Published: Aug 23, 2007 - 02:28 pm
Story Found By: ViperChill 1739 Days ago
Category: Link Building
6 Comments
6 Comments
Search 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:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
wow Viper, your quick! Good job Michael on the presentation. Power to the People!
Ive read that the presentation itself was pretty passionately done, and thats with Matt Cutts sitting right there. Ive been on the fence about this for a while now. Ive always felt that advertisements should be labeled as such, but I recognize that you dont 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 somethings an ad. If the on-page word "advertisement" isnt enough for them, but its enough for a person, I cant see myself doing something exclusively for the search engines to help them do something they ought to be able to do on their own.
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.
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. Dont get me wrong, I agree with free speech on the web, but its not really free speech if you get paid for it, is it? .. you know that whole goose saying...
Michael gets brownie points for passion and knowing how to incite a crowd, but his arguments have barely a leg to stand on. Hes 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 webmasters 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 someones 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. Theres 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 youre here to make the world a better place, then maybe youd better think twice about paid links. If youre here to make money/run a business, then youd be an idiot not to buy/sell links.
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 its own organisation. Utilising a Google product or service does not include one within the Google organisation or subject to its ethos. Whether paid links need be identified and in what manner depends solely on each persons 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 Googles 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 Googles bots. Risk assessment is a part of business. (Silence is golden.) Contravening Googles ToS is neither illegal nor unethical. Period. Nice presentation Mr. Gray. Thank you for making it available.