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.

A few days ago the Cool Aid and FUD was passed around here about a site that was penalized in rankings because they sold a few links. Jim believes Google doesn’t, nor ever will, penalize sites for selling links. Find out why!
Comments13 Comments  

Comments

Avatar Administrator
from MattMcGee 2545 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Good stuff, Jim (as usual). Can you imagine what the SERPs would look like if all these sites got banned? Holy [beep].......

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2545 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Well put Jim.

Avatar
from NickWilsdon 2545 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Good article Jim, as you say, Matt must be over the moon with the FUD this topic is creating. No offence to him, I think he’s played Google’s position excellently. There are times I think he’s the best marketer of us all! ;-)

Avatar
from SamIWas 2545 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Great post. In addition, the one example Matt Cutts has given for a site supposedly penalized for paid links turned out to be a question of cloaking. Cloaking, totally nothing to do with paid links.Add to the list the many examples of SEO sites that clearly sell text links AND are visited by Matt Cutts (seroundtable for example) and there is essentially more evidence that they don’t penalize than that they do. I doubt it’s the 302 though but that’s another topic.

Avatar
from europa 2545 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Jim....another great blog post. Although my favorite of yours is still you co-citation post.

Avatar
from robwatts 2544 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I’m gonna break with tradition and say that every now and then google make an example of someone and say nothing.  Johnchow.com being a recent  example.

Avatar
from wwip 2544 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Great post Jim!

Avatar
from IncrediBILL 2544 Days ago #
Votes: 3

The site still has a penalty applied to it and just because it’s probably not a paid links penalty doesn’t mean it’s not SOME sort of penalty.Easy way to tell is when you just search Google for the domain name without the .com/.net/.co.uk etc. is that is should return a result with that domain name on top.For example search "jimboykin" all one word and it comes up with jimboykin.com but search for a site known to be penalized like the "avivadirectory" and it doesn’t show up unless you search for "avivadirectory.com" expressly.I could give you tons of examples and it’s always the same for a penalized site that you have to add the DOT COM before they show up.This is obviously a clue but we don’t know what symptoms invoke this clue, such as any penalty or just specific penalties, but it’s certainly a problem with  "davidairey"’s site.

Avatar
from Harith 2542 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Just wish to mention that I have posted my remarks about Jim Boykin’s article in this thread on a separate post: Jim Boykin’s & Aaron Wall’s Unethical Approach to Paid Linkshttp://sphinn.com/story/7623

Avatar
from adityasfs 2541 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I completely agree with you :)

Avatar
from Skitzzo 2534 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I’d be interested to hear Jim’s take on Danny’s report over the weekend that in fact Google will be penalizing your rankings for selling links. Is this just more FUD or is there substance to their claim? Or is it a bit of both (as things usually are with Google)?

Avatar
from webuildpages 2534 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I’ve got a comment on there with my thoughts.

Avatar
from pkenjora 2427 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Finally someone who makes sense vs. riding the hysteria wave.  Thanks for this post.

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: