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.

Matt is at it again asking web folks to step up and help Google where they can’t do it themselves. Nice volley of words between Michael Martinez and Matt Cutts too. ;)
Comments13 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from System0 2375 Days ago #
Votes: 0

As you mentioned, interesting comments from Michael Martinez. Some good points raised about how webmasters could abuse this system by buying spammy links for competitiors and then reporting them. Not sure how google would cope with this kind of thing if it became common.

Avatar
from BrianChappell 2373 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@System0 its already happened and will contiue to happen IMO.

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2373 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@system0Rand wrote about one technique for this recently. You buy the link and point it to a competitor. If their rankings drop you keep the link running anyway but if nothing happens you transfer the link target to your own site (win/win situation).http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-quizzical-duality-of-paid-links

Avatar
from RightStart 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Perhaps this is a "newbie" question, but are 3 way linking networks (the quality, well-monitored ones) considered "paid" links?

Avatar Moderator
from hugoguzman 2372 Days ago #
Votes: -1

The only problem with Rand’s technique is that the paid link could get reported after the fact (really at any point) and become negative.I guess the best way to apply this technique would be as follows:1) By the link(s)2) Point them at competitor3) Report paid link to Google4) Wait until Matt Cutts submits a blog post asserting that they’re all caught up on paid link reports5) If the link lowers the competitor’s ranking, keep it going6) If the link does not lower the competitor’s ranking, transfer it to your own siteBack in the day (2003/2004) I very publicly held fast to the belief that Google would never resort to penalizing alleged link buyers for this very reason.Sadly, I’ve been proven wrong.

Avatar
from iBrian 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I think what people are missing in the "negative ranking" method is that IMO Google are more likely to simply kill the link love of the page/domain with the paid link(s).So building links to competitors IMO means less likelihood of damaging competitors as much as publisher opportunities.It’s kind of like running through a desert, pouring suspected poison into every well, just in case you’re being chased. If you’re not being chased, you just killed your ability to work in that area.2c.

Avatar
from stymiee 2372 Days ago #
Votes: -2

Brain got it right. You can’t hurt your competitors by purchasing links to their site. If that was the case sabotaging your competitors would be too easy. That’s a no-brainer. General rule of thumb: if you can harm your competitor with it, it doesn’t work. They can only hurt themselves.Also, anyone who is against Google taking action against violators of their TOS is arrogant and gets what they deserve. Don’t like Google’s rules? No problem. You don’t have to be in their index. Want potentially millions of free visitors? Play by their rules. That’s fair.

Avatar Moderator
from graywolf 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@stymiee that work because right now you are playing by their rules. What happens when they change rules and you are on the other side ... wonder how you will feel about google absolute power with a lack of restraint then ...history has proven absolute power corrupts absolutely ...

Avatar
from stymiee 2372 Days ago #
Votes: -2

@graywolf. Of course it is their rules. It’s their site. Don’t like their rules? Don’t be in their index. It’s that simple.

Avatar
from mvandemar 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 2

@Brian - you are talking about what would "make sense" to you, and what "you would do if you were Google", not what Google actually does. Your "more likely" scenario is simply a guess, and happens to be wrong.Look at what G did to money.co.uk. Did they simply "kill the link love" of all the links generated from the link bait that went viral? No. They smacked their happy asses down in the serps, and they smacked em down hard. It’s a repeated pattern that we’ve seen over and over again. I have no clue why people keep insisting on repeating the same thing about what Google will "probably" do when we can clearly see otherwise.

Avatar
from shishasem 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 1

The only paid links google want you to buy are on adwords...

Avatar Moderator
from hugoguzman 2372 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Sadly, I used to agree with Brian and Stymiee’s point of view, but there is enough evidence out there to prove that they are doing more than simply "killing the link love" of a purchased link.Therefore, they are opening the door for reverse SEO. And that really sucks in my opinion.

Avatar
from iBrian 2370 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@myandemar, I am talking about what I see Google do - it’s well documented across the SEO world.What you’re talking about is an extreme example, and to boot, had nothing to do with paid links, let alone actions by a competitor.

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: