Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 52
- Sphinn It!
They Came First For Andy Beard... Then They Came For Dazzlin Donna.. And We Didn't Speak Up!
Went Hot: February 1, 2008 - 12:59 pm
Posted By: Harith 522 days ago
Topic Type: Discussion
Category: Google
Please don’t get me wrong. As I mentioned in a previous post (http://sphinn.com/story/25493), I’m not a fan of selling paid links aiming at manipulating Google PageRank. But I do expect fairness and level playing fields from Google’s side.
Unfortunately, Google hasn’t been clear at all about the specifications of “Trusted Directory & Trusted Industry-Specific Expert Site”. The only thing Google came up with in this connection was worshiping Yahoo in addition to few hints :
- No guaranteed listing for all submitted URLs
- High quality listed URLs (relevant, objective, not spamming)
- Fees to cover mostly efforts of editors doing the reviews
We as publishers must insist on asking Google to allow for fair competition and accordingly to post on its site the exact specifications of what Google considers a “Trusted Directory & Trusted Industry- Specific Expert Site”. Otherwise, we would be left with very few “Trusted” options to monetize our sites.
Fellow publisher! Please speak up.
22 Comments
Comments
Good Post Harith
Someone share this link with Matt Cutts
Matt Cutts knows everything happening here. Right Matt :)
How many backlinks have Andy and Donna received due to the attention paid to their cause?
Thanks all for the Sphinns. Very generous of you.
There is no doubt in my mind that the relation between Google/Googlers and us publishers are much poisoned by such harsh and unjustified arrogant attitude from Google's side.
We as publishers have within hand few options to press Google to allow for fair competition. For example, we can stop inviting Google and Googlers to our SEO/SEM conferences.
Google has made it utterly clear for years that it does not like links being bought and sold - so link building has had to try and stay under the radar.
I agree with iBrian, we know that we're breaking the rules by buying/selling links and shouldn't be surprised when Google calls us out. It's not going to stop many of us from continuing to break the rules, we all just have to be a little more careful and use our knowledge to bounce back.
PS. I prefer your pre-edit comment Brian ;o)
I posted in anger, and didn't want to come across as personal. :)
iBrian and evilgreenmonkey,
I have no objection about Google penalizing paid links intended to manipolate PageRank.
The main issue here is Google allowing what it calls "Trusted Directory and Trusted Industry- Specific Expert Site" to list PAID DoFollow links, while penalizing publishers of Pay Per Review sites for doing the same.
Neither Google nor Matt Cutts have specified whats the requirements a site must meet to be considered "Trusted Directory and Trusted Industry- Specific Expert Site". Such clear specified requirements are essential for publishers who wish to adjust their current Pay Per Review sites to be "Trusted" by Google.
Now, iBrian and evilgreenmonkey!
Would'nt you consider such attitude from Google and Matt Cutts sides a killer of fair competition and level playing fields?
I'd say that it is a level playing field, Google just hasn't told us what the field looks like!
One thing that you have to consider is that Google loves automation and hates human reliance. Trust is just another part of the algorithm, not a personal "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" by Matt or any other member of the Search Quality (or whatever they call it these days) team. Sure - they can flag sites for manual review and users can do the same in Webmaster Central, although most of these decisions are decided by a load of 1's and 0's.
And if Google did tell me what requirements are needed to be considered a "Trusted Directory" or "Specific Expert Site", I'd be getting a team in India to churn them out at 50 a day!
evilgreenmonkey
"I'd say that it is a level playing field, Google just hasn't told us what the field looks like!"
Well said!
So we agree that what Google telling publishers is:
Dear Publisher,
We hereby penalize you because we find your site in breach of our unspecified guidlines regarding paid DoFollow URLs listings of directories- and industry-specific expert sites.
evilgreenmonkey,
I really don't know where you live. But I live in a democratic country where people don't get penalized for not following unspecified laws or unspecified regulations.
I'm sorry, but there's no comparison between a personal blog and a $44 billion company.
Publishers can sell links if they want - but if they are doing it way over the radar, and they have any kind of SEO background, then they absolutely have to aware of, and accept, the consequences of their decisions.
This is not about democracy - this is about business. And Google have been very clear about what sort of practices they consider quite unacceptable for years.
I really think there is no argument here - you choose the business model you want to work by, and if you want to openly stick it to Google while doing so, you take responsibility for the outcome.
2c.
iBrian,
"And Google have been very clear about what sort of practices they consider quite unacceptable for years."
Would you be kind to mention where has Google posted:
- ALL Pay Per Review sites listing DoFollow URLs is quite unacceptable practice
- ALL Industry-specific expert sites listing DoFollow URLs is quite unacceptable practice
If its not the case. Then we need Google to tell us which kind of Pay Per Review sites and which kind of Industry-specific expert sites are acceptable.
"ALL Pay Per Review sites listing DoFollow URLs is quite unacceptable practice"
What makes paid reviewers so special?
I just wrote a paid review - it cost me 3 hours to write and I got paid $50 bucks. If that's the kind of money I wanted to make I'd be waiting tables at a restaurant.
Earth to all paid reviewers: get off the damn web.
Go back and read through Donna's comments. She didn't get her TBPR back because she still had paid links on her site. If Matt Cutts didn't respond, she probably would have never gotten her TBPR back.
The problem with being vindictive and accusatory is that when you trap yourself in a "blame everything on Google" mindset you overlook problems on your side of the fense, thinking you're not doing anything wrong. Often, the problem isn't with Google; its with the site owner. If you spend time on GGWH you will encounter that kind of mindset over and over again.
Halfdeck
"If Matt Cutts didn't respond, she probably would have never gotten her TBPR back."
That part, I might write a separate post about:
Google "Hurt and Rescue" Persuasion Method!
Google WebSpam Team HURT Dazzlin Donna. Matt Cutts do the RESCUE Job ;-)
"Google WebSpam Team HURT Dazzlin Donna."
No Harith, she hurt herself - if you call losing a meaningless pixel or two "hurting." She knew what she was getting into. She took the risk and paid the price. She has the right to sell links and Google has the right to do whatever it wants with the little green pixels.
It's like listening to a bunch of kids getting pissed because I grounded them for breaking my rules. How not to get grounded: 1) grow up and move out of my house 2) follow my rules 3) or don't let me catch you breaking my rules 4) if you keep whining, no soup for you.
My friend, Halfdeck!
Please wake up. Can't you see whats happening?
You mentioned "2) follow my rules". Well thats exactly what I'm asking about in this particular thread.
Almighty Google! Please tell us the rules for being a "Trusted Directory and Trusted Industry-Specific Expert Site".. Amen!
"Please wake up. Can't you see whats happening?"
Harith, have you ever bought paid links? Do you have any experience selling paid links on your site? Have you ever written a paid review?
I don't think so.
"Well thats exactly what I'm asking about in this particular thread."
Harith, most webmasters don't write paid reviews. Most people don't sell porn either. Does Google need to write a special page just for porn peddlers? Or maybe Google should put up instructions on "how to spam Google property so that your black hat stuff won't negatively impact your white hat business."
Come on man. This is not rocket science. If you need Google to draw you a map, you have no business writing paid reviews. Don't wanna worry about this stuff? Don't write paid reviews. Wanna write paid reviews to earn pizza and beer money? Don't worry about Google.
In Donna's case, there wasn't anything to clarify. She simply overlooked a few paid links on her site. There was no question whether or not those links are or aren't "paid." The only problem is she has alot of pages, links on all of them, and sometimes weeding out bad links isn't easy. At the end of the day, she didn't need any more clarification from Google, except maybe a notice letting her know she missed a few.
But like Matt said, even sending a notification like that can open a can of worms.
Halfdeck,
"Harith, most webmasters don't write paid reviews."
But does that mean we shouldn't ask Google for fair treatment of those fellow publishers who wish to write paid reviews?
And how about Paid for listing directories?
And how about Industry-specific expert sites?
Are you telling us no publisher should be able to monitize such sites either?
Matt Cutts: "I liked the point about opening up more communication with webmasters."
Well?
Edit: Matt's finally answered that (a month+ later). Perhaps we can hope to see him here in a shorter time span?
Another sad side of this story is to see how Google Webmaster Guidelines misleading publishers regarding this particulat item:
- Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
Because without explaining exactly and clear what Google considers TRUSTED directories and TRUSTED industry-specific expert sites, Google and Matt Cutts are leaving publishers who follow above item, in good faith, in a very risky situation. Those publishers might get penalized for purchasing listings in UNTRUSTED directories and UNTRUSTED industry-specific expert sites.
Talking about "Don't be evil" !
"Are you telling us no publisher should be able to monitize such sites either?"
What I do with my sites is my business. What Google does with its site is their business. Webmasters have every right to whine about unfair treatment. My job as an SEO is to climb over walls that Google puts up - not sit and whine that there are walls Google put up I don't know how to climb.
You need Google to spell everything out for you. So does millions of other people. Get in the back of the line.