Sphinn Home » Google SEO
Avatar Went Hot: June 20, 2008 - 1:59 am
Posted By: northrock 80 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.mattcutts.com)
Category: Google SEO
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. ;)
13 Comments     

Comments

from System0 80 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

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.

from BrianChappell 78 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

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

from NickWilsdon 78 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

@system0

Rand 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

from RightStart 78 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

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

from hugoguzman 78 days ago # - show/hide this comment
Votes: -1 | Vote:
+ -

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 competitor
3) Report paid link to Google
4) Wait until Matt Cutts submits a blog post asserting that they're all caught up on paid link reports
5) If the link lowers the competitor's ranking, keep it going
6) If the link does not lower the competitor's ranking, transfer it to your own site

Back 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.

from iBrian 78 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

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.

from stymiee 78 days ago # - show/hide this comment
Votes: -2 | Vote:
+ -

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.

from graywolf 78 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

@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 ...

from stymiee 78 days ago # - show/hide this comment
Votes: -2 | Vote:
+ -

@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.

from mvandemar 78 days ago #
Votes: 2 | Vote:
+ -

@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.

from shishasem 78 days ago #
Votes: 1 | Vote:
+ -

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

from hugoguzman 77 days ago #
Votes: 1 | Vote:
+ -

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.

from iBrian 76 days ago #
Votes: 0 | Vote:
+ -

@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.


Log in to comment or register here.

Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New

  1. Four Good Reasons to Use the Alt At... (19)
  2. How Google Chrome Will Win the Brow... (18)
  3. In Social Media- Think About Yourse... (15)
  4. If Content Is Google’s King – Then ... (15)
  5. How to Seduce the Cash-Strapped Sho... (14)
  6. The Dilemma Over Deep Linking (14)
  7. 10 Myths about Google Chrome Browse... (13)
  8. What is Cloaking & Is All Cloaking ... (13)
  9. Examples of What Makes Good Content (12)
  10. 7 PPC Budget Saving Tips - Video Po... (11)

Latest Comments

Search Marketing Expo

Save the date for:
• SMX China (Nanjing) - Sept. 23-24
• SMX Stockholm - Sept. 23-24: See who's speaking or register now.
• 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.