How Can So Many PHD’s Be So Wrong
April 14th, 2007 by Michael Gray in Google, conferenceIf 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!
There’s a famous saying that if you put enough chimpanzees in front of enough typewriters eventually you’ll end up with the works of William Shakespeare. However it’s seem the largest collection PHD’s in the world at Google are having a really hard time identifying paid links and have to resort to a bit of bluffing, and creating FUD to acomplish their goals.
Now if you stopped by Matt Cutt’s blog you’ll notice 1,2,3 posts on paid links. I say anytime someone writes three times in row all about one subject there was some thought put into the plan. Feel free to read them all but the one you really want to make sure you read is the one on Hidden links (no really go read it).
As I commented on Matt’s blog this is actually another example of Google’s hypocrisy. The webmaster guidelines clearly say the litmus test is “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”. Adding machine readable “no follow” tags or redirecting through blocked redirect script seems to be for the search engines and not the users. However Matt says that isn’t really the intent and spirit of guidelines. The guidelines seemed pretty clear to me, but then again I’m not a PHD.
While there are a lot of things I really admire about Google as an employer it’s implementations like this that make me believe Google does treat it’s employees like children. At SES this week I had lunch with some Googlers from different offices. They were talking about their SAT scores and what colleges they went to. It was an impressive list of schools to be sure but this pseudo campus like workplace atmosphere they built might just be creating a work force that is out of touch with the real world.
Looking at over 5,000 years of recorded human history there are few things that haven’t changed. One is that the uneven distribution of resources that creates a scarcity for some and an abundance for others, results in commerce. People will buy, sell, trade, barter, beg or even steal to get these resources. Google created a page rank based economy and smart people got into the market of selling it. Google didn’t like that took it away and legal battles ensued. To further control this artificial economy Google adjusted the publicly displayed page rank and the market went down the toilet.
Google built an algorthym that placed value on links, so is it any wonder that an economy built upon selling those links sprouted up? Google also places value on trusted and authoritative domains such as “.edu” TLD’s. Looking at the SERP’s for [buy viagra] and [buy cialis] it’s pretty clear it’s in place. Is it a shock to anyone that there is a market for links and pages on “.edu” sites.
What really amazes me is as smart as all those PHD’s have to be, they can’t seem to figure out these markets are going to spring up, and plan for it. What’s even more amazing is the first line of defense is a scare tactic to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. Let’s be honest if they had a way to deal with it quickly, easily and efficiently they’d just do it, and stop the alpha male posturing.
Lastly if you’re one of those people who think Google is in to make the world better, let’s remember Google is a for profit company. Their interest in keeping the organic side clean and spam free, is really governed by their need to maintain a spot people are willing to visit for them to put paid advertisements on.
Update
Get some additional commentary Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website
Sphere It
April 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I tried to answer your question about the webmaster guidelines in a comment on my blog. Over there, I said “graywolf, you seem to be interpreting “Make pages for users, not for search engines” to mean quite literally “don’t ever do even a single thing on a page except for users” and since I helped draft our quality guidelines, I can say with 100% certainty that that’s not the intended spirit of that phrase.
Users don’t see meta tags, but they can be helpful. Users don’t care about whether a page is well-formed or validates, but writing valid code makes a page easier to maintain going forward. Providing disclosure for paid links is a good practice according to the FTC and Google, and I think most people can understand the logic behind that guideline, even if they disagree with it.”
Several people at SES London mentioned that they wanted a way to report paid links, and this gives an easier way to do that. I was interested in offering an easier way to give feedback anyway because we’ve got some techniques that we want to try out, and it would help to have some independent data from the outside world.
Finally, you say “Their interest in keeping the organic side clean and spam free, is really governed by their need to maintain a spot people are willing to visit for them to put paid advertisements on.” I can tell you that my motivation is simple: to provide clean search results. Assert that my posts are motivated by money if you want, but they aren’t.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
P.S. I never got a Ph.D., so a better title would be “How Can A Guy Who Got A Master’s Degree Be So Wrong?” or even “How Can A Kentuckian Be So Wrong?”
April 14th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
>Assert that my posts are motivated by money if you want, but they aren’t.
All right I’ll agree that’s your goal, but you’re also smart enough to know that a good SERP is more attractive to an advertiser, and ultimately those advertising dollars translate into people’s salaries.
And not having a PHD raises your standing in my book
April 15th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Michael - I believe you are trying to defend a sinking ship even if the point that Google is still having trouble detecting “paid links” is correct.
I also see Matt’s post more as a warning because he has said these things for years. Looks like their focus will now be on using link narks to develop stronger algorithms. The human/robot mix is scary stuff if you engage in weak SEO.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:40 am
If I buy a billboard ad to sell a hamburger when a person is entering a town, that is relevant.
If I buy a radio spot with a sizzling burger in the background, it is relevant.
If I buy a television ad to show the burger’s juiciness, it is relevant.
If I buy a link with the phrase “hamburgers” for a vote that my site means hamburgers, it is relevant.
Let’s drop the whole detecting and potentially penalizing paid links business from the perspective of relevancy; I would like to see a study that uses a set of paid link data and determines whether those sites are more or less relevant than the current 1-10. Will they be more relevant than the Adwords for that phrase…no, I expect they’d be just about the same, and that seems to be more of a likely reason.
Please Matt, focus on XSS, poisoned caches, the resurgence of 302, and real negative search approaches. Paid links are positive for our industry, and for Google [just think, a bunch of people throwing money around in an effort to help you know what sites are relevant for what phrases].
April 15th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Matt is right, there needs to be disclosure for paid links. And all links for that matter.
What about a-listers and friends circle jerking links? That needs to be disclosed too.
What about strictly natural links? The webmaster should be constrained to justify what makes the linked content valid based on empirical criteria, otherwise it has too much danger or misleading innocent readers and search engine bots.
Enough of this liberal crap. What is the world comming to. Go Big Brother!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:18 am
C’mon Matt your saying one thing and doing the total opposite. No real suprise.
Most Australians see it in the seo/sem serps quite clearly. The top ranking agency has links that are akin to total shit - but they aren’t devalued - QUITE the opposite.
Not to mention the nations largest real estate (.com.au) site with hundreds of shitty links all linking to the non-www version - guess who’s client these guys are?
Want to be a real sherrif? clean up the crud in front of you first!
Now I know you know the sites I am talking about Matt. A lot of seo guys over here laughing at the hypocrisy on this one. Maybe time to dust of your spam tools and have a bit of a closer look.
Disclosure for paid links, LMFAO. As if. Seriously, you are joking right?
Listen Matt - if your shitty algo cannot detect even basic thresholds for spam stop begging the community to start becoming narks while Google continues ranking shit all over the place.
I really don’t care about shit ranking (makes my job easier), it’s the bullshit that comes out your (Google) mouth Matt that pisses me off. (I wonder if you laugh about this at night when you clock off - shit I hope you do!).
/rant
April 15th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Aaron Pratt can you spell cutlett? No offence mate but you commentry is way off base. The Web is made up of websites, not one website! Taking advice from Google is rather silly Aaron.
Talk is totally different to what is happening in the serps.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Ben - You clearly do not understand where Google is going. Let me ask you a question. Who would you rather have at the top of Google’s search reults in the future, someone who paid for it or someone who deserves it?
Google is also not a website the last time I checked. You do not have to be a Cuttlet to appreciate what Google is doing here, mate!
April 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Ben, in the last month or so, two different people from my team spoke at conferences in Australia, so I’ll ask to see if they have more details, but if you want to provide details (e.g. via the spam report form), I’d be happy to hear more.
graywolf, glad to hear that my lack of Ph.D. raises your opinion of me.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Google is also not a website the last time I checked.
Um, what? Google is a company, so in that sense, you’re correct.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Lol, how do you all call yourselves an SEO? Learn to do things under the radar and stop bitching. You think if you cry over this long enough Google’s gonna change its mind?
“Let’s be honest”
Good idea. Lets be honest for once and admit you’re howling (or is it whining) about paid links not because Google’s double-talk and over-controlling policies piss you off but because Google’s pro-nofollow stance cut into your bottom line.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
>>>friends circle jerking links
That phrase takes on a whole new meaning when I’m involved. hahaha.
>>>you’re howling (or is it whining) about paid links not because Google’s double-talk and over-controlling policies piss you off but because Google’s pro-nofollow stance cut into your bottom line
I had an analogy for my opinion on that comment, but it was beyond raunchy, so I’m holding it back.
This isn’t about whether or not paid links are good or evil - this is about whether or not Google should be guessing as to what links are paid and what links aren’t when there is no clear cut way to know without access to the linking sites accounting books.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I can understand and appreciate the desire to differentiate between paid and unpaid links, but Google’s attempt appears disingenuous. It looks more like they want to control the link economy that they created than accept the natural effects of such an economy. The system its self is flawed. They should work on fixing the system rather than controlling people within it.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I think Google’s view on what “spam” is has gone completely overboard.
Think about this from an offline perspective. If the company I run serves its customers well and generates the revenue to afford multiple full page listings in the phone book, does that mean I’m spamming the phone book? No. It means my business is giving value to my clients and I’m going to do everything in my power to get my name out there so more clients can benefit from my quality. If I roll out a crappy product and people don’t spend money on me, I have to shrink or pull my ad from the phone book.
There are people claiming that filtering paid links benefits the mom & pop sites. That’s complete crap. It’s the exact opposite. Things like paid links are an easy way for mom & pop’s to show that they belong in the SERPs for a phrase. If they suck, they’re not going to be able to afford it. Without being able to pay for links, large “authority” sites will dominate mom & pop sites even if the mom & pop site is really the true authority. I see sites showing up every day that are “authority” sites with 3 year old information that is no longer relevant to anything I searched for. But it’s an “authority”, so G eats it up.
I realize that there will be abuses and some spam sites will end up buying links and showing up, but IMO, Google is wrong to handle it by filtering paid links.
Until Google can more intelligently interpret the subject of a page/site and how it truly answers a query, they’re going to keep chasing their tail on combating “link spam”…which really only benefits those who are smarter about getting links that don’t look like paid links.
Ultimately, if Google really wanted to prove that they weren’t doing all of this for the sake of selling more AdWords ads, they’d stop doing things that caused smaller, more relevant sites to drop from the SERPs.
What’s next? Being able to nark on competitors because they redesigned their site now that they have a bigger budget and can afford some real SEO?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Greywolf… I just have to point out you mention the “dont do things for search engines” yet you fail to realize…
nobody would pay for a link if it wasnt for search engines in the first place.
So its not that theyre going against their guidelines, theyre just attempting to fix the market their guidelines created.
of course, the only real fix is to not base a search engine on links… but we all saw how that worked: we just got porn and auto loan results for every query we typed.
(sorry for the lack of apostrophes.. for some reason firefox thinks that when i type an apostrophe or slash i want to open up the find dialog.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:15 am
>dont do things for search engines
That’s Google’s rule not mine, I’m just here point out ridiculousness of it
April 16th, 2007 at 2:52 am
>Let me ask you a question. Who would you rather have at the top of Google’s search reults in the future, someone who paid for it or someone who deserves it?
Aaron, this argument falls apart in the real world. It would logically follow then that you would want to ban all SEO/SEM work? Clients pay us to help them improve their rankings/traffic. The guy who pays $10′000/month gets better results than the guy who pays $200.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:52 am
This really leaves the people out in the cold that take money from trusted advertisers. A person has to either risk getting narced out, or portray their advertisers as having cooties and sticking a nofollow on them.
There is a lot of gray area (no pun intended) between paid and unpaid as well.
If this gets strictly enforced by Google it is really going to create a lot of badwill for Google as nobody likes being strongarmed to do things that they’d rather not do.
Plus, doesn’t the whole affair sound like Don Quixote tipping windmills anyway? Altavista couldn’t get people to stop stuffing their meta tags with junk no matter how nicely they asked. It’s an awfully big Internet that Google wants to govern…
April 16th, 2007 at 7:26 am
“Their interest in keeping the organic side clean and spam free”
I really disagree with this as the motivation for the recent moves - it presumes SEO and link development is solely a vehicle for spam, but that’s the remit of automated form posting (blog spam, etc).
I think the big problem is that Google want to order the web by a supposed “objective standard” - yet by determining what they believe should be represented by this standard, it’s already subjective.
Google are armed already with patents to devalue links which are likely paid for - I’m really surprised Google are instead trying to leverage themselves over an existing internet economy and try to filter it out.
Editorially approved links which are relevant but paid for just aren’t creating a negative user experience IMO, so it’s surprising to see the recent moves.
2c.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“Who would you rather have at the top of Google’s search reults in the future, someone who paid for it or someone who deserves it?”
Define “deserve” please. Because if it’s just the difference between paid and unpaid links, then the ones who “deserve it” are those who have power to convince others to link to them with specific anchor text. Those people are A-listers and influential bloggers who trade links (like John Chow). Or just people who have lots of websites and circle link them.
It’s not people who develop “natural links” from other webmasters.
Google should give up on trying to control linking. Links are free and people will link how they want, where they want, and for whatever fee they want. Google needs to accept the fact that their algorithm created this link economy and the only way to make paid links less valuable is to invest less in the link system. Find other ways of answering users’ queries. They should focus on evolving beyond pure text search. Start working on word *meanings*.
I don’t sell or buy links (unless you count the occasional disclosed affiliate link and adsense). So that’s not what I’m upset about. What I’m upset about is Google (and other companies like Technorati) trying to control webmasters by threatening to kick us out of the club if we don’t link they way they want us to. They don’t want us to link to ‘bad neighborhoods,’ use ‘too many’ links, and now buy or sell links.
But they won’t actually define any of those terms. What’s a ‘bad neighborhood’? Are they sites not indexed by Google? Are they link schemes? Define a link scheme. Is a free directory a link scheme? Is a piece of art made by links a link scheme?
How many links is too many? Shouldn’t context and relevancy matter? Shouldn’t we be allowed to be creative?
What’s a paid link? Is it payperpost or textlinkads or is it affiliate links too? Is a reciprocal link equivalent to payment? Is a link in exchange for a “gift” a paid link?
So long as Google continues to promote the link economy they’ll have to enforce more and more rules regarding it. Soon we’ll have something similar to the US tax code regarding how to link.
But links are free! There is no reason to make an economy out of them unless Google refuses to develop their search. And well, if they do that, then someone else will come along and make a better search that really answers users’ queries. Do you think users will stay loyal to Google if Google can’t give them the search results they’re looking for? Hell no.
Google is the new Microsoft. Their monopoly is growing. If they continue the power grab above development of their products, they’ll be wiped out by a competitor just like Google wiped MS out.
Don’t make money online, make fun. Link how you want to: http://www.elainevigneault.com/2007/04/15/dont-make-money-online-make-fun.html
April 16th, 2007 at 11:17 am
“Aaron, this argument falls apart in the real world. It would logically follow then that you would want to ban all SEO/SEM work?”
It is funny how I have become the black knight simply because I agree with one part of Google’s policy on “paid” links. Not at all man, SEO is actually easier without link building.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
“nobody would pay for a link if it wasnt for search engines in the first place.”
Sometimes I get confused between ignorance and sarcasm.
Please tell me you didn’t mean what you said above.
I have a couple of reasons to pay for links that have nothing to do with engines:
#1 is TRAFFIC!
#2 is BRANDING!
Unless of course you are so hard core that you don’t care where your links actually get posted (i.e. where no human being will ever see them) then I guess #1 and #2 mean nothing to you.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Surely there is a difference between relevant paid links compared to say the poker/csaino garbage links at the bottom of http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ .
PS With the latest DOJ crackdown on internet gambling aren;t they playing with fire linking to “US Online Poker UK”.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Jim,
“aren;t they playing with fire linking to US Online Poker UK”?
You’d think so, but you know, Google adsense runs a lot of those ads too. You’d think if Google doesn’t allow gaming ads that they’d filter the words “poker” and “casino” and “gambling.” But obviously they’re more interested in making money.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Elaine - Google Ads do not pass pagerank which is the point of this entire conversation.
Anyone still believe that pagerank doesn’t matter? HA!!!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:58 am
>PS With the latest DOJ crackdown on internet gambling aren;t they playing with fire linking to “US Online Poker UK”
Jim means that the law against gambling in the US actually prohibits the advertising/promotion of the activity as well.
>Anyone still believe that pagerank doesn’t matter? HA!!!
Yes Pagerank(TM) doesn’t matter - it’s an inaccurate measurement. If you mean link popularity, that is a different issue.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I have submitted my paid reviews to Google as Webspam asking for an opinion.
Oh I also submitted Matt’s blog as webspam, due to the commercial nature of all his links to Google which are not disclosed in the content of every post, and obviously don’t (oversight) have nofollow.
Google with their referral units allow you to encourage people to click on them and sign up or download, but you are not allowed to tell your readers that you earn money by them doing so.
One of these days Google will publish clear guidelines as to what constitutes a paid link that gives penalties, and it will be interesting how universally it is applied.
Matt, is Amazon given credit for the paid links from IMDB? Sure they paid millions for them, but they probably got them cheap.
Will Amazon place nofollow on every link they purchased when buying IMDB? I doubt it.
It is nice that we are all on a level playing field.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Sure Matt, the details are as follows. Don’t do spam reports sorry don’t have the time nor inclination for various obvious reasons.
1. Go to search tool and look up top SEO/SEM searches in Australia.
2. Go to Google.com.au and insert these phrases and look for trends in the results
4. Investigate these trends (also check out the .com results)
5. Look into the IBL’s and client case studies (pay attention to non-www - think example above)
6. Follow the trail to the 3 or 4 distinct spam methods, specifically hidden links, large link farms of shit, off-topic links used to bolster client rankings
Sorry to sound patranising but it really is that easy. To be honest it’s nice spam, just the wrong market.
Good luck!
April 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
It seems as though a lot of people are really running with this topic right off the cliff, as if they are saying “Let’s assume the worst about Google and their intentions.” Seems to me Matt clearly stated they are tying out some ideas on paid links - not that they are completely against them. I agree with Aaron Pratt, what is the problem with Google wanting a better way to ID paid links? Is it really an organic SERP if the top listings are achieved through paid links?
Maybe they are trying to find a way to analyze and contextualize paid links to allow them to score them accordingly?
And I just don’t see “another example of Google’s hypocrisy” in using a “nofollow” tag? There is a lot of value to the user in that, even though 99% of all users will never know it’s there.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Ok Andy, now tell me what came first the Search Engine or the Web? Would you agree that adding no follow links distorts the organic Web? What would Tim Berners-Lee say about the matter?
If Google came out tomorrow and asked you to stop advertising your website would you? (because this is effectively the same thing)
Surely it’s their job to work out what should be number one, not yours and mine. Why do you listen to Google and take your eye off the prize (number one) and do their job, or stick to doing yours (building links and visits to your website)?
Do you really think the people like Aaron spouting this no-follow BS rank very well? I don’t, nor do I think they really even understand the basic factors driving SEO or the Semantic WEB. I read your posts at times Aaron and shutter when I think about the KOOL AID you have been sucking down. (I am sure others think the same, mate!)
The SERP’s never lie.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Ben, it seems to me that everything SEO is about is geared toward distorting the organic web, so yes, I would agree that adding no follow tags would distort it as well. What I am getting at here is it seems to me too many people are jumping to a lot of wild conclusions.
And I don’t agree with you that Google is asking anyone to stop advertising. They are saying that focusing on good content and natural links are going to carry more weight than paid links for organic search.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:54 am
[quote]
Who would you rather have at the top of Google’s search results in the future, someone who paid for it or someone who deserves it?
[/quote]
Google has taken a great step towards making the search clean. Instead of bashing each other, we need to take SEO differently.
Really, give the credit to someone who deserves it.
- Avi
April 25th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Matt-Cutts-Bashing and Other Blunders
Responses to what appeared to be an upfront disclosure and an honest solicitation of industry-input have quickly developed into a slew of Matt-Cutts-bashing. I’ve never met the man but, folks, he simply doesn’t deserve that from you.
That said, I do find horrendous problems for Matt Cutts in finding ways to define, to identify and to monitor paid links. I’ll just give you three examples here.
1. Define What is a Paid Link
At law, compensation doesn’t just mean cash. It also means goods, services and even love. What is a paid link? If I write a 750 word article and allow it to be posted on a Web site in exchange for a link, do you not realize that I have just paid between $220 and $750 in time and talent for that single link even though no money traded hands?
If a philanthropist donates $20,000 to a nonprofit and that nonprofit posts a thank you for the sponsorship on its Web site and provides a courtesy link to the donor’s Web site, is that not a paid link? If it isn’t, than all link farm sites can become nonprofits and give away links for a “donation.”
2. How Will Google Know For Certain How to Identify a Paid Link?
I just finished a backlink campaign for a client yesterday. I submitted 100 links. Not one was a paid link and not one was given a reciprocal link or a “no follow.” If my record holds, 90% of these links will be accepted. But here’s a problem. Five of these links were to directory sites (PR 6 or greater) that also post paid links and links that are paid for by reciprocal links. No one but the sites’ Webmasters and I know for certain which category of link I applied for. I’m certain that the Webmasters of these sites would not want to volunteer how many of their posted links are given for free. Like all of us, they have mouths to feed.
3. How Will Google Monitor and Mediate?
If a competitor of my client’s Website “reports” to Google that I have paid for links, will Google notify me so that I may initiate a slander or libel lawsuit? Will Google mediate so that I have an opportunity to refute the accusation? (How many new employees will Google have to hire to monitor and mediate the accusations and complaints?) Or, are we to be presumed guilty with no opportunity to prove innocence?
So Matt Cutts asked for a discussion, so let’s discuss. I am seriously pleased that he gave us this opportunity to participate. And for all the panicking Web site owners, may I just point out that it is possible to garner a Google Page Rank 7, place #4 on a Google search out of 256,000,000 Results for a 2 word Keyphrase, with a Home page that does NOT contain the Keyphrase and a Web site which has only 20 inbound links. If your SEO expert doesn’t know how this is possible, ask me next month at WebSyndications.com .