Rynert
<blockquote>Rynert, if you’re receiving payment for a link, that link should be done in a way that doesn’t flow PageRank. If you think the second link is better for users, why wouldn’t you just swap for the better link without anyone paying you for it?</blockquote>Maybe I would do that if the second company made the same request without offering the cash - but, whichever path I take, the link that I end up with will be the site that I feel most warrants the link.So, given that my editorial choice is the same, whether I am paid or not, why should I no-follow the link if when there <b>is</b> payment?It’s like you are saying *just because* money is handed over the no-follow should be applied, irrespective of the reasons for adding the link.
@ Matt - Heh, did you miss my question, or I your answer?http://sphinn.com/story/16720#c20422
Lets assume that I link out to a quality site as it adds value to my article, then another company drops me an e-mail and asks if they can have a link on that page if they pay me. I only want to link out to one site, but having looked at the second site I decide that it is of equal, or better, value to my visitors than the first. I take their money and replace the link.Why should I no-follow the second, but not the former?
Story: Looking up domains with Network Solutions? Prepare to get shafted.