> 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 -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -