Calendar
Network
Feeds
rmccarley
There's no reason he should be at an SEO conference given his very public views on the industry. Either skip the portions you know he'll be at or demand a refund. If people start asking for their money back after he speaks I guarantee he won't be booked any more. Silence does not win. Complacency does not win either. Do something if you are there to do it. Otherwise... the only thing left is to quetly ignore him...
Somewhere, a middle-manager is shaking his fist in anger...
"Why? Why did you do this to me? You... you... SEOs!"
Story: The Lasting Digg Effect
Pretty impressive. So rare you get to see "one-shot" opportunities like that to get real data.
@g1smd - But it doesn't influence rank, just click-throughs once you do rank. I considered putting that in but decided it would confuse the issue. The market for this site is people interested in purchasing SEO, not people that understand it.
@Jill - Thanks!
@JamesOmdahl - I was thinking the same thing about the template. They all say the same thing. I know a few of the Sacramento companies outsource their SEO to a local firm (that doesn't show up in the SERPs) and that explains some of the duplication but not all.
Thanks planetc1. That was what I was going for. Not another "why you should love/hate Ron Paul" post. I honestly haven't kept up with the elections beyond a couple tidbits from John Stewart. So I have no idea what RP's message is.
Story: The Seller’s Motivation
@Andy - they won't.
@ Michael - Especially when Google sells the same product in a different wrapper. And your first example could be anyone lucky enough to get popular enough and they probably wouldn't even know they did *something wrong* if someone asked them to add a link to one of their pages for $40 or whatever. They'd be like, "cool, sure!" and move on. And then wonder why their PR suddenly dropped...
Not that it matters.
Story: The Seller’s Motivation
The other problem with penalizing buyers is making the case for AdWords would get much more difficult. Most Adwords customers are not SEOs and don't understand the technical differences... they are just buying well-placed links. Now if links are bad...
Skittzo outed *Google* breaking it's rules not individual sites. Attention grabbing headline, though.
Story: Weaning off Google
That's a big part of why I picked Yahoo! MSN is already evil and Yahoo just doesn't seem to care. At least the hypocracy is reduced.
Plus their results really are that good.
Whatever Google does or does not do they may want to start by looking at their partners first. Something about "glass houses" comes to mind.
@Danny - It also seems odd that Google wants the rest of the internet to bend its policies to make life easier for Google. Link ads began long before Google in plain old HTML. Forcing websites to js their "paid links" is BS.
Especially since so many people don't/won't understand. So now you have plenty of great, quality sites getting penalized because of their methods of income. So won't that eventually lead to Google's results suffering? "Sorry but we had to ban them. I know they are the best site that talks about XYZ but they sold text ads!" Sounds kinda stupid to me.
And then I look at Yahoo that keeps getting better reviews and they don't seem to care if links are bought or not.
Anyway, this debate is getting louder and I'm afraid it is helping Google's cause more than anything. Despite our intentions we are accidently educating the masses about what to do/not do to rank in Google when it comes to paid links. And if we really want Google to let up that's probably the last thing we want to do.
Story: Where did we go wrong?
Sphunn for the conversation awareness, not to beat up on Rand. Looks like he gets to be the poster boy on this issue, though.
Danny that is some great info but I look at it like this: I'd never buy an ad on TV that was audio only. If you are making a purchase you deserve the full benefits of that purchase. A paid link may now mean a bit of extra PR according to Google and that's great but doesn't really matter. They are the ones that created a special use for links and it's up to them to figure something out that doesn't violate their own guidelines (building for SEs).
It really isn't up to the publisher to determine intent for the ads they are selling as that is pretty obvious: increased sales. If Google wants to say links are also X, Y and Z that is up to them but to penalize websites for "failure to comply" is a bad move. Google is trying to push it's Adwords agenda under the guise of "spam free organics". And that is assuming paid links are spam... which I disagree with as well.
You're right about finding the right analogy. Tough one. Anyway selling links was around pre-G and them coming back around and saying the internet should stop or change an existing practice is what bugs me and clearly runs contrary to their famous guidelines of "don't be evil" and "build sites for users, not SEs". This practice would only be for SEs and one in particular - the one that sells links through their for-profit program. Go figure!
Sure in comments like blogs or forums but for ads? Google should be able to spot obvious ads and eliminate them from counting. For in-context text-link ads that will be tougher but is doable. I spotted a cleverly hidden one on a site I own today that slipped past the filters... took about 8 seconds to confirm and another 2 to remove. I'm sure that same process can be automated... mainly through context matching and then checking to see the amount of links with identical anchor text. Sure some paid links will slip through Google's systems - no matter what - and the intent of those links will be strictly to game the SEs. I think that is assuming the worst in people and assuming that the majority of link purchasers are out to do that. Buying links came before Google and has several other benefits. I just think it would be strange to see nofollowed links in the content (for those of us that can see them) and that would be a giveaway that something is up with that site. I know my brain would become more suspicious.
PS. Great to get Vanessa's input!
I think of Google like a utility. They've been granted access to government and educational resources nobody else can get (Books, Scholar, etc.). They're bigger than any competition. Their name is a verb. All that together means responsibility and that responsibility is something they asked for. Even though they claim Adwords and organics are separate they are still the same company and someone in the chain of command is directing policy to both... there is a bigger picture at work. As Google gets bigger they are tightening their policies and forcing more of their vision on the rest of us. Some of that is smart business, some is anticompetitive. This policy is anticompetitive and arrogant. Google is saying publishers are incapable of editorial control on their sites. Google is saying a lot.
I know what you mean shortbus. Every time I see Google making this claim I shut the office door and start typing... Because we use links for something other than they were intended doesn't mean anyone else can! And could you not because it's messing with us. In fact, we're going to start smacking sites around that don't comply...
Huh?
Asia, I know you're addressing Michael but I'd like to butt in here. The issue is Google telling us to design our sites for search engines, not for users. And that is a problem. If Google wants to add a ranking factor to their algo its on them to figure it out. It isn't a webmaster's problem that Google jumped in late in the game and decided to make links count for something new: SERP placement. Links were being sold before Google came around and they will continue to be sold. Google has no claim on what links should be and if it messes up their program that is their weakness and their problem.
If supergizmo.com (made up website, just imagine something bigger than Google) came out with a "must use" program that penalized sites for cloaking links through JS, 302s, nofollows etc. would they be right for that? Third party sites shouldn't be telling webmasters how to code their sites - that's up to the W3C... sort of.
As a separate issue, I think identifying whether or not a site sells links is good enough. It's an advertising policy or disclosure statement. Very simple to implement. I don't think you need to make every "ad" a banner on your site though with a headline, etc. I think there is a better solution that can make everyone happy and the easy thing for Google to do isn't good enough.
Right but should Google penalize sites that do buy or sell links? To me that's just out of line. And I'm not talking about a legal issue, just a consumer one. As one of Google's customers and someone deep in the industry I think they are full of it and that this policy should quickly and quietly go away. It's all about the oil... I mean money anyway. No bans for links!
It really scares me that Michael and I are in full agreement. Spammers spam sites with security holes and build link farms. They don't purchase links. As an advertiser I'd want to buy links that attract business - links from sites related to mine. What's the problem with that?
How is it a farm? All the links are edited. There are standards the sites must reach. Even old friends have been denied links through this which sucks but keeps things fair. And links aren't just thrown up every day or even every week. And this is the last round for this promotion. There is plenty of "real" content and the site has a PR5 so I don't think it's been penalized.
Am I missing something?
Story: Jason Calacanis has pissed off SEO's... again. Seriously.