Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 50
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: September 15, 2008 - 9:22 pm
Posted By: steaprok 293 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.wolf-howl.com)
Category: Google Searching
30 Comments
Went Hot: September 15, 2008 - 9:22 pm
Posted By: steaprok 293 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.wolf-howl.com)
Category: Google Searching
30 Comments
Sphinn Sponsors
Be a Sphinn Sponsor - Click HereTop 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- Where the European SEO industry rea... (15)
- Mark Prints for Self on Other’s Blo... (11)
- Landing Pages On A SMB Budget (9)
- Bing says relative URLs pass less l... (8)
- Should I Advertise on Bing? (6)
- The 3 SEO/SEM Conference Personas (5)
- Leadership Blogging, It’s All About... (5)
- FriendFeed Joins The Real-Time Sear... (5)
- Are You An Internet Marketer? (4)
- 3 Important Mistakes that could bri... (4)
Latest Comments
- Great tips Kevin. Keep them coming!!!!…
- Great SEO book keep up the great work…
- Another awesome resource from Freelance Folder. If you are in the freelance…
- Great viral idea. It would be good to see how this worked out into actual s…
- plumbers in chel…
- excellent SEO book - not just for beginners its for everyone…
- As a SEO practitioner located in Panama City, Panama I find that local sear…
- Very Nice Read!…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX Singapore - July 2-3, 2009
• SMX São Paulo - August 4-5
• SMX East - October 5-7, 2009
• SMX Stockholm - 12-13 October, 2009
• SMX Mexico - November 11, 2009
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Upcoming Webcasts:
- How Large Offline Marketers Drive Superior Search Marketing Results - July 21, 2009
- Trademarks, Brand Terms and PPC Advertising: Updates You Must Know - July 22, 2009
- Attribution Management Buyers Guide - July 28, 2009
Comments
There's a difference between PPP requiring you to link to a buyer for you to get paid and someone giving me a gift that I'm crazy about then I blog about it without being asked, which is sorta like someone posting a great blog post, I get value out of reading it (info ends up making me $152,000), and I decide to link to it from all over the place.
Money or anything else for that matter changing hands doesn't matter as long as that transaction doesn't require that the payee link to the payer.
Do we know for sure that those posts aren't private link buy deals? Nope. We don't know they are either.
The real goal of the post IMO isn't search ranking. It's exposure from a positive mention on a high-profile blog = more sales.
Guy's anchor to pmai [6Sight The Future of Imaging Conference] does appear in the site's home page META keywords tag + TITLE and the specific page he's linking to ranks in top 10 for [imaging conference], but that only makes him guilty of what we all do - linking to a page using its title. Links on the other posts also link using product names [Honda fit] [unitedauto], [capital honda], [kindle] - not [luxury cars], [luxury auto], [wireless reading device].
@Mert this isnt about hate its about google's double standards on enforcing their own policies.
Graywolf, seriously, why would you out someone specifically? You can easily make the same point by talking about big newspaper companies. Honestly, did you even contact Guy K. about this post before you decided to publish it??? I doubt it. Totally disrespectful!
If you did, my mistake and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
JoshuaSciarrino again not the point of this post, the point is why doesnt google treat all bloggers the same, why do the a listers get a "get out of jail free card" when everyone in pay per post got torched ...
"not the point of this post"
The point of this post is to grab attention and maybe even get a link from Guy by riling up controversy using attack bait aimed at a high profile target outside of the SEO crowd using a popular anti-Google slant. The message "Google is unfair" goes down well with most marketers and since the target isn't an SEO most readers wont' find the attack objectionable.
the point of the post is to expose google's hypocrisy and two tiered justice to a wider audience. if Guy falls under google scrutiny and is punished the way google punished everyone else, then maybe just maybe his readers, aka the google hugging blog world, will get a brief glimpse of the reality of the way google operates, and see that it's not all lava lamps, free jelly beans, rainbows and unicorns ...
Graywolf, like I said before. You can easily find other ways to point out Google's hypocrisy...not outing someone specifically. Shall I did up all your paid links? Seriously dude.
That's totally screwed up. Totally. Your no better than that guy who outed Aaron Wall for his aff. links. Although, that kid did it in ignorance, your doing it in full intention. That's totally f*ed up.
Did you even contact Guy about your post before you published it? No...
You just lucky he is cool with it. Have respect for someone. At least ask them before you throwing up controversy. Not everyone wants to be involved in your hot-headed rants and raves. Although I think they are merited but I don't agree with the methods they are done.
I have to agree with Joshua here. Saying "well they penalized so and so" does that mean you need to "out" others?
"Google made me do it", right M Gray? There has to come a time when the voice within demands to take the highroad.
~ Mike Dammann
sometimes you have to stick your pecker out
Sure, but do you think that this will change the way Google does business or do you think it will make Matt say "Cool, my scare tactics work as intende"?
Josh and Mike, so you are agreeing that you think those are in fact the same thing as paid links, and if caught then Google should penalize him the same the same way as they penalize everyone else?
if you think this post is intended to get a rise out matt or google u miss the point, the point is to get other people to see what google does.
@mvandemar. I think that this is a far too grey area to even get into. We all have motivators to link to somebody. What reasons for? Well, Google is the one who decides to get and keep those kinds of conversations going while people here fall into that trap.
Only Guy and them know exactly what is going on.
Maybe they sent the gift and Guy said "That's cool, I will show those people some love".
Maybe they had a conversation about links and the Camera people said "How about you get us a link for the camera."
Geesh, like don't we all have lives?
I don't want to know what the reason is. If you guys want the games to stop, then stop being mouthpieces.
@Mike, my point was more that if Guy's not doing anything wrong (which I happen to think that he isn't, but I also don't think buying/selling links outright is wrong either), then there is no way that what Michael did could be construed as outting someone. Google is not going to penalize him for those posts, period.
The only reason that Google went after paid links at all is because they were paranoid that the perception that someone could buy their way to the top of Google would negatively impact their image as being some super-algo that could not be manipulated, and that this would in turn hurt their stocks.
Bottom line is, you can buy your way to the top, period. The more you spend on promoting/building/improving your website, the better your chances of reaching the top are. The only thing Google's war on paid links is acomplishing is driving the price up, so that the ones who are already at the top making money have a better chance to keep their rankings than newcomers (who might actually have better sites) do of being able to climb without spending a fortune to get there.
Michael I am not against your point. My point is this. Show a fortune 500 company as an example show anyone else but why show a fellow SEO. Just the fact that you are the man who caught on to Guy's tactics (if he really had one as Mike Dammann pointed out) did not mean Google actually saw it before you pointed him out. I assure you, just to be a lesson to everyone Guy's post will have that idiotic visible PR penalty that really does not matter. We all get it. Someone reports someone else some third world guy looks at it and probably tosses the coin in the type of penalty they get. Google does double standards and life is not fair and Google lies from their bottom area every minute. I assure you we all get it by now.
It never ceases to amaze me, the level of petty hating that goes on in the SEO community, and specifically in Sphinn.
I mean really!! To go as far as desphinning this post shows the extent of the pettiness. Its very 2nd grade. Especially when there’s shit on the FP everyday that that is much less relevant than this submission. What is the problem with pointing out the hypocrisy in Googles methods anyways?
"There has to come a time when the voice within demands to take the highroad."
@mikedammon C’mon WHAT??
If taking the high road involves taking it the azz by Google and folding to their every whim, then guess I’m not taking it either , because dissent is necessary for progress. Or do you propose we just nod our heads and agree to everything Matt Cutts & Google say? Do you remember when they introduced the no folow??Our country was born from dissent. It is our responsibility to speak up when something isn’t right. And Google applying its guidelines selectively. Isn’t right either.
How in the world is this OK to everyone? Every time someone mentions something about it , people crawl out of the woodwork and get all huffy and puffy, screaming hate bait, etc..
I think that’s a myopic view and it’s missing the greater point. Especially coming from a community of marketers. And IMAO the behavior of those who blindly just go along with what Matt and Google say are adding to the problem.
Come on! It's not like Guy K's going to suffer because of this post.
First of all, Google is impotent in dealing with issues like these. They pick on the people they know won't be heard if they pitch a fit (the bloggers that use PayPerPost etc) and they let anything A-listers do slip by.
Besides, all the people upset that Guy was used as an example, did you also express your outrage when Google prompted thousands of webmasters to become narks on the issue of paid links?
As Graywolf said, the point that needs to be discussed here is that Google attacks and penalizes some types of paid links, while rewarding others. And I, for one think that's an issue that deserves to be addressed by Google's representatives and more of the big name bloggers in this industry.
This debate, and Mike Dammann's point about intention highlights the foolishness of trying to deal with paid links. If you focused on links that send no traffic you'd be way better off. Guestbook spam? Gone. Offtopic pligg spam? Gone. Offtopic forum spam? Gone. Comment spam? Gone. Paid links that are offtopic (e.g. poker on a little travel-through-india blog)? Gone.
Why do I emphasize offtopic? Cuz people don't click those, since it's irrelevant. Of course, there are exceptions - the Google content network has people targeting keywords based on the demographics of people looking at the content featured in those keywords. So there'd have to be an adjustment for that. But broadly speaking, traffic is what determines the quality of a link, and Brin/Page said so themselves in the original PR paper! Same reason why being 1/10 links on a page is better for PR than being 1/10000.
@mert - Guy won't get punished. It's not that Google doesn't know about these things, they just don't care. It's not what happens that counts, it's how they appear that really matters. Google knows damn well that there is just too much thinking involved for this issue to ever hit mainstream media, and that those not in the industry would just not see the connection, so as far as they are concerned it's simply a non-issue.
@mvandemar
Me not really knowing MG, I immediately assumed fingerpointing and a hunt for browney points from Google. I guess I was wrong about that. But do you believe that his post benefits anybody except Google? I don't. Google has not been in the business of being fair. Google is penalizing sites which are known to get us talking. When we write, the message goes out there. So when Michael Gray writes this, I can see Matt and other Google guys laughing saying "Cool, use penalizing the Pay Per whatever site was an excellent move".
Let's face it, this is like we're all kids and Google is daddy deciding who is the good one and who is the bad one, at least that is how this feels, which is part of why posts like this one get a rise out of me.
Did Guy do anything "wrong"? I really don't consider Google's "values" as significant as an IRS audit. SO whether or not Guy sells links or not, we are the ones who make this an issue. WE are the ones going on and on and on. Matt makes a couple of clicks, sits back and enjoys the show.
So what I personally would like to see is a stop to these "outing fests". No matter what the reason might be, to an outsider it makes us all look like a bunch of chumps trying to suck up to Google.
I am not defending Guy, because he doesn't need my defense. He doesn't need it, because he operates beyond Google. He is his own brand.
I'm wondering how much more time we will waste on what is fair and what is not. This is not about being fair. This is about business.
We could be spending time talking about something interesting, but no. It's the same old "Why isn't he penalized if she is" talk.
Anyways, I see Pay Per Post is back and they have changed their theme from getting you links to getting you exposure, so everything is cool now, right?
Anyways, just watched the Shel Israel video on Michael Gray's blog. That stuff deserves exposure, this crap doesn't.
The only question I have if you guys think a permalin on Guy's blog would be worth $1,300.00 and my opinion on that mater will remain reserved until I get some further input from you guys. :)
Oh and btw. You can turn TYNT on or off all you want to. This is wordpress, haven't you heard? ;)
~ Mike Dammann
so in google, as in every other aspect of our lives, the rich, powerful and popular receive special privileges. it's as certain as death and taxes, and no more surprising.
@steaprok
No. I get Graywolf's point. And I agree. GOOGLE IS A HYPOCRITE. I've seen Google have duplicate content, some doorway pages (...seriously..but they later changed it). Google gives people a double standard. YES I AGREE. Google is FLAWED! I agree!
Does Matt Cutts tell his fellow employees 'oh these guys are gaming us'...? uh..duh!
@SkitzzoMaybe. What if he was getting 50% of his traffic from Google....and Google decides to penalize him. He would probably lose 20-60% of his book sales....I think that would affect anyone. Like I said before Guy is cool with it and has poked some fun back at Graywolf.
Okay. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. I totally agree with this statement
But. LET ME ALSO BE CLEAR. I totally disagree with using specific people as an 'example', especially if it's new news (first time being told in public)
Finally, I totally agree with Graywolf's underlying point (Google has a double standard) but I completely disagree with the means (using Guy K. as an example) that Graywolf expressed his underlying point.
This is a good example of making the same point but not 'outing' people in the message. I'd rather say sphinn that, than this article.
Someone should just design a search engine that is identical to Google's except that it gives full link value to all paid links. According to the logic here, this engine would produce a better user experience than Google due to the superior relevancy of its search results... right? Could you imagine how spammy and irrelevant Google's SERPs would be right now if they didn't take a stand against paid links?
As far as Google penalizing the little guys and not the major sites... again, its all about user experience. If a user searches Google for something and the NY Times or Amazon doesn't show up in the results because of a paid link or cloaking penalty, its a poor experience for Google's users.
However, if some relatively unknown site that only has links from payperpost, paid directories, linktext ads, etc. drops out of the results, it probably improves the user experience! Because if a site's content wasn't good enough to attract natural links, the site probably most likely wasn't going to provide a good user experience for Google users. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is Google's site and its their rules. They have become one of the biggest companies in the world by sett9ng their own rules for ranking search pages. How anyone has the audacity to demand Google to display their site (for free!) will always baffle me.
If you honestly believe that Google is out to "stick it to the little guy" because they're in bed with the big companies, you're delusional. I will agree with one thing, Google's number one priority is to make as much money as possible. The number one absolute key for them to do this is to provide the best user experience in search. Based on what they believe, the current algorithm and process for ranking sites in orgnic search is the best job they can do at providing their best user experience. In fact, over their history, they have been the one search engine that refused to sacrifice user experience for monetization.
Is Google's system for delivering search results perfect? Absolutely not. But judging by their (continued) rise in search market share, they seem to be doing the best job. It doesn't seem easy to me to try to enforce these paid link penalties. In fact, it seems like a real pain in the ass! Not only to actually do it effectively, but also to manage all the PR backlash from myopic SEOs.
If anyone thinks they have a better way to rank and present search results, I suggest you find some funding and get going on your own algorithm.
no I dont believe google is out to "stick it to the little guy"
in fact i believe exactly the opposite google is out to "NOT stick it to the big guy" whenever possible, its a subtle but profound difference. LIke "do no evil" is different from "dont be evil"
@Chris1 - if Google only penalized the little guys who bought paid links who also had a crappy website then you might have a point. Penalizing quality websites for buying/selling links does nothing whatsoever to increase the user experience. The user doesn't give a damn where someone got their links.
This is about image, not increasing the user experience.
"the point of the post is to expose google's hypocrisy and two tiered justice to a wider audience."
My reaction to that Michael is the same as if I told you Google's goal is not to make money but to create a valuable service.
BTW reply by Guy on Michael's blog:
http://www.wolf-howl.com/grayhat-seo/guy-kawasaki-guilty-link-payola/#comment-63582
Wow, this thread has turned into a bit of a slug fest. I agree with Graywolf about the point of Google's double standards, they suck. I think the point of using Guy as an example is a good one because pretty much everyone in this industry has heard of him and helps show a point. And for people saying Guy got sent a gift, then it's optional for him to blog about it, open your eyes. What's to say I couldn't donate money to someone and they blog about me in kindness, paid links or free will blogging?
While I personally have no beef with MG bringing attention to this issue in the way he did, it's got to be said that Rand Fishkin caught a whole load of flack for something quite similar a few months ago.
@mvandemar
"if Google only penalized the little guys who bought paid links who also had a crappy website then you might have a point. Penalizing quality websites for buying/selling links does nothing whatsoever to increase the user experience. The user doesn't give a damn where someone got their links.
This is about image, not increasing the user experience."
So you think that Google is penalizing paid links, not because of relevancy or user experience, but for "image"? Seriously?!
And while its true that the user doesn't give a damn where someone got their links - this is totally irrelevant. Google has decided that enforcing a penalty on paid links allows them to provide the most relevant search results. Who are you (or anyone else) to say how they should rank web sites? their algorithm originally gave weight to links based on the facts that these were editorial/organic "votes" for the site being linked to. When links are paid for, the links go from being editorial votes to paid advertisements.
Answer me this one question... if one site buys paid links from another site, why does Google owe it to the buying site to list their site higher in Google's free search engine results?
Ok, obviously you just don't have a clue what you are talking about then. I will leave you with one example, but after than I'm done discussing it here.
johnchow.com is a site owned by a man named John Chow, that he blogs from on a regular basis. It is penalized for selling links so that it no longer ranks for the query [john chow], and therefore does not come up when people search for him. Your assertion that making it harder for people to find his site by name is an "imrpoved user experience" is silly at best.