In case you haven't read it, Google has posted a statement on their Webmaster Central blog about paid links. You can read it here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/information-about-buying-and-selling.html
This is important because it makes it very very clear that paid links ARE NOT okay (in case it wasn't clear enough already). It includes a summary of previous statements they've made on the topic of paid links.
Megan
My web design blog
teammatt3 posted this at 02:05 — 4th December 2007.
He has: 1,885 posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Paid links are ok if they have a nofollow attribute or go through some type of redirect (according to Google).
Paid links are illegal if you get caught, it just means you have to be sneakier when buying links. Google's algo is flawed so they're trying to manipulate webmaster to help keep their SERPs clean. Not a lot we can do about it. Google drives the traffic on the web. Instead of trying to police the economics of the web, they might try changing the algo.
My Site | Regular Expression Tester
Megan posted this at 14:26 — 4th December 2007.
She has: 10,228 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Well, I think they're right to be weeding out paid links. Artificial links shouldn't be counting in their algorythm. What I don't agree with is the expectation that it's up to the webmaster to indicate what's paid. This assumes that the webmaster follows SEO and knows why paid links are bad. I know of a graphic designer who got dropped for selling links - he's a graphic designer, he didn't know that much about SEO. I could also imagine a lot of regular site owners accepting offers to buy links without realizing that it could be a problem for Google.
Then there's the question of what they might think is a paid link. Take our partners list in the sidebar here. Those aren't paid links but they could look like them.
It's fine with me if Google just wants to discount the value of those links. That's up to them, just don't penalize people for something they might not realize is a problem.
Megan
My web design blog
Greg K posted this at 17:33 — 4th December 2007.
He has: 1,652 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Why not? two of them advertise making $5000 a week. If I made that much I'd donate here...
(Sorry, IMO ads like that make a site seem less creditable)
-Greg
[This space intentionally left blank]
Cool Geek Supplies: www.ThinkGeek.com
Smp Business Hosting posted this at 18:53 — 4th December 2007.
They have: 60 posts
Joined: Aug 2007
Greg Megan is talking about the "Our Partners" section with the text links not the sponsors section on the left.
Regards, Steve
Smp Business Hosting – Quality & Affordable web hosting solutions.
Greg K posted this at 20:33 — 4th December 2007.
He has: 1,652 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Thank you for clearing that up, I did misread what she typed.
-Greg
Megan posted this at 21:07 — 4th December 2007.
She has: 10,228 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Here's a follow-up from Matt Cutts:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/selling-links-that-pass-pagerank/
On the other hand, I do think that people who are deliberately selling paid links when they know what the problems are, and who go through elaborate work-arounds to try to prevent Google from identifying them should be penalized. It's sort of like doping in sports, actually...
Megan
My web design blog
robfenn posted this at 17:09 — 5th December 2007.
He has: 462 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
I totally disagree with the idea and method, and am tired of seeing SEOers accept it, or even promote.
Since when has advertising been 'illegal' as Matt puts it? And correct me if i'm wrong, but what is AdWords? A good SE position is good visibility, paying for links is no different to paying for an advert in the local paper IMO.
I appreciate some would argue that - on the face of it - it gives the smaller fish a chance to compete on rankings, but then the bigger fish can afford to have a dedicated SEO team, so same difference for me.
Web Based CRM | ISO 9001 & 14001
calculator posted this at 14:05 — 6th December 2007.
They have: 40 posts
Joined: Nov 2007
Adwords or Adsense links do not pass pagerank / 'link popularity' and that is the main issue.
Buying links on high pagerank site only to gain pagerank is what they are trying to stop. Most of these were on unrelated sites / blogs and it was easy to identify the pattern.
There has been collateral damage in the process, and there always will be as Google does not try to hand edit stuff but find patterns and try to stop the maximum number of sites with one measure.
Buying link to gain traffic is authorised - encourage? - by Google, and it justifies the nofollow on the links - the buyer only wanted traffic.
I agree that it's a shame and expect to see more PageRank drop in the future but maybe it was necessary to stop some who were taking advantage of the system.
Websites for Accountants
Megan posted this at 18:55 — 5th December 2007.
She has: 10,228 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I don't think the problem is with paying for links per se, it's the passing of value on those links. If you think that's okay then you might as well outright allow paid placement in serps.
Megan
My web design blog
Smp Business Hosting posted this at 20:32 — 5th December 2007.
They have: 60 posts
Joined: Aug 2007
You have to remember that Google bases its results on quality by popular vote and content.
If Google allowed paid placements then it would display results based upon the highest bidder not the site of most relevance and quality and wouldn’t be any better than any other search engine.
It’s got nothing to do with big fish or small fish within industries it’s about quality and relevancy.
What is Adwords? Adwords is Google’s source of revenue; they are a business without profit they wouldn’t be able to survive and wouldn’t be in the position they’re in.
It wouldn’t be any different from Bush going up against Clinton and Bush winning based upon the fact he had purchased voters and not because the voters liked his political intentions.
Regards, Steve
Smp Business Hosting – Quality & Affordable web hosting solutions.