Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.

Michael Gray shares his PPT presentation from San Jose
Comments6 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from steaprok 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

wow Viper, your quick! Good job Michael on the presentation. Power to the People!

Avatar
from qwerty 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I’ve read that the presentation itself was pretty passionately done, and that’s with Matt Cutts sitting right there. I’ve been on the fence about this for a while now. I’ve always felt that advertisements should be labeled as such, but I recognize that you don’t have to directly buy ad space with money for something to be an ad. And I absolutely disagree with Google that you should nofollow ads or put in a line of code to tell a spider that something’s an ad. If the on-page word "advertisement" isn’t enough for them, but it’s enough for a person, I can’t see myself doing something exclusively for the search engines to help them do something they ought to be able to do on their own.

Avatar
from mpilatow 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

qwerty, I have to agree with you. "Build your site for users, not search engines" has been something that Google has shouted for years. No-follow is a direct violation of that guideline.

Avatar
from Asia 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

qwerty - excellent point on the nofollow rules. My strongest reason for supporting Googles’ stance on paid links is: the laws on Payola for broadcast mediums. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with free speech on the web, but it’s not really free speech if you get paid for it, is it? .. you know that whole goose saying...

Avatar
from Halfdeck 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Michael gets brownie points for passion and knowing how to incite a crowd, but his arguments have barely a leg to stand on. He’s also being hypocritical by claiming commercial websites have a hard time getting natural links (which is true) after writing a blog post claiming any website in any niche can link bait. When webmaster’s greed is the central issue, emotional appeal is a powerful tactic. Money > (rational thinking^10) Professional SEOs are, I imagine, way beyond discussing ethics. Ethics is a non-issue. The truth of the matter is paid links that pass juice are manipulative (as with anything you do under the radar, like cheating on someone’s wife) but manipulating search results is what an SEO is paid to do in the first place. To Google, SEOs are spammers. So what? Google can do what it think is best for its users. SEOs will do what is best for their clients. Do paid links pollute search results? Many of them do. Big deal. Will Phillip Morris stop making cigarettes because people die of cancer? Nope. There’s big money in selling smokes. Will McDonalds stop making "royal with cheese" because oil-dripping burgers are a health hazard? Will Nascar drivers stop racing because their Chevies pollute the air? Will people stop butchering pigs to make bacon? If you’re here to make the world a better place, then maybe you’d better think twice about paid links. If you’re here to make money/run a business, then you’d be an idiot not to buy/sell links.

Avatar
from iamlost 3764 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I must say that Michael Gray illuminates the paid links FUD clearly now. Google is not a country, Google does not set laws or regulations. If your business or servers are within a country whose laws or regulations speak to paid links follow those rules. And do not expect the rest of the world to do as you do. Google is not a arbiter of values. Google may not set ethical behaviour outside it’s own organisation. Utilising a Google product or service does not include one within the Google organisation or subject to it’s ethos. Whether paid links need be identified and in what manner depends solely on each person’s beliefs. And do not expect the rest of the world to do as you do. Google is entitled to specify Terms of Service. Should Google wish to direct that paid links be identified in some arbitrary fashion that is their right. Domain owners, however, have no innate responsibility of adherence. It is solely Googles responsibility to police Google’s ToS. Of course Google also has the right of changing a domains SERP if found in violation. Just as we have the right to wholely or selectively block Google’s bots. Risk assessment is a part of business. (Silence is golden.) Contravening Google’s ToS is neither illegal nor unethical. Period. Nice presentation Mr. Gray. Thank you for making it available.

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.



Join us at an upcoming SMX event: