Sure, you gotta cut down a few trees to make paper, and you gotta create a little pollution to build cars. But when you have everyone doing it, completely oblivious to the consequences, throwing rocks at the ones trying to do something about it (i.e. Google, whos getting the short end of the stick), then houston, we have a problem.
Is Google SERPs your problem? SEOs' answer to that is a resounding "no." Is Digg's user experience an SEO's problem? No. Is Wikipedia spamming our problem? No. Is someone using multiple accounts to spam the hell out of Sphinn our problem? No.
But then you become Wikipedia's problem. You become Digg's problem. You become Sphinn's problem. And you become Google's problem. At that point, you don't have a ground to stand on to say that Google is evil. They are trying to protect their own turf. They are trying to protect their community. And they are trying to protect their business model.
You would do exactly the same thing if SEG came under attack.
Jenn: "I don't mind if she's wrong. ;) (Sorry Jill, couldn't resist.)"
No problem! You and I are very much alike that way :)
Jill, that was a perfect response! LOL
Halfdeck, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can't speak for Robert and I can't say we'll never nofollow them.
But personally, it's more a matter of principle to me. The kid in the school ground can easily avoid getting beat up by handing over their lunch money. The dry cleaner in a Mob-controlled neighborhood can easily pay for "protection." Doesn't make it right or mean they SHOULD.
Search Engine Guide has spent nearly a decade fighting for small business owners. We aim to make sure they understand an industry that often gets confusing and that doesn't always see the bigger picture. My biggest issue with nofollow is the fact that small business owners are most likely to be hit by this because they are the LEAST likely to read Danny or Matt's blog and to KNOW about the entire nofollow issue.
Google doesn't bother to tell them that they have to take ACTIVE measures to avoid a penalty. This will be the first thing Google penalizes for that small business owners stumble into. You don't "accidently" cloak your site, include hidden text or seek out eleventy billions links...but a small business could EASILY sell legitimate ads on their site without knowing Google expects them to nofollow those ads.
THAT is my issue here. Part of me feels like I'd be a hypocrite if I felt so strongly about Google being wrong on this but went running to Robert to try and talk him into nofollowing every ad on our site.
It's not about losing advertisers. We've already heard from enough industry folks (Kalena, John Scott, David Wallace) who've confirmed they'd advertise with us even if we were PR0 t leave me confident. It's about standing up for what we think is right.
Halfdeck, thank you for sending the email with the sponsor in it! They are gone and gone. :-)
I'm going to take this a bit out of order...
If you are selling PageRank as part of a package...
This reminds me of those "buy a star" certificates where you send $15 and the company will send you a nice certificate with "your" star named after you.
Did they really sell you that star? No. They don't possess it, they can't deliver it, and you can't collect it. So all they are really selling you is a fun little story.
I don't possess PageRank. I can't deliver PageRank. And a buyer can't collect PageRank from me. And I've never even tried to sell the fun little story. Why, because I don't know how to sell stories. But, I am pretty good at selling advertising. With advertising, I can track traffic delivered and I can take customer feedback on conversions and work with them to continually improve our ability as a team to improve their results.
First, Robert, if you are not selling PageRank, there is absolutely no reason not to use nofollow
You may think it odd, but I totally understand your sentiment. But I think an equally valid viewpoint is, I'm not selling PageRank so why should I be considered guilty simply because I don't make changes to my site that have ZERO benefit to my users?
I understand your point of view, now do you better understand mine? I'm not asking you to agree with it, just hoping you'll better understand it and consider the fact that there are a lot of us out here who bristle a bit at being declared guilty of something we haven't done.
I've been selling graphic/text ad packages the same way since before Google existed. Was I selling PageRank back then? I think we'd both agree the answer is no. Am I selling PageRank now. I know with 100% certainly that I am not. Of course, you may speculate that I am and that is your prerogative.
Now, I left this until now because I believe my previous points needed to be made first. I can give you a concrete reason not to use nofollow when I'm not selling PageRank. I used to do everything in notepad so I have hundreds (a thousand?) hand coded pages that I would need to go back and change all the ads to fully comply with this. That will cost time and money. Yep, this is my problem and no one else's. But, now you know a reason why someone who isn't selling PageRank would not want to implement nofollow.
Aside from the points that I mentioned above there is a big issue that if addressed would probably be enough for me to be willing to go through the effort of putting in nofollow.
As far as I know, Google has not published on their site the information regarding their stance on nofollow and why and how we should implement it. If I am wrong and they have published this, please correct me. But by not officially publishing this on their site, Google is doing a disservice. The vast majority of small businesses out there who we serve, have no clue about this. I can't point them to a page on Google that explains their position and how to implement it.
I would have a lot more respect for Google if they would simply make this information officially available on their site instead of thinking people should just hear about it through the grapevine. Ignorance of the law is no excuse if you break the law. But never publishing the law for all to see is an abuse of power.
So, Halfdeck, always interesting to read your perspective and perhaps I've given you better insight into mine.
Google doesn't bother to tell them that they have to take ACTIVE measures to avoid a penalty. This will be the first thing Google penalizes for that small business owners stumble into. You don't "accidently" cloak your site, include hidden text or seek out eleventy billions links...but a small business could EASILY sell legitimate ads on their site without knowing Google expects them to nofollow those ads.
I couldn't agree more, and I think this is the greatest problem Google has in trying to do what they are trying to do.
You have to admit they've done a great job of getting the word out though. How much more brilliant can you get. Lower the TBPR of high profile sites who WILL BE SURE TO TALK ABOUT IT.
This can make them feel that perhaps even the little guy will hear that big bad Google says to put nofollow links on their pages!
I know it may sound contradictory to some, but I actually agree with both Robert and Jen's posts above. (I even agree with Halfdecks too!) I don't see why SEG should have to put nofollow links on their pages. To me, it's not up to them to do that.
And I also don't think that SEG was selling PR, although I do think that's what many were buying. Am I the only one that makes sense to?
The problem Jill is that even the sites who were penalized and will talk about it are only read by a small portion of the Internet.
My mother is incredibly internet savvy. I mean incredibly. She understands what I do for a living and can even tell you a little about social media. But she's and my dad asked me just last weekend "So, what do we tell people you DO for a living?" because anytime they've tried, people look at them blankly.
My dad works with dozens of vendors who are small business owners. Many of whom do business online. I can promise you, none of them read Matt Cutt's blog. (Though one or two now read mine, so they may find their way there.)
I suppose if the Washington Post, New York Times or Wall Street Journal write about what happened, the word might get out a bit more...but still... I go with what Robert said. To penalize those for not doing something you haven't even told them they should do? That's abuse of power.
I agree, Jen, I wasn't saying it was a good idea, just perhaps Google's thoughts about it! :)
So for anyone looking for an out and out mud-slinging brawl, it's not going to happen here!
I don't know, if Google drops the bomb on us I'm going to need something sensational to draw some traffic. :-P
Well email me, Robert, I'm sure we can work something out!
Had the flu all week and came up for air. What a slow week... :-)
Well, facing the carnage that is my own site(s) I am still in a daze. I read Jill's comments and was confused. She really should't have singled out SEG... for which she has apologized.
I am still thinking about this means, Jenn's comments regarding most website owners adding nofollow tag to their advertiser links are well made. Most website owners don;t know what page rank is. Working with clients it has been difficult to explain process to them- this just makes things more difficult and DOES penalize small business ownerwrting their own website. I am baffled by this move from Google.
If anything it devalues concept of page rank becausenow it REALLY doesn't matter.