> Kalena, there's no difference between a link that uses an image an
> anchor and one that uses text as anchor. What matters is that there is
> an html link and if it's paid, it would have either been opened as a
> javascript pop up window (so it would not be crawled by robots because
> they don't pop windows) or use rel="nofollow" to at least indicate to
> robots (Google especially) that that link is not to be crawled (not to
> pass PR). For that matter it's not much different from links with no
> anchors at all (but these are even worse since they are strictly for
> robots, humans can't click them).

> As for the example given I find it is extremely to the point. Not only
> is it not flimsy, it is astoundingly on target. It's actually rather
> despicable to find such paid posts.  Those are false advertising and
> false claims. Even worse than touting one's own horn actually. And
> adding insult to injury the website thus promoted might even stand to
> gain PR, unless those paid posts can be discarded. Which is exactly
> what Google is trying to do. How else to drive the point home if not
> with an example like that? An example where greedy commercialism gets
> in the way of ethics?

> On Dec 2, 1:14 am, Kal67 wrote:

> > I think it's excellent that you are now doing your utmost to educate
> > webmasters about the paid links issue in more public arenas than
> > personal blogs and search marketing conferences. But I still have
> > concerns and have two questions for you:

> > 1) Do you expect webmasters who use regular advertising banners such
> > as 125 x 125 ads on their sites (not text links) to add the
> > rel=nofollow tag? Or worded another way, will you be penalizing sites
> > who don't use nofollow on image ads? I've seen conflicting information
> > about this and your guideline additions still don't make it clear.

> > 2) I think the medical condition argument was very flimsy. If you
> > start censoring sites using that argument, to me that signals that you
> > assume people aren't smart enough to make up their own minds.
> > Shouldn't buyer beware play a larger role here?

> > thanks
> > Kalena

> > On Dec 2, 10:02 am, Maile Ohye wrote:

> > > We wanted to start a thread for questions and comments regarding our
> > > blog post on buying and selling links that pass PageRank.

> > > As always, we appreciate the discussion.

> > > Take care,
> > > Maile, Matt, and the entire Webmaster Central Team- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -