Get Paid Links from the US Olympic Team
April 16th, 2008 by Michael Gray in GoogleIf you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Read my top posts or learn more about Michael Gray. Want more frequent updates follow me on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
So hey Google care to explain why this isn’t a paid link page? Any reason you haven’t dinged the page rank of this known link seller or cut off their ability to pass page rank or anchor text? Now I’m not daft enough to believe that any of those companies gave money with the primary goal of getting a link, but at the end of the day no matter how altruistic their goals may have been, this implementation clearly doesn’t match with google recommended implementations.
The selective an uneven application of justice and rule enforcement is one of my major problems with the big G.
Sphere It
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
man you are always looking arent you, LOL.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Interesting. I’m traveling to Oklahoma City for the US Olympic kayaking trials tomorrow. My girlfriends brother is an olympic paddler. I’ll get to the bottom of this!
April 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Looks like the owners of the Olympic site have not been versed in the proper disclosure of a paid link.
Google should not make exceptions and lower their rank. I don’t like it when Google provides the big sites an advantage (BMW).
Jet Set Sports? Perhaps looking for a lift in the rankings for the sponsorship?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Looks like you found another one. At SMX Sydney somebody got busted with http://www.ask-kalena.com/search-engine-spam/cloaking-by-major-aussie-travel-site-exposed-at-smx-sydney/“>Cloaking. Google maybe still seeking out cloaking instead of dropping the hammer on links or they could be assuming that because they are bigger more known sites they are using TOS automatically.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I would imagine there are thousands of examples like this out there. Wasn’t this topic brought up at SMX West? I don’t recall who said it but I remember someone saying “sponsored” or “paid” links from a place like a veterinary organization website are looked at differently than if a commercial site had sponsored links. I’ve been confused by that sort of thinking (what if you owned a veterinary directory?) as it seems a bit gray to me.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Tyson Foods and United Airlines checks must have bounced.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:07 am
While Google is not right in doing that,the whole SEO thing stinks. If your content is good, you get a good page ranking. People should focus on making better content instead of hiring Joe SEO master to improve it. It defeats the whole purpose.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I think the problem is that Google tries to apply a black-and-white policy to what is a shades-of-gray (no pun intended) problem. If they applied differential weighting rather than outright bans they and we would all have a much easier life.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I received this tweet message from you on my BB and had to look once I got to work this morning. It’s baffling and I cannot agree with you more. Hope to tag-team with you on this at the next SES or WMW (scratch SES- sorry, they don’t want you to speak- you’d have to sponsor the session!)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Google’s double standard can be such a pain sometimes. I agree that content should be king.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You guys are missing intent. It’s obviously not a pure SEO play, so they get a pass - but still open to abuse by someone >:)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Michael, I have been editing Wikipedia for 9 months now. Recently I have been blocked and now undergoing mediation process on my talk page. If you want to see the inner working of Wikipedia I welcome you and your guests to come take a look at Wikipedia.
I think it will be a very interesting experience and will shed some light on the Dark Side of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Igorberger#Thank_you
If you or any of your guest have any advice as to Wikipedia and would like to share it with me please post it on my blog
http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/wikipedia-igorberger-mediation/
Thank you all for your attention,
Igor
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Michael, I just posted a comment asking you and your guest for some help with a problem that I have with Wikipedia. The comment has been flagged for moderation because Akismet flags Wikipedia url, but I hope you will allow me to post it.
Thank you,
Igor
April 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Isn’t Google like Congress? They legislate the law but it doesn’t apply to them? Just sayin’….
April 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Wow - I guess one of your client’s competitors has a link on that page…? haha, that’s all I want to know.
LOL - I like this tactic
April 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Adam Maywald »
no actually I was doing some research on the olympics and came across this page
April 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Like you said Olympic sponsors could absolutely care less if their links are no follow. Having a link on the Olympics page is about the last thing they think about when considering a sponsorship (if they even think about it at all). Maybe the Olympics shouldn’t link to them, but it’s not like they’re using specific anchor text for what they want to rank for –they’re using their company names, which they’d rank for anyways.
It’s a tough issue, though. Is a link ok if it’s a part of a genuine sponsorship? Google needs to address this. If it’s not ok, then they should be penalizing EVERY SINGLE sports team and league for linking to their sponsors…which I think would be ridiculous, but still…clarification is needed.
April 20th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Michael, you got to stop driving Google crazy..:) They going to take out a contract on you!
Come join me on http://twitter.com/igorthetroll
So I can drive you crazy.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:14 am
If I wanted to defend Google on this issue (and I don’t want to) but just to play devils advocate. What I might point out is the anchors on those pages are all for the Company Names. In other words Allstate is anchored with “Allstate”, not “insurance quotes” or “life insurance rates”, etc. Honestly I think Google gets a lot more upset when we link that way.
It goes back to their problems with their own algo and putting way to much consideration on anchor links. Now they would never say this because it opens an entire can of confusing gray. It is clear though that Google does not treat every one or every web site violation of their TOS equally.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The page isn’t even cached. And how to we know whether it is still passing link juice/PR?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
SMX Social: Mahalo To Do Microformats, Search Wikia Adds Alpha 0.2 Features & More…
News from the first day of our SMX Social Media Marketing conference. Mahalo is now doing microformats as a way to enhance its search results and allow local businesses to be added to your address book. Wikia Search has gone to "Alpha 0.2" wi…
April 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Yups they do give advantage for big sites … i know a site cloned by its owner with 100+ Domains … No reply from google for that !!
April 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I’m assuming these are actual sponsors, not link buyers.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hey Michael, you know you are reaching on this one. C’mon do you really believe Hilton Hotel is sponsoring the US Olympics for a link on a webpage? They have a lot more invested than that! But I enjoyed the link bait.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
SMX Social: Just What Did Calacanis Say About SEO & More Recaps…
At our SMX Social Media Marketing conference this week, we had a great panel on the future of human powered search. Jason Calacanis of Mahalo, Jimmy Wales of Wikia Search, and Steven Marder of Eurekster all took part. Jason had some remarks on SEO that…
April 25th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I personally don’t see a problem with having a page like this where they link to their sponsors unless they specifically said they were “selling links” and advertising the fact.
Most of the links on that page link to a dedicated page on that domain and from looking at the anchor text on the dedicated pages you can tell they are not “trying” to manipulate the rankings for anything other then their “brand” and they should already rank for that…
Just a “cited link” to a few sponsors, nothing wrong with it…
That is my two cents’ worth…
~Brett
April 27th, 2008 at 2:32 am
The problem is that Google tells everybody to rel=nofollow such links, because they are seen as manipulating Google algorithm, but I presume here they are fellowed.
So this is an unfair discrimination towards smaller Webmasters, who get penalized by Google for such a behavior.
If Google is going to set the rules of rel=nofollow advertisers they should be applied towards everybody, and respected by everybody!
Otherwise, we the small Webmasters are being scapegoated to promote Google’s fear mongering!
Google should fix their algorithm to take into affect links from advertisers, depreciating rel=nofollow, and stop Yelling Bloody Hell.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Michel I think you are going to far tracking this matter, I can not see any intention of getting link juice from these links they really look like ads for me, even the anchor text was not utilized. Why you dont ask SES to nofollow the links of its sponsors though. We have many big companies in Canada sponsoring sports team and they have their name on their shirts, arena and definitely their website.