Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Google Webmaster Help
Home
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Buying/selling links that pass PageRank
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Kal67  
View profile  
 More options Dec 2 2007, 5:14 am
From: Kal67
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 02:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 2 2007 5:14 am
Subject: Re: Buying/selling links that pass PageRank
Print | View thread | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi Matt

Yes, it's the same Kalena (there's not many of us!) and yes I was
seeking clarification on the image ads, so thank you for providing
such.

Webado, I appreciate your viewpoint and I understand Google's stance
on paid links and their right to address this, but I am still a bit
uncomfortable with the implications it will have on the way people
design their sites. It feels a little invasive and controlling to me
because instead of just concentrating on making my site the best for
users, now I have to worry that Google will misinterpret my do-follow
links as some kind of transaction-based scenario. This means I can't
just relax and design my sites the way my instincts tell me to. I can
no longer use the web's natural linking power to reward a site I think
is valuable or useful with my hard-earned link juice because Google
might misinterpret my intent. To me, that feels like Google is
dictating who I should link to and how. I've never felt this way about
Google before and I'm betting this will have a lot of people feeling
the same way.

I also thought Matt's example was weak because it assumes people are
stupid. As I said elsewhere, if a shonky car salesman wearing a
Simpsons tie and a bad toupe manages to sell me a rustbucket with no
brakes, it's hardly his fault if I have a serious accident driving it
away from the showroom. Buyer beware and all that. My point was that I
think it would be pretty obvious to most people that sites like the
ones in Matt's post are the online equivalent of used car salesmen and
so I don't think it was a strong argument for his case. I would hope
that such crappy sites are filtered out by the algorithm before they
gain any ground using paid reviews.

On Dec 2, 7:28 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:

> webado, I agree with you, but if this is the same Kalena as on
> searchenginecollege.com, she was one of the people that helped
> document that "buying and selling links" has been in Google's
> webmaster guidelines for months. I honestly think Kalena was just
> seeking clarification on those non-text links.

> Matt

> On Dec 1, 11:46 pm, webado wrote:

> > 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 -


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google