Really I wasn’t going to post this but since Matt Cutt’s asked people to snitch on paid links again I thought I’d bring up another case of Google’s double standard and two tiered justice.
CASE A
A public relations person starts working for a Bed & Breakfast in New England. The person comes up with the idea of inviting high profile A List bloggers up for an all expense paid weekend, flights, room & board, meals the whole shebang including activities are comp’d. In exchange they ask the bloggers if they had a good time please write about it on their blog and post some pictures to flickr. Total cost of the PR event $10K.
CASE B
An SEO starts working for a Bed & Breakfast in New England. The person comes up with the idea of buying some on topic text link advertising on travel related blogs. Total cost for 6 months of link advertising $10K
So I ask you dear readers and specifically you Matt Cutts what’s the difference? At the end of the day $10K was converted into links. Why does Case A get rewarded and lauded as a success? Why does everyone involved in Case B get called out for being the scourge of the internet? Why are all of the websites in Case B penalized, filtered, or in some cases completely annihilated from any and all internet visibility, while the sites in Case A bask in their ego stroking navel gazing glory?
Why does Google aggressively go after the SEO’s and ignore the PR people? Why do people continue to tolerate Google’s double standards and two tiered justice?
The example presented in Case A has been examplified here to protect “the innocent” but if you don’t think things like this are going on every day your kidding yourself. In fact Elisabeth Osmeloski wrote about this earlier this year (see Why All Links Are Paid Links in the Travel Trade). It’s not just the travel industry, how many gadgets, cell phones, digital cameras, and even computers are sent high profile bloggers in exchange for visibility and links?
Hey Google Want to prove that you are being fair and shut me up? Get your human editors to review the top A list bloggers in the technorati 100. Look for posts where “gifts” were exchanged for links. Put your money where your mouth is and start banning or dinging them for the exact same behavior you are attacking sites in the paid link advertising space for. Start banning and blocking the A List attention whore bloggers, cut off their payola and side income. Something tells me they’ll stop singing your praises and a few GB of free Gmail storage wont shut them up or solve the problem. How about it Google prove that you are fair and equal and that justice is blind, because from where I sit your rules are selectively enforced and you take an aggressive hard line stance against internet markters, while little Mary A List gets off scott free …
Related posts:
- Dear Matt Cutts, What We Have is a Failure to Communicate Dear Matt Cutts, I know you and I don’t always...
- Did Matt Cutts Expose a Hole in Digg Last week Matt Cutts made a post about how to...
- Seth Is Wrong On Paid vs Free Journalism I’ve been writing about thinking critically recently and the Malcolm...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 58 comments }
C’mon, Michael — don’t use an example that can be taken apart so easily. Make Matt work for it.
So in A, “if they had a good time, please write about it” is what you said. They don’t have to. And if they do, they aren’t being told any anchor text to use.
In B, they ads get placed without any editorial review, right? And probably the anchor text dictated.
Yep, even in A, the people should disclose if they had expenses covered. But no, not the best comparison at all.
I have no words. D:
Awesome post.
@Danny Sullivan:
The vast majority of bloggers are going to take the offer and write about it. Why it puts them on the track for more payola down the line. We both know Google isn’t going to ban on disclosure. I’ve seen an example this week of multiple cream of the crop A listers flown across the globe on someone elses dime, multiple posts, multiple deep links, all without invoking the wrath of Matt. it’s the turning of the blind eye that pisses me off.
I agree 100% but the difference is that A wouldn’t afford Google any opportunity to get any cash because it’s a trade. Since money is being exchanged in B, Google believes that they should be the only ones who have rights to it.
It’s evil, plain and simple. Google: “No one gets to make money on the Internet unless we’re getting a cut”
Keep this battle going, Michael!
Doug
I totally agree with you.
I am a open source guy and I am not a big fan Microsoft for enforcing their will on the world. I thought Google was different, but Google is unfortunately turning out to be more or less same. They too have started dictating terms and hiding information.
That is one reason I want more than one search engine to be dominant. This is what Microsoft did when they dominated O.S. market and this is what Google is doing when they are dominating the search engine market.
Michael, I’ve always felt in principle your argument is sound, except that it eventually hits this dead end:
The behavior you’re apologizing for (link buying) has produced gigantic quantities of immensely bad websites.
The consequentially low S/N ratio makes search, and the web generally, a poorer experience for me, and I believe for most.
If everybody behaved like good boys and girls (according to G and M–no, not God and Moses, Google and Matt!), the web gets better for all.
No, “Google is not the government,” I believe a sage used to say, but then ethics and good citizenship are not the law either.
Crazy. So Google only likes it if you place their advertising on your site or blog? And what about a paid endorsement through video content?
I’m leaning towards agreeing with #6. Google is in the business of serving up the most relevant web pages. Paid links (used for the purposes of passing pagerank) allows poor quality pages to be served up. I think Google is just struggling to figure out how to detect this algorithmically, so they are asking everyone for help via the paid link reporting tool. The end result is more high quality search results for all of us.
Welcome back .. from the elections .. hehehe
Nice article … totally agreed !!
I’m not sure why everyone keeps arguing this stuff. It’s 1000% obvious what Google is saying and doing. They’re telling us what to do, or not do. You can either play by their rules, or not, but you’re not going to win. I “get” bitching about it, and not being happy about it, and that it’s not fair.
However, it’s just the way it’s going to be until Google changes their mind, which they won’t. Nobody is going to usurp them anytime soon.
Yes, it sucks. But in opinion, you can either choose to play by the rules, or not. At the end of the day, it’s a simple business decision, no?
Doesn’t Shoemoney do something similar to Case A week in week out with his T-shirt Friday thingy? T’s for links
@danny,
agreed w/ michael – to some extent, no matter what – they ARE going to write about it, or they aren’t going to get more offers.
You’ve got to realize that prof. travel writers and the outlets aren’t going to disclose that all/some expenses were covered or discounted- especially in top-tier publications. In fact, there are plenty of organizations that don’t allow writers to officially take press trips – however, they get away with it by accepting under one of their other channels, then repurpose somehow for the publications that don’t officially allow trips.
I’m definitely seeing more and more instances of contextually linked content in these top tier pubs – and why shouldn’t they if it’s better for their readers? And if that’s true, then the SE’s should be all for it. but this blanket rule of ‘paid links are evil’ certainly doesn’t apply in this case.
@graywolf – you know I agree it’s a blatant hypocrisy.
This case really isn’t about paid links being good or bad, it’s about why Google chooses to selectively enforce it’s own rules. Why do they show zero tolerance if an SEO is involved, but are willing to bend the rules or look the other way when an advertising PR or high profile blogger is involved. Does Google really believe we have two classes of people on the net? Do you believe it? Are you willing to tolerate that from Google?
Michael, the answer is “yes”. They do show bias, and they will continue to do so. And “yes” they will bend the rules for advertisers and high profile bloggers.
Do I think it’s ok? No, but it’s their business and they are going to do what they want. I can either play within their rules or not play, or argue. My business decision is to play within the rules. My “gut” decision is to fight the power.
@Jim Kukral: ok well I’m making progress!
not everybody sees these issues they don’t see the bias and google does their best to appear warm fuzzy and googly to get people to not see it. Everybody may be thinking the emperor has no clothes but until somebody says it out loud everyone thinks it’s just them.
Google may be the benevolent tyrant of the internet but a tyrant is still a tyrant no matter how you look at it ….
I don’t understand how you can’t see the difference here man. In example A, you say “In exchange they ask the bloggers if they had a good time please write about it on their blog and post some pictures to flickr.”. The key here is IF they had a good time. No one is required to link based on money spent. Where as in example B they are required to link as a result of money spent. It’s a pretty easy argument to understand if you put yourself in Google’s shoes. I don’t really see how your example illustrates any hypocrisy in their approach to the concept of paid links.
Have to agree with Danny on this one. In Case A, there is an implicit, not explicit agreement to review and link back to the website (and the blogger can choose to review without linking, review negatively, not review at all, or review and no-follow link). Case B involves an explicit agreement to link.
Now, I’m arguing using what Google would think…you and I share the same philosophy on paid links.
Agree with Todd & Danny, Google’s take is a clear editorial line in the sand.
But does that mean I can send some money to websites and say “If they had a good time cashing my check, please link to me.” ?
“The behavior you’re apologizing for (link buying) has produced gigantic quantities of immensely bad websites.”
Well I’d say Google AdSense has generated 1,000 times more ‘immensely bad websites’ than link buying ever will.
@Catfish SEO: c’mon really you can’t be that naive can you?
ok if you like my site (and the big check that comes every month) you can link to me …
Michael, is it that nobody besides us in the industry sees these issues, or really that nobody besides us cares? I think it’s the latter.
We’re just the web geeks who do the dirty work nobody cares about or even notices. 
@Jim Kukral: it’s the zoo theory nobody cares till they see it. Want people to feel red panda’s are important to protect, put them on the discovery channel and animal planet, get them in zoos, do some outreach programs in local schools.
the more people who point out “google is not your friend” to the general public the better.
Besides the fact that this is a poor example (already pointed out), this just sounds more like a webmaster who believes they are entitled to things that they simply are not entitled to. Google is hardly a tyrant and their paid links policy is very fair. If you don’t like, don’t be in their index. It really is that simple.
Excellent post, Michael. It’s logically unarguable. However provided Google employees do not try to use logic to defend the Google position, then the situation is clear. Google has rules which serve its own interests. We as interested parties decide to go along with those or not as we wish. Google employees must decide whether they go along with company policy or resign. For them, it’s a question of intellectual honesty.
Surely the issue isn’t the link itself – it’s the intent of the link, and making sure that value is added somewhere along the chain.
If the intention of the link is to “game the search engines”, Google has to maintain search integrity, and has to act.
This is why they’ve drawn the line in the sand where they have… Buying links = bad. Adding value in a way that it’s worth talking about = good.
well it’s good you used the example of travel bloggers because they’re about the only “press” I know of that takes freebies. 99.9 percent of journalists aren’t allowed to accept gifts.
This has been going on in the awards industry for years. Do you think you’re going to snub your biggest sponsors?
But Google is definitely being ruthless when it comes to anything that encroaches on the behemoth portion of their business, AdWords. Has anyone seen how hard some of the paid link brokers have been hit recently? t-l-a Seems to be getting it from both ends, bans and fraud: http://www.mydollarplan.com/small-business-problem-advertiser-bounced-a-check/
“ok if you like my site (and the big check that comes every month) you can link to me …”
I do! I do! i’ll send you my address.
@LH: Huh? Would there even be MFA sites were it not for link buying-and-selling? Whatever can be done to “put the brakes” on that market, which is what Google’s asking for help with, makes the web more usable.
Am I missing something?
@Brent Hodgson: wow when did google get the ability to read minds and determine intent?
It works becuase people aren’t blindingly placing the links. If you pay someone to review your site, and if it falls in line with hte content on their site, place a PR passing link to it, that is fine. They’ve said before that it is ok for that to happen. they don’t have problems with editorial links.
It comes down to “suck it up and deal with it”. Things in life aren’t fair. Stop crying about it and figure out a way around it. When your way around it no longer works, look for another way. All this crap about “Google you’re not playing fair” is tired. I would have expected a higher quality post from such a smart person.
Bad example. Find someone buying text links that isn’t getting penalized even though Google is aware. That’s the argument, if such a case exists.
it saddens my heart to learn that so many of you willingly accept being second class citizens to the whims of google … are you willing to the same for Mcdonalds … how about Coke … Google is no different … they are your masters because you willingly lay down and accept them as such …
How do you propose Google discover all of these travel bloggers? Hire PIs, monitor people’s blogs? Penalize a group of bloggers for posting about the same hotel around the same time? I understand that you feel like Google is heavy handed, but that would be over the top.
Google doesn’t like paid links (I’m guessing here) because they think webmasters/SEOs purchase them to manipulate the algorithm in their own favor. And they’re right, that’s certainly the motivation. If that wasn’t the motivation, if people were buying paid links simply for the advertising value, then the link juice value of a paid link wouldn’t be as significant to the purchaser.
Others have raised excellent points about the differences between the two links, so I won’t belabor the point. Short of monitoring the bank accounts of every travel blogger, I’m not sure what Google can do about Case A. However, Google is clearly capable of filtering out some of the links from Case B. If the goal is to have websites rank based on the quality of their content, it absolutely makes sense to filter out the noise.
@Lauren: so you’re ok with google going all out after SEO’s but letting every body else get away with it because it’s too hard to find them?
@Michael- Not going after SEOs, just a particular technique that I wouldn’t mind seeing neutralized. And not because it’s too hard to find the others–rather, the methods I can think of to track down these “gifts” seem way more invasive than Google developing algorithms to search out paid links. Is Google supposed to hire people to monitor blogs for any sign of such an arrangement?
The idea of having a Google employee monitoring every post you make, looking for any indication that you might have gotten some financial benefit from a particular post… Well, it creeps me out anyway. It’s more aggressive than searching for paid links. And it’s impractical. I certainly wouldn’t blame Google for not pursuing a method that would be so cost intensive. It’s a business, not a government
I noticed your comment about accepting Google as a master. Google has something like 62% of the US search market share currently. There are plenty of alternatives, but a majority of people choose Google–they think Google is the best choice for search. Google, in turn, has to do everything in its power to provide the most accurate (and least spammy) search results possible. If it didn’t try to combat paid links, its search results would quickly become polluted by the websites that buy the most (and best) links. Those sites probably won’t have the best content.
Then some other search engine (that does negate the value of paid links) would start to take Google’s market share because their search results would be more valuable to the user. I’m not devoted to any particular internet service, be it a search engine or social networking site. If I see a new service, I’ll try it out. If it’s better, I’ll keep using it.
Google’s first priority has to be pleasing its users, not SEOs. I understand how it would be frustrating for an SEO, but I can see why Google would make that choice.
@Lauren: you don’t really believe they found all the people “buying and selling” links without doing a little snooping do you? I’ve seen quite a few sites fall off the map after responding to “I’m interested in buying text links” emails. Too many for it to be coincidental. So it’s OK to snoop, spy and conduct covert operations on SEO’s but not the general public?
If they want to target paid link buyers and sellers that their business, but they have to do it evenly and uniformly without prejudice or bias.
How do you propose they stop Case A links?
As far as the covert operations you mentioned, fair enough. It makes sense that they’d have to find some paid links before knowing how to integrate a filter into an algorithm. For all I know, that’s the only way they are finding paid links at this point. It’s not exactly spying, more like entrapment I guess (only no one is being arrested). Still, these lower-effort techniques wouldn’t apply to Case A, so they can’t apply these methods to seeking out Case A links.
As a user, I’m not interested in having to sift through three pages of search results with nothing but e-commerce sites and websites designed for the sole purpose of making money. I want information. Paid link filtering increases my chances of getting content I’m interested in. Even as an SEO, that’s very important to me.
@Michael – I think you missed the point of my comment.
Google isn’t indexing your thoughts (yet
) – so they can’t determine intent.
Instead, they look for the hallmarks of intent – they look at the “fingerprints” that people who are gaming the search engine use, and target those fingerprints.
To repeat from my original comment: This is why they’ve drawn the line in the sand where they have…
The line is simple: Directly buying links/commentary = bad. Creating value in a way that it’s worth talking about = good.
But the issue links aren’t the issue – they’re just a small part. Google is working to stop the people who have the *intention* of gaming the search engines…
And we’re back to intent.
Sigh – I agree with you Michael but it’s a circuitous debate.
Acquiring links in an overt $ way == ‘evil’ because if people enmasse recognised this then Googles’ bottom line would be == ‘bang in trouble’
All this talk of poor SERPs because of paid links is nonsense! People who pay for targeted links do so because they have a product that so happens to relate to their keywords.
The public face of Google has no choice but to come out against this as you well know, it threatens their business model. Why spend money on adwords when links from other sites works just as well? Not only that, how can anyone or the market at large have any confidence in a product that is so apparently ‘easy to manipulate’? In fairness to Google they have little choice other than to play the role of tough bill big bollocks as to do nothing might allow for an idea to grow and take root. By sending this strong we can kill anyone message they fix two propositions. They send the message that blatant link buying is a risky practice and that it is they and not SEO’s who control the index.
Bottom line is that people will just find more sophisticated ways of doing things. An additional problem is that this whole war against SEO (which is exactly what it is) simply escalates and we end up in a situation where Google arbitrarily bans or penalises sites at will based on a judgment that no one gets to see or engage in. Google apologists will continue to rant about how wonderful Google are and how they have every right to do whatever it is they want to do and legally, sure this is absolutely their right. Ethically, morally? That’s another debate. With great power comes great responsibility and all that old stuff, yet this is seldom the case in this particular reality. If a site gets a ban or a penalty or whatever then the only message you have is the plummet of your positions on brand or keyword searches.
These are completely different situations:
Case A:
Is viable, as the blogger has utilized the product or visited the place and then wrote a review based on their experience. (What Blogging is mostly about!)
Case B:
The blogger never did anything to experience the product or place. (Lie to it’s readers)
Matt spoke about this in the Google Webmaster chat the other day.
@asia: if that were the case google wouldn’t have an issue with the paid reviews I did I actually looked at the products. However I’ve been informed numerous times my reviews are against google TOS … so there you have it
Google’s published policies allegedly designed to assure no one games their rules are mostly marketing eyewash when the chips are down. Google will readily press down hard on the scales of “fairness” whenever it benefits them to do so. That goes well beyond the bounds of their operations in the blogisphere.
One “policy” they advertise is an absolute prohibition against redirects for linked ads delivered on feeds to Google Base. No wiggle room for “interpretation” there.
Not to say Google minions don’t enforce this policy — the evidence we’ve seen suggests they most certainly do!
Google Base were recently notified by email that two particular real estate sites (one very small and another very large) were blatantly engaging in the prohibited practice of using redirects on a wide scale, with example links enclosed as hard evidence.
Within a couple of weeks, the small site was no longer engaging in redirects, but — surprise! — the large one continues with absolute liberty.
Reasonable assumption: the small site which contributes little (a few hundred listings) to the vast pool of available GB ads was promptly notified to cease and desist its violation of strict “policy”, whereas the large one (tens of thousands of listings) somehow never got the memo.
Reasonable conclusion: profit trumps policy in those big companies willing to look the other way and Google is one of these. Google’s deep pockets fund an astounding volume of sanctimonious and self-serving propaganda promoted to the public by their numberless shills and hand-puppets, thus confirming this age-old principle:
“All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
One word, Excellent! You just explained my thoughts and feelings on this. Google vs Google made SEO Monster. There was no SEO but webmasters till Google became so giant, billion dollar company. Now they wanna kick out people who are making money of Google. Instead of cleaning all mp3, porn, warez and other bullshit from their search results, they are announcing legal is illegal from now on. When Google and Yahoo places Text Link Ads on other websites, it is completely LEGAL because they are making money out of it. So we have to pay to mr. google to get traffic to our websites. It is total non-sense. Write so called ‘cool content’ and let the editorials decide who will be the winner! How about non-blogged, e-commerce websites? There will be tons of companies who will be selling same product with fully optimized ‘google compliant pages’, how mr. google will differentiate what’s good and bad? There is a saying in Turkish, ‘cat is playing with its shit’. That’s what Google is doing.
We contact high profile bloggers now, just to make them aware of our site, if they blog about us that’s cool, but we invested time and money in contacting them – now if we outsource this process are we paying for links? I dont think we are, they only endorse us with a link if they feel its worthwhile. If we send them a free gift to get their attention and dont ask for anything other then to check our site out, then i still feel we are not buying links. But fine line from that to offering money to a blogger to checkout your site, and blog about if they think its any good
Be nice if we didnt have to spend any money but when big brands can buy links until the cows come home it’s hard not to go back to the darkside 
Point #1: Website ‘A’ has a budget of $400/month in advertising. Website ‘B’ has a budget of $40,000. (Now this is legitimate, because I was website ‘A’ not long ago). So, you know where this is headed. How does Website ‘A’ compete with Website ‘B’ if they cannot buy all those PR8 links?
Point #2: I also somehow feel that Website ‘B’ would always have some unfair advantage. And if someone fills out a spam report on Website ‘B’, does Google really look at it as closely?
I have been in PR, I have dabbled in SEO, I have been a journalist — I do not see the big difference.
If you have gone a PR junket, you know it already.
You are taken care of, and then you write about them. Link to them. Sure, no one would say anything specific to you. No one might even hint at you writing an article about them. But that IS the deal. Sure, a few writers may not write about you. But mostly everyone would.
Ok. So the “real” and interesting debate here is Google AdWords/AdSense vs. paid links. I guess that the only “pro” is that AdWords is “supposed” to be contextual, which = relevant. This has gone a bit by the wayside with the ability to use placement ads vs. keyword ads (gotta admit I love the high visibility of placement ads). It’s a little bit of a free-for-all for whomever has the budget!
As far as PR is concerned, I really don’t see the argument here. Gathering the media/press/bloggers for a “media event” or press club, or press conference is an age-old practice to get everyone in the room at once and tell one story. Everyone then returns “home” to write a story on the event good/bad, the critique belongs to the writer. This is SO not-related to your other point of “link buying” or “link building.”
@Bryan – You are so right too. The old quote “it takes $ to make $” totally applies here. There’s not much help for the little guys. They will remain the underdogs b/c not only can they not afford the huge advertising spend, they probably cannot afford a great training class or a PPC or SEO consultant to give them that edge to succeed.
Micheal, 90% of new home magazines and online home guides have advertorials. I used them extensively while promoting a new homes site. There is a huge difference between a blog post and links on a travel site. IMO, you’re crazy to buy links because as you illustrated in your example you can generate long term benefit at the same cost as short term benefit from paid links.
As to the payment part of this. IMO, it’s not about payment it’s about endorsement. If you look up the true function of the “noFollow” value in the HTML spec things become much clearer. Nofollow is meant to indicate the authors endorsement of the pointer. So in your scenario the bloggers are endorsing the link in the other it’s a simple transaction and that should be “nofollowed”, not because Google says so, but, because that is what the attribute is for. The reason it looks hypocritical is Google has framed it in a way that allowed them to launch a FUD and rat program which, I agree, is just a few steps over the line. They have also opened pandoras box when they gave IBLs the ability to harm. That IMO, will unleash a Tsunami of negative SEO the likes we’ve never seen before.
I had to chime in on this one! im like a giddy school girl…
I love Douglas Karr’s comment
Google is soo afraid, cause they know it massively manipulates their algo.
Comments on this entry are closed.