Google Adds Paid Links Reporting
June 13th, 2007 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!
Google added a new section to webmaster central today entitled “report paid links”. How anyone other than me or quite possibly my book keeper know whether a link is paid or not is very questionable, but let’s dig just a little deeper shall we.
You can get the full data on this page but I’ll reprint it here because some of you might be concerned about privacy issues as far as Google is conceded:
We work hard to return the most relevant results for every search we conduct. To that end, we encourage site managers to make their content straightforward and easily understood by users and search engines alike. Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart. Some site owners attempt to “buy PageRank™” in the form of paid links to their sites. Buying links to improve PageRank violates our quality guidelines.
Google uses a number of methods to detect paid links, including algorithmic techniques. We also welcome information from our users. If you know of a site that buys or sells links, please tell us by filling out the fields below. We’ll investigate your submissions, and we’ll use your data to improve our algorithmic detection of paid links.
Let’s address some of the points in those paragraphs shall we …
Some site owners attempt to “buy PageRank™” in the form of paid links to their sites.
First off no one aside from Google owns PageRank™ so how I can sell something I don’t own is kind of funny. I guess it’s like those cans of Florida Sunshine you see at the tourist stops when you go on vacation. Seriously you want to stop people from selling your page rank take it away. That’s right take it off the toolbar and stop giving the data out. Of course that would entirely screw up your spyware application … err … toolbar data gathering that will supposedly enhance my personalized search but I digress …
Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart.
That is quite funny. Assuming that I’m not buying text link advertising to screw with my competition, or more correctly use the flaws in Google algorithm to make Google screw with my competition, there’s a 99.9% chance I’m buying that text link ad because I’m actually selling the product or service that’s in the anchor text. Ok I might by “Coke” as a keyword if I was selling “Pepsi” because it’s direct competition, but more often than not if I buy “coke” chances are really pretty good that I sell Coke in one form or another. Want something else to think about, we all complain about crazy JS redirects through “.EDU” sites for terms like [buy Viagra] but when things work the way they are supposed to you’re almost certainly going to end up at a website that is selling Viagra. So when Google kills those results do they really have their users best interests at heart? I think it’s slightly more self serving on Google’s part, as they are really attempting to counter the perception that their ranking algo can’t be easily manipulated, because letting people who search for “buy viagra” get to a site that sells Viagra would seem to me to really be in the users best interests.
If you know of a site that buys or sells links, please tell us by filling out the fields below.
I can’t believe we are still having this discussion, how do you or anyone else, know with any reasonable degree of certainty, that I was paid to put up a link. Maybe Matt slipped me that nice black Google polo shirt I was wearing at SMX because I linked to him. Maybe he gave it to me so I wouldn’t point out that Google secretly hired Sasquatch to camp out on the Grassy Knoll and assassinate Kennedy or any other anti-Google conspiracy theory that I come across. Does throwing a great party at a conference count as paying for a link? Maybe I don’t get the cash directly, but I did drink some carbonated beverages (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it) and eat some food when I was there. Didn’t some one have to pay for the food and drink? If I write about it after the party and put up a link didn’t I get something of monetary value for that link. Food and drink is certainly a lot more real than toolbar pagerank dontcha think?
To use a real world analogy, when you hear two kids fighting in the other room and something crashes and breaks on the floor, do you come in and ask “which one of you two broke this” if you already know who did it? If Google knew who was selling text links they wouldn’t need you to tell them, and they wouldn’t be asking the equivalent of “which one of you two broke this” now would they …
Sphere It
June 13th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I think you are correct in that it still takes some human effort to find paid links. People should not be able to buy their way into search so Google is very interested in killing paid areas like payperpost, reviewme (sorry aaron w.) and buying and selling links for pagerank.
Links happen naturally, just today I see in Google Alerts that someone has linked to my book reviews. You provide something useful, the pagerank (links) will follow. That system is solid and works because it is fair and honest.
Now if you are an SEO and have a deadline, you got issues, websites can take years to get a their footing (naturally). This is where you hire someone like Andy Hagans (kidding!).
Seriously, think of what the internet would look like as a paid variety, that would make Google no longer relevant right?
Google does not like getting owned so they are sending out human surveillance, they data will surely be programmed into their algorithm. If you linked to and from known areas of pagerank manipulation you got issues in the future.
The answer is to do what you do well Michael, create buzz to draw natural links/pagerank.
I am so sick of SEO, see you around!
Aaron
June 13th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Great Post. This is so infuriating because there is such a thin line between paid and non-paid like you state. I do alot of work for sites with zero budgets at all, where crosspromotion is huge. I do not directly pay for any link, rather exchange services that are mutually beneficial for each party. No direct money is exchanged, nor would I consider the link to be “paid”.
Is Nike buying these links because they partnered with Apple?:
http://www.apple.com/ipod/nike/gallery.html
Is Google Paying for this link knowing they will be linked to as a sponsor on the sidebar?:
http://www.mysqlconf.com/cs/mysqluc2007/view/e_spkr/2525
This is just so infuriating because it is so subjective. I think this will really hurt much more than help. GOOGLE, If there is a problem with your algorithm detecting paid links, then change your friggin algorithm!
June 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Michael, I couldn’t agree with you more on this one. This should not even be something worth writing about because it shouldn’t even be a discussion to start with. It’s reality. It’s business.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“You’re buildin’ a rat ship here, a vessel for seagoin’ snitches. And if you think you’re preparin’ these minnows for manhood, you better think again, because I say you are killin’ the very spirit this institution proclaims it instills.” - Lt. Col. Frank Slade
I think the potential for mayhem and mischief here is astounding. Sabotage would be a better word. Does Google have the resources to effectively review all the ‘citizen’s arrests’ that are about to start flooding in? All of our clients have competitors whom are going to abuse the dickens out of paid link reporting.
I really, really dislike the human error and vindictiveness element that this is going to bring to the table. I also agree with Greg: if the algo isn’t cutting it - tighten it up. No decisions by committee.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Do we know how sponsored links are treated versus links about “under the table” with no disclosure?
For instance, let’s say a I buy a link from wolf-howl.com to my website but it’s in the advertising column in the right?
Is that cool, or will I be reported?
Now what if “The Wolf” liked the roses I sent him and he slipped it into a relevant blog post. Is that cool?
I would think, the former would be yes (so long as it was tagged rel-NOFOLLOW) and the later probably would not.
However, what if NOFOLLOW was not set? I presume then that would not be cool.
So, hypothetically what if a few thousand of us started checking the source of all the major websites and started taking notes and sending it to google. They would just love us for it right!
If we don’t fight sponsored links there, we’ll have to fight them here!
Mike
June 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Call me cynical but perhaps Google’s only real issue is that you’re not paying THEM for the link (and associated traffic).
Paid links were around long before Google and PageRank…
June 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Well said. Their approach to this flaw in their algorithm has been heavy-handed and obnoxious since they demanded rel=”nofollow” on paid links in 2005.
Google may have indirectly bought a few links at SMX, but this isn’t nearly as “bad” as the ones they have for sale:
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/06/pr-8-links-from-googlecom-only-1995.html
June 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Google is trying to put the squeeze on, but how can they possibly determine who has bought or traded links? Yes, confirming reciprocal links seems to be one way, but what about three-way linking strategies?
I wonder if I am the only one who thinks this whole thing will ultimately backfire for Google.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Come on people, all it takes to uncover a paid link neighborhood is one mistake.
Listen to these kind of goofy but relevant videos:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-smx-diaries-iv-the-matt-cutts-interview
Boy do you guys work too hard!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
They are killing any kind of grassroots marketing and campaigning. I can see it now in small print:
“Dont buy/trade links but you can purchase ads from Google anytime.”
Abuse will be prevelant…
June 14th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Too much reliance on one company to do our work for us. Google trying to stop the internet from becoming TV? Google trying to own the internet?
For a company like Google to release a plan so obviously flawed, it must mean there is more going on we are not yet aware of.
This move could confirm the suspicions of those who think Google is not all heavenly and good!
Why create a system of measurement that is so easily abused? Why turn the system around and use it against it’s users and possibly disrupt the search relevancy?
Sounds like the bloody government if you ask me! Always twisting and turning, creating problems to sell solutions to the people, profiting like mad.
You better get your nofollow tags, or else you get no dessert! Such BS Google!
July 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I’m going to side with David Pye on this one.
Google’s going to basically create a vehicle for users to report others without the need for sufficient (or any) cause.
I wrote about this here:
Google As Dictator
July 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I just don’t see how it’s any business of Google’s how anyone is getting links from anyone else. Apparently G. wants to be the only company allowed to offer links for sale (AdWords).
This is pretty much the same arrogance that led them to digitally scan (photocopy) and publish online zillions of pages of copyrighted books & other material, and dare the international publishing industry to sue them. The same US$ billions that allows G. to pay for the scanning technology and human drones, also allows them to fund legal defense of any/all actions.