Sphinn - Matt Cutts -- Be Fair if You Are Going After Paid Links

69
Sphinn It!

Matt Cutts -- Be Fair if You Are Going After Paid Links

Went Hot: June 20, 2008 - 10:45 am
Posted By: EricLander 115 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.wolf-howl.com)
Category: Google SEO

A great article here from Michael Gray (GrayWolf) on the borderline hypocrisy that Google practices when dealing with paid linking and search. Worth a read as it contains some solid examples as well.

14 Comments

Who Desphunn This (1)

Comments

from NikkiPilkington 115 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Great article - much as I like Matt, I think Google (note, NOT Matt) has to be hauled over the coals a bit for this one - i'll be interested to see Matt's response.

from seo2020 115 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

This is a very good point... I wonder if Matt will even respond???

from mvandemar 115 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Damn, almost de-sphunn for the misleading use of the word "borderline" in the description. :P

from onreact 115 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Although I agree in most cases with Graywolf this here is a bad example. As long as the give away is not a direct payment it's OK, this is the thin line. If I can decide whether I link to someone after s/he invited me to dinner or whatever this is still a voluntary link while getting paid for to deliver a link is not.

from bwelford 115 days ago #

Votes: 3 | Vote:

+ -

As I commented on the post - Excellent post, Michael. It’s logically unarguable. However provided Google employees do not try to use logic to defend the Google position, then the situation is clear. Google has rules which serve its own interests. We as interested parties decide to go along with those or not as we wish. Google employees must decide whether they go along with company policy or resign. For them, it’s a question of intellectual honesty.

from crimsongirl 115 days ago # - show/hide this comment

Votes: -1 | Vote:

+ -

But officer! Everybody else was going just as fast as I was. And some were going even faster! Why pick on me?!

Officer, you are being borderline hypocritical and failing to display intellectual honesty! I'm going to Twitter this.

from anthonyverre 115 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Mike,

I agree with you, but Danny has a point in his response on the blog: you can pick this apart too easily. I think the tech industry examples work better; for example, sending out the new Iphone 3G to Apple Blogger Buffs. Granted that's not as solid either, since it's a craze among the general populous. But how about Sony or Toshiba sending a new 50 inch Flat panel to a couple of LCD bloggers.

It's inherent in the gift, even if you think the gift "doesn't perform" that they'll blog about it, and give links back, most likely deeplinks. I'd like to know what Google has to say about it. I don't point my finger so much at Matt, but at the company in general.

from Harith 115 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

It might be of relevance to recall Matt's answer to a specific question:

"So, what are the links that will stand the test of time?

Those links are typically given voluntarily. It is an editorial link by someone, and it’s someone that’s informed. They are not misinformed, they are not tricked; there is no bait and switch involved. It’s because somebody thinks that something is so cool, so useful, or so helpful that they want to make little sign posts so that other people on the web can find that out."

from jmarek2007 115 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Interesting article. But if the experience of the individual blogger that got the perk was horrible they can tear the person who provided it and their company apart if they choose. With a paid link, good or bad often times just doesn't matter.

from Halfdeck 114 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

So now Graywolf is encouraging Google to go after not only TLA variety links but also a bunch of other types of links? Way to dig ourself a deeper hole.

Calling Google out on AdWords ads like "buy links" lead to Google disabling those ads. We keep pointing things like this out to google, Google is only going to widen the net.

from Harith 114 days ago # - show/hide this comment

Votes: -1 | Vote:

+ -

I guess its worth mentioning Danny's comment on GW blog:

"C’mon, Michael — don’t use an example that can be taken apart so easily. Make Matt work for it.

So in A, “if they had a good time, please write about it” is what you said. They don’t have to. And if they do, they aren’t being told any anchor text to use.

In B, they ads get placed without any editorial review, right? And probably the anchor text dictated.

Yep, even in A, the people should disclose if they had expenses covered. But no, not the best comparison at all."

from Lani 114 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

The argument is highly debatable in other ways.
Case A: Are bloggers blogging about a product they have experienced. This is a trusted source. Expenses covered or not, I've known people to be honest about their experience negative or positive. This is how the real world works. Case B: A blogger lying about their experience. An untrusted source.
This post by Michael is precisely the reason I no longer subscribe to him. He fails to see the reality of how Paid Links can affect the average public and his arguments are so bad and vengeful as if he's deliberately trying to antagonize Matt Cutts. Argue about something sensible and realistic, even a 12 year old could easily tell you the differences between the two cases.