Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 47
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: November 16, 2007 - 10:58 am
Posted By: AndyBeard 288 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://community.izea.com)
Category: Google SEO
"We now know from some of our friends inside of Google (thanks "bob") that they are now looking for phrases such as PPP, PayPerPost,ReviewMe, Payu2blog, etc. in the text of your post. For that reason I would suggest refraining from using any type of this text in the body of your posts, sponsored or not. When you disclose thank the sponsor, not PPP."
24 Comments
Comments
Andy I read an authoritative article to this affect abit while ago, that search engines are using minus text atributes to filter out Spam.
So aplying the same principle to GPR would make sense.
So text ad links, sponsors, and other negative kewyword should be avoided, because they become red flags to Google PR Algorithm.
I know of at least one non-blog, non-pay-per-post site that just got zero'd. It ain't that.
There is a correction of some kind happening, and it seems to be affecting a fairly large swathe of PPP bloggers who were preveiously affected.
Which direction PageRank for those concerned ends up going remains to be seen, but the current trend for these bloggers has been negative.
I would assume whatever information they received directly was mainly to do with previous penalties and not this zeroing out, though the zeros were what broke the camel's back.
PPP do monitor PageRank across their 85,000 bloggers
"they are now looking for phrases such as PPP, PayPerPost,ReviewMe, Payu2blog, etc. in the text of your post."
That is such an inane hack. It's something I'd do if I was coding in a hurry and didn't have the patience to find the real solution to a problem.
I think like Andy said the zeroing in is not the final factor for penalization, but one of the factors in the whole PR algorithm equation.
Halfdeck, if you were only looking for 1000 "squeelers" per week, you wouldn't need any algorithm to find 1000 sites writing paid reviews, there is a directory full of them.
If they are having to manually check sites, finding them algorithmically with complex link analysis is certainly possible, but that can then be cross-matched with lingual clues, and then a manual instpection.
With paid links the same is true if the aim is a deterrant, and they don't need to hit everyone at one time.
Unfortunatly a few inocent souls get executed in the process.
Google calls it acceptable coleteral damage...
They even have Dr. Matt Cutts show us with diagrams where the missiles are..:)
I agree with Halfdeck, seems an inane and incredibly untargetted penalty if true. What if you are just talking about one of these services in the blog post, not even using the services.
Still that exact case was mentioned in the article:
"One of our programmers actually had his blog de-ranked last night because he mentions PPP often as an employee. He has never taken a sponsored post, nor does he sell sponsored links. He is simply blogging about his day to day experience here. I find this outrageous."
@Donna - did this blog mention any of these terms?
"Halfdeck, if you were only looking for 1000 "squeelers" per week, you wouldn't need any algorithm to find 1000 sites writing paid reviews, there is a directory full of them."
Andy, Google isn't just looking for 1000 squeelers - they're looking for every single one of them. And they want to do it automatically with no human monitoring, no human intervention.
A hack is something that gets the job done quickly but has a short lifespan. For instance, if people stopped mentioning PayPerPost, this hack stops working. If people password-protect directories of paid reviewers or like TLA prevent the link seller's URL from displaying until you pay for a link, hacks like this doesn't work.
Google thinks like a hardcore spammer. It wants to automate everything it does. It wants to be fully scalable. This hack requires too much human intervention and doesn't scale.
"if the aim is a deterrant, and they don't need to hit everyone at one time."
TBPR penalty is meant to be a deterrant, I agree, but the reason Google doesn't hit everyone at the same time is because their spam-detection has always been full of holes.
@nick. 1. It's not a blog. 2. It did not mention anything even remotely like those terms. Think of an old fashioned web 1.0 static static info site. Been around for years. Doesn't review anything.
Donna, PageRank passing affiliate links?
I don't think every site that was whited out is due to a penalty, for many it is just a reevaluation of the total.
This might also be based on other sites and their ability to pass PageRank
The text flag should have been obvious from the start, and a reason why I would request sitewide disclosure rather than a "paid/sponsored post" on the page - but even still I often ended up with clear sponsored disclaimers on the paid posts on low-end blogs, which is pretty much why I stopped using the service.
If you're buying links you should be pretty clued in that there are clear flags to devaluing such links, and that rather than complain about it to Google, you accept that risk. As for bloggers whoring themselves to anyone who pays and then complaining about it - really, this needs filing under "naive" at best.
Brian this is exactly what I was on about in my Pied Piper post, which didn't actually get much attential on Sphinn, maybe because it was negative about how SEOs look on paid blogging services
http://andybeard.eu/2007/11/pied-piper-payperpost.html
Just because SEOs abuse paid blogging purely for PageRank, doesn't mean that was what the service was intended for.
I wonder how many Google employees blogged about the $200 PC with gOS - probably as many as Microsoft employees blogging about the launch of Vista
A company like HP or Ford doesn't have 300+ active bloggers in the cars niche, so they have very little influence in the blogosphere to create some buzz.
PPP or Izea are a marketing company, and SEOs only represent a fraction of their business going forward.
As I know blogs that both you and Matt Cutts probably read fairly frequently that have written paid posts with a clear disclosure, that have not been given a penalty because it would make them look stupid, I can't see how this is anything but editorial decisions.
"Just because SEOs abuse paid blogging purely for PageRank, doesn't mean that was what the service was intended for."
PayPerPost advertised "selling of PageRank" from the get go, according to an archive of its home page cached ~July 18,2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060715095519/payperpost.com/
"PayPerPost is an automated system that allows you to promote your Web site, product, service or company through the PayPerPost network of bloggers. Advertise on blogs to create buzz, build traffic, gain link backs for search engine ranking, syndicate content and much more."
"PPP or Izea are a marketing company, and SEOs only represent a fraction of their business going forward."
Well, we'll see about that now that Google's got them by the berries. Personally I doubt that very much. Likely they have a few high profile customers with nothing better to do than spend their money on 'buzz', but I bet the core of their business are folks looking for SEO benefits.
Of course, it'll be spun that this has no impact on their business - but I think this is could be the coup d'etat for PPP.
Its for this reason i held off on my PAY PER JOKE negative review of them. I am still going to do it and demand my $20 because they make the opp avail before approving your blog... and then they can STILL reject your blog after you give them the juice and publicity.
PAY PER JOKE is what you should call them when you write your next review... word will get around and Googles just a bunch of retards anyways. Who can honestly say "Do No Evil" and have their head screwed on straight. It should read, "Do your best to do no evil." or "Doing our best to do no evil." but "Do no evil" is inhuman.
Andy, "I wonder how many Google employees blogged about the $200 PC with gOS - probably as many as Microsoft employees blogging about the launch of Vista"
Time to give Matt Cutts blog a Google PR penalty, for violating GQG...stop being a hypocrite...Matt...he must thing we are all stupid and dumb...:)
Google use your Adsense, to promote your new product launch...you are no longer niche market player but a fat ugly overweight Gorila!
Halfdeck, that is a very strong point, I hadn't gone that far back
Here is October 2006
PayPerPost™ is an automated system that allows you to promote your web site, product, service, or company through the PayPerPost network of bloggers.
Advertise" rel="nofollow">Advertise" rel="nofollow">http://payperpost.com/page/advertiser">Advertise on Blogs
Get paid for blogging. Write about web sites, products, services, and companies and earn cash for providing your opinion and valuable feedback to advertisers.
Get" rel="nofollow">Get" rel="nofollow">http://payperpost.com/page/blogger">Get Paid for Blogging
Gain additional exposure for your site content by leveraging our network of thousands of bloggers. Share your story through our API and generate interest in your content.
Other than having PageRank in their metrics still at that time, along with Alexa and the soon to be dropped Technorati, the system is not really being aimed at SEO.
I still think that when the system was conceived, the intention wasn't to create a way to game search engine rankings. Even the word order in your example suggests that that was an ancilliary benefit they added, though sceptics would argue that that was the primary purpose, they only added it at the last minute to mask intent.
I am fairly sure they don't have anyone on their team who has any extensive SEO knowledge. Their whole blog is currently being duplicated on 2 domains with no redirect in sight.
Wheel - do you really think they have got PPP by the berries? Do you really think PPP links are less legitimate than the Yahoo directory or a Google employee blogging about Google products without disclosure within the post?
Just because a company is a monopoly doesn't mean they should dictate the rules in such gungho fashion.
Sam - they can be attacked on many fronts but ultimately a whole bunch of bloggers have made a lot more money with them than they would have with Adsense.
I know there are better way to do things with automation, or for the small percentage who have a blog that really takes off, but in general for the little guy, PPP isn't such a bad option.
Maybe we should get Fantomaster to teach all the posties how to create blackhat sites, and use Izea's $7M+ in the bank to fud the development of some great software. That would really turn the internet upside down.
I am sure there is a middle ground that will make Google a little more comfortable, and I think they should have taken that route before waving a stick around blindly.
Andy, I have not used PPP so cannot comment on it, but I had atomated posts blasted to my forum, before I started using a PHSDL filter and made some security prevention, and it is Spam because it is blasted to many other forums at the same time.
I have nothing against paid per post, as long as it is posted to one place per post not blasted everywhere. I think blogger should be able to earn money from writing on subjects they are versed on.
Now, examining PPP with comparasing to Adsense, text vs text both are legitimate, but if the content is being duplicated, it should not be indexed in Google primary index.
So devising a system that will allow bloggers to post a recoomendation, cretique, analysis of a product is good and will help the blogging industry if it is not Spammed and duplicated across multiple blogs.
Like I said, I do not know how PPP system works!
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe PPP is evil. I also don't believe all paid reviews lack merit. I just don't agree with some of the statements being made here.
"Other than having PageRank in their metrics still at that time, along with Alexa and the soon to be dropped Technorati, the system is not really being aimed at SEO."
I would argue that by October, PPP knew full transparency would hurt their business. Since the word was already out, PPP put its money on people being able to connect the dots without being told explicitly about the potential benefits of using PPP.
If PPP didn't believe in selling PageRank, it would have no problem whatsoever with nofollow. What would a reviewer lose by using nofollow? Absolutely nothing. The buyer still gets eyeballs and conversions.
You might say nofollow links look less trustworthy if people surf with Search Status on, but after seeing alot of pink plastered all over their screens, I think some people turn it off. For a Joe Shmoe surfer, what would be the benefit of seeing nofollow links highlighted? I don't see the point.
I also don't think the majority of web surfers know about Search Status. And even if all web surfers used search status, most would not know enough about nofollow to interpret a pink link as a sign of mistrust.
You might ask "Why should we waste our time doing what's supposed to be Google's job? Why is Google telling us what to do?" No one said you have to use nofollow.
Of course, though reviewers wouldn't lose anything by using nofollow, PPP would lose. If the "search engine benefit" part of its package is disabled, less people would buy, which means less money for PPP.
According to this thread, posted days ago, using nofollow on paid review links is still a violation of TOS:
http://boards.payperpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=114000&sid=a1e2878e62a0cb87c0ebce5ec9a4e2c2
"I still think that when the system was conceived, the intention wasn't to create a way to game search engine rankings."
My personal interpretation is that by the time PPP launched, search engine manipulation services like TLA were losing their steam. Sidebar links sold by those brokers are too easy to detect. Link buyers ached for a contextual version of TLA. PPP stepped in to fill that demand.
BTW, ReviewME, a similar service, is still using "potential natural search benefit" as one of its selling points.
The simple form of all these services is you spend time research and then writing about a company.
There is not necessarily a linking requirement, though the rules vary, and even with specific services there are a lot of variations about what is required.
In the case of PPP Direct there is the possibility of direct negotiation with an Advertiser, thus whilst they might use the contact form provided and specify specific linking, that is in my mind just the same as an initial enquiry form, to guage intent.
One interesting aspect is that even without specific requirements for linking or anchor text, if you are reviewing a site quite often specific pages stand out that they are trying to make prominent, and very often those are obvious what terms they are trying to rank for, and contain some of the most interesting content.
So those pages might be ones you link to, and if you are inclined to give good anchor text on every link, as I am, even without asking you might link to a page with the anchor text they might have requested if you gave them that option.
I must admit personally I shy away from the PPP Marketplace, in much the same way I don't personally sell text links.
I can see the reasoning for an advertiser who orders large numbers of adverts to have some control over pages they want highlighted, and anchor text as they specify for CTR, but at the same time it is hard to claim they are fully editorial, even if you choose who to link to.
ReviewMe the reviews often come through without any specific linking requests whatsoever, which might be why a number of prominent sites that write reviews only through ReviewMe have remained untouched.
But then John Chow only writes paid reviews through ReviewMe as well....
I looked at ReviewMe sample and looks nice and clean, but why use"Sponsored Post:"
Why not have wrtitten in your blog desclaimer that some of the posts are paid by sponsors?
Using "Sponsored Post:" in front of the post just gives amunition for Google to go after the blog....
We know how Google is bent with hypocracy!!! Maybe legaly ReviewMe is required to do it this way?
This why when I do SEO work for my clients, I will go to blogs and forums where I have authority and make a recommendation about my client's products.
I am puting my brand - my name on the line - and it is a fine line that I am walking - which I cannot abuse - so have to do with respect and moderation - but the work has heart!
Also if I do a slopy job the customer's brand will be devaliated!
If I am going to work with a customer I want exclussivety so the product barnd does not get Spammed all over the place. I would even do a post review on my blog or forum, but will not put "Sponsored Post:" to be a red flag for eye balls or Google. Will put into my forum or blog as desclaimer, and I never do this to get Google PR for the links.
I do not care how many links come into my Websites or my Clients Websites.
Maybe I am just an Expenssive Escort Service not a Cheap Whore...:)
But honestly I do not comment, review, or build Websites, or develop software for Google but for users.
Yesterday Google was hot, today it is worm, tomorrow it will be dead cold.
I do not want to rely on Google, Adsense, or whatever...
When I link to resources, I do not think follow or not follow, I do not think this link is for my customet and this link for a relevent resource.
I build, and I chose the best material that is out there, if it happens to be my customer good for them, but many times it will be a competator link..:)
My customer does not like it, tough shit, let them hire a new Call Girl..I have entegrity..::)