Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 33
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: January 1, 2008 - 3:39 am
Posted By: AndrewGirdwood 281 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://blog.arhg.net)
Category: Google SEO
11 Comments
Went Hot: January 1, 2008 - 3:39 am
Posted By: AndrewGirdwood 281 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://blog.arhg.net)
Category: Google SEO
11 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- Digg Graveyard (19)
- Google social profiling for online ... (18)
- 10 Epic Website Failures (15)
- StumbleUpon Without the Toolbar - w... (13)
- 16 Web Based Handy Web Designer Too... (12)
- Using Search To Mitigate/Reduce Bus... (10)
- Google Answers Your Local Questions (10)
- Social Media Metrics Greasemonkey P... (10)
- SEMpdx Presents The Aaron Wall SEO ... (9)
- How to Get Featured on the New York... (9)
Latest Comments
- @NickWilsdonmaybe you don't use Digg enough.…
- I like Jeffs use of the term channels in describing roi opportunities. In m…
- Sphunn for #10 Live Search haha. That gave me a good laugh. It's sad to see…
- That's great Pam! I love the look on Neil's face just don't know who that…
- Great advice for a beginner blogger, thanks for he post!…
- well done piece, glad to hear stumble is getting rid of the toolbar! SO MAN…
- This cracked me up. I'll give some pimpage in my next TWIP Bulletin.…
- I thought at first it may be just 10 quick tips but Bill went into detail a…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX East (New York City) - Oct.
6-8: See the agenda or register today and save!
• SMX London - Nov. 4-5: Pre-agenda rate now available. Click here.
• SMX West - Feb. 10-12
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Upcoming Webcasts:
- 5 Ghastly PPC Mistakes to Avoid
October 14, 2008 - SEM Agencies and Reporting: Best Practices for Success
October 23, 2008 - Measuring an Ad's Value: A Forum Discussion
October 28, 2008
Comments
Agreed - if you are against paid posting, then why should any links pass on juice? If someone is worth linking to, you would have done that in a normal post.
Matt didn't exactly say that. OK. He was diplomatic. Yes, he was.
But he's the guy whose suggestions can become official Google policy any time; whose non-official blog can turn into official reference (eg. for the Webmaster Tools blog) at a whim.
He's the guy whose every word is nervously analyzed by SEOs in the same way every fart from any Soviet/Russian leader was/is nervously analyzed and explained by Kremlinologists.
"History" has shown that anything he even remotely alludes to has the potential to become Google law.
So Andrew, you and anybody may play with words as much as you like, but who are you fooling here other than yourselves?
There is a case of mis-quoting, indeed. But both Ted Murphy and Andy Beard understood the underlying threat made by Matt Cutts perfectly well. No misunderstanding here.
So you really think Google is going to penalise any commercial webpage that contains links? Every retail site, any page that talks about a TV ad or any page that talks about a celebrity?
You think that's what Matt Cutts was threatening? I don't. I don't at all - but that's the implication of some of these blog posts. Sounds like there's no clarity of understanding to me.
I'm just saying Matt Cutts' refutation didn't refute what those guys said.
It's more like covering his ass, tuning down an unnecessarily open threat, but leaving it there for anyone who is willing to read between the lines.
Diplomacy (or FUD, whatever) at the highest level. Too bad this isn't (and shouldn't be) his job.
Just read these two excerpts, and tell me with a straight face you can absolutely not see the thinly veiled threat in them:
"I believe that I said that adding nofollow to all links in paid posts would certainly be safe."
"I support your right to do whatever you want in your paid posts and on your site. But in turn, Google reserves the right to protect the quality and relevance of search results."
(There is a reason this final "disclaimer" was added by him.)
Oh. I think there's a threat. I think Google are now crystal clear - buy or sell links and you're in trouble. It's in the guidelines.
I don't think it is accurate to try say that Google's gunning for all sorts of links. Look at the comment I got on my blog post;
"I guess everyone who ever wrote about reeses pieces in the movie ET should no follow all links within their pages since it was a paid product placement which is no different than a sponsored post. Or the Junior Mints in the classic episode of Seinfeld. Or every car that James Bond has driven or watch that he's worn, too, since they were all comercially motivated"
That's not right, is it? That's not what Google/Matt is saying. That's the correction.
Are we talking about Michael Gray's exaggerations now? It is certainly easier to ridicule the ridiculous, isn't it?
Phrasing something in a diplomatic way might take away the edge but it doesn't take away the "meat".
You don't have to be blunt to get your message through, and Matt Cutts knows this well. It's more than enough to place a seemingly innocuous remark in a strategically important part of your post; to make a pointed remark with an innocent face.
Yes, that's what Matt Cutts does. He's showing a talent for being Machiavellistic.
It might be well worth looking at Teds response to Matts response
I certainly don't think it is a misquote. What Ted wrote was his interpretation of what Matt was telling him over a number of communications.
There have been a number of times in the past that Matt and other Google employees have used the phrase "May look on it as a signal" or "We reserve the right to" in regard to paid links.
The eventual punishment had no "may look on it" about it - pubishments were handed out irrespective of relevance, percentage of reviews turned down, quality of the content, etc
If I meet the same criteria as Yahoo, I would be punished, Yahoo wouldn't.
Maybe Google should introduce a policy that if a website has been included in the Yahoo directory, you are allowed to write paid reviews of the site.
That would level the playing field a little, and actually give some real value for handing over $300
Whilst Matt attacks brain tumour reviews, this is the kind of review I have been submitting to Google as webspam asking for feedback.
http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/wordpress-seo-masterclass-for-competitive-niches.html
6 months after I first reported myself as webspam asking for feedback, the first I hear from Google is a -1 or -2 penalty.
Michael has written the odd highly relevant review as well, is his site in the "we know about you but don't want to make ourselves look too stupid" category, as were probably Techcrunch.
Then there is the thanking sponsors thing.
Google bought sponsorship from Leweb3 and other conferences without nofollow. Maybe that is in Googles "easy to detect" category that Matt is suggesting is immune.
Does that mean if I use a 125x125 in my content, and that is the only link, that I am no longer selling links?
I am sure Loic has probably thanked the sponsors or mentioned Google on the LeWeb3 blog, does that mean Google knowingly purchased webspam?
I strongly disagree that everything is crystal clear, though am happy that some aspects are beginning to shape up.
It looks like Techcrunch might be able to just include 125x125 ads in their content while thanking sponsors, and everything will be ok again... or will it?
Speaking of Matt Cutts and webmaster communication, if anyone can get through to him, I'd still like an answer to the conversation he started here: http://sphinn.com/story/19758
He's offline for this week I believe. Something like that.
The only thing that is crystal clear to me after the whole "did-say-didn't-say-did-refute-didn't-refute" saga is that Google has no better way to efficiently discover paid links than scaring people into reporting them. That is my take home message from this soap opera...