Matt Cutts Says Financial Arrangements Should Affect All Links Within a Post
December 30th, 2007 by Michael Gray in SEOIf 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!
I was notified about this post via email and have to say if it’s true I do find it somewhat disturbing. Ted Murphy of Izea (formerly Pay Per Post) sat down with Matt Cutts at Pubcon and had a discussion about links in sponsored posts. According to Ted here’s what was said …
I explained to Matt that in SocialSpark all links required by an advertiser would carry the no-follow tag. I thought this would be a great thing. Matt commended the decision, but then added ALL links inside of any sponsored post should carry the no-follow tag period, regardless of whether they are required, not required or even link to the advertiser paying for the post. That means if Nikon pays me to review a camera and I link off to a site about photography that link needs to be no-follow, along with the link to the blog of my buddy the photographer. His reasoning was that the sponsored post wouldn’t exist without the sponsor paying for it, therefore all the content is commercial and should be no-follow.
If that statement is true (and yes Matt it would be nice if you clarified it) boiling that down to it’s barest components any page, post or content that was commercially motivated should have all of the links no followed.
If that’s true why is this post on Google Checkout still without any no follow tags? I know you mentioned you were going to fix it but as of the time this post was written it still contains straight links. What about this press release on Google announcing a partnership with Motorola, where Motorola gets a nice straight link? Or how about this post on the Google Blog where Ingram Micro gets a nice straight link? What about this page over on Intuit announcing a partnership with Google, should Intuit get their webmaster to no follow it too, just to make sure they aren’t violating Google’s TOS?
Let’s get even stickier, what about this page over on the Make-a-Wish foundation site which acknowledges the charitable financial support of the Walt Disney Company. I happen to like both organizations, but when you boil it down to it’s bare essentials it’s nothing more than a hosted content page that would not have been created or exist without commercial sponsorship, and according to the rules mentioned above, it’s in violation of TOS for not having a no follow link. The fact that it’s for charity really should not enter the equation at all, unless of course you are going to allow Viagra and poker companies the same algorithmic leeway you allow Disney and Make a Wish.
It boils down to intent, Google wants to know was the link and any subsequent transactions motivated by a desire to manipulate rankings within it’s algorithm. In the case of the Disney and Make a Wish Foundation probably not, in other cases the motivation is much less clear. If Google put as much effort into solving the problem instead of working the FUD campaign we’d all be much better off. C’mon Google sit down put your heads together and solve the problem already, instead of walking around with your hat in your hand begging for paid links reports. It’s a weakness in your algo, not a problem with the internet, unless of course your hubris has grown to a level where you think YOU ARE THE INTERNET …
Sphere It
December 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Michael Excellent post! You spoke with your Soul and Heart!
Igor
December 30th, 2007 at 7:11 am
… do you think they have thought through what would happen to the SERPs if 90% of the links on the net were nofollowed?
December 30th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Michael,
If the Google bot uses links to find sites and crawl the web and it ignores all links that are no followed then you would think there would be a large gap in their index. So, does this mean instead that they are using other sources; like DMOZ, or sitemaps submittted by webmasters to discover new sites. How will a new site, commercial or not with no links be discovered?
What will be considered compensation constituting a paid link. If I am a computer network consultant and I get a gig with let’s say a clothing store and I write about it on my blog or website, including links, then is that considered a paid link?
I think there is something else going on here. But we’ll never know what is truly going on until we get the inside scoop.
December 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Michael here is another blatant example of Google manipulation and self centerness!
Do you want a free Google PR link?
http://www.igorthetroll.com/images/Google+PR+8+Website.jpg
Just join Google Adwards Professional Status.
https://adwords.google.com/select/ProfessionalStatus?id=tqtafi8EMf60kH6mZSuvYw&hl=en_US
Can you tell me if you see rel=nofollow in the source code for http://www.carsonbiz.com/
Now I posted this same comment to a post by
http://www.yackyack.co.uk/nofollow/paid-posts-are-the-devil-incarnate-according-to-search-engines/
The comment passed the filter but he deleted it!
Mr. Yak Yak even boasted this in his post, ” If sufficient weight and evidence could be applied to a position that postulated that Google knowingly allowed content that was created for the purpose of SERP manipulation to directly influence the way it ranked sites, then IMO that would make the presentation of any case seeking to disprove such a thing so much easier. The likes of the FTC and the EU commission not to mention a myriad of other national and regional governmental authorities would take great delight in disassembling the whole shaboogle implementing all manner of restrictions and investigations that would ultimately do no one any good; especially if you were Google or a shareholder of their stock.”
Is Mr, Yak Yak SEO calling Michael Gray, Andy Beard, and Igor Berger liars and BullShit artists???
I think the Yak Cheese Stinks as bad as Google.
Is The Yak Cheese SEO social engineering on behalf of Google?
Thank you,
Igor Berger
December 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Michael, how come Matt does not give you a link?
http://www.aboutus.org/MattCutts.com
But he gives links to Ted WWF,
Barry Brick, WoW even Aaron gets a link!
December 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Thanks for addressing this issue, Michael. It looks like Matt Cutts has responded on the Izea blog post, although I’m not quite sure what his answer is. I wish he’d use little words like “yes” or “no” instead of 5 paragraphs of circle talk.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The exact part that you quoted is the exact part of Ted’s write-up that I disputed. See my comment on Ted’s blog here: http://community.izea.com/blog/2007/12/an-invitation-t.html#comment-95265566
“I wish he’d use little words like “yes” or “no” instead of 5 paragraphs of circle talk.”
Hi Marisa! One thing I was trying to say was that I don’t believe we got to discussing what Ted says we discussed. I remember it as asking “If you’re willing to put nofollow on required links, why not put nofollow on all links since you know most search engines would no longer object to your paid posts?” And as I remember it, Ted said that his business model didn’t support that; but I may be misremembering the conversation. I think the bottom line is that webmasters are always free to do whatever they want on their own site, and in turn search engines reserve the right to trust some sites more or less in order to protect the quality of their search results.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I responded to Matt here:
http://community.izea.com/blog/2007/12/matt-cutts-reps.html
I may have misunderstood our conversation, but I don’ think I misunderstood the email.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Then the question, Matt, is will Google still “trust” my site if I don’t use nofollow on a link to my friend’s site when it’s within a post that also contains a nofollow paid link?
December 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Matt I am getting tired of your song and dance and have better things to do than have to read your talk.
Yes Google can do what it wants, conversation over, are you happy? Than why you coming around left and right crying your song, just go back to your “unofficial” blog and talk Google.
If you want Webmasters to listen to Google just set the example of transparency and not deception!
And it is not what I say or do, but what the global Internet community does!
December 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
@ Igor..um…I think you are wrong old boy - Your comment went to akismet, I pulled it out about 2 hours ago. A P O L O G Y?
December 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Rob, we not here to fight each other! If I need to apologize to you, I do!
Akismet is a very big problem that I have raised concern about.
http://www.phsdl.net/phsdl-vs-akismet-complaint.php
Rob, yes Akismet can start wars between people, and detract from the cause!
Back to our common problem, Google and its double standards and double talk, and please lets say it loud and clear so it resonates through the whole Internet until Google comes clean with the Internet Global Village.
Regards,
Igor
December 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
At the risk of stretching the point, if I write a music review and include an Amazon affiliate link (commercial motivation), then links to other blogs and even the artists homepage need to be no-followed?
Get a grip. I’m here to write, not to mop up on behalf of a shitty algorithim.
When you consider the diversity in the web, and how little the non-SEO community know or care about paid links, Google can only ‘fight’ this on an algorithmic basis or not at all. Ordinary people just don’t give a stuff about the links as long as they lead to other valuable content.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Gerard - This is where it all starts to fall down around Big G’s ears. The copied section from the email conversation between Matt and Ted suggests that ALL links within a sponsored post fall under the same category regardless of payment or not. So in your example, yes, it would appear that a link to the artists site which hasn’t been paid for *might* well fall within the realms of Matt’s team.
Affiliate links seem to be a pretty grey area although I don’t see them as being as relevant as they tend to include tracking IDs and such like so less likely to appear in the SERPs anyway.
Despite my own public protestations about all this, I do understand where Google are coming from on this to an extent. However I think the way it’s being done isn’t being managed very well and, as you say, the non-SEO aware community are blissfully unaware of all of this and linking out without their link condoms.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I have found it very interesting that Google expects, even requires, everyone to alter their business models to cover a weakness in their own business model.. It seems to me that it should be easier to fix your own problems than to require potentially millions of people to bow down and fix it for you..
Like most rules all that this is going to do is drive good, legitimate links and posts in to worthlessness and open the field even further for those that try to game the system.. The good guys will follow orders and the bad guys will not.. Guess who wins in that scenario??
Dealing with Google in 2007/08 feels like dealing with Microsoft in the late 90s.. And we saw where Microsoft ended up, in court with $36 shares..
December 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Interesting. So, I just did a post linking to charities. All but one I just think are cool and have never used the services of. One, Ronald McDonald House, gave me free room and board for a good part of almost two years when my son was on life support and had various other health issues. Had I never stayed at Ronald McDonald House, the link to them wouldn’t have existed. So, is that now a paid link? After all, RMH did give me things for free and as a result got a link….
Such bullshit
December 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
How about sitemeter? Or WP themes with embedded links? Linkware is a paid link. The last time I checked, Sitemeter was a PR 8.
If you read between the lines, Google would like to separate the web into the “information web” and the “Commercial web”, with wikipedia/knols/.edus dominating the information web, and adwords being the only opportunity for a commercial venture to get its word out. If you’re putting out content out of the goodness of your heart, then they want you in the SERPs. But it you’re trying to make a buck, they want you to pay them a tax.
The problem is that most of the content out there couldn’t survive if it had to drive traffic only with adwords. And then there wouldn’t be anything for Google to serve in its SERPs.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Sorry it is more complicated than that. Google wants to be the gateway of information!
If Google has its way, Wolf-Howl and other blogs who’s owners express controversial opinions will not be around. If they still are they will be buried so deep, that no one will even know their existence.
This is a struggle higher and more important than just Google, but it is a struggle for humanity and Bill of Rights
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Please learn who owns Google and why Google got to be so powerful.
Google has become Akismet - a Black Hole devoid of all humanity. Once you on DRBL you are in a KillFile.
207 billion dollar market value company does not have a public domain discussion forum with its customers about issues that are of most importance to its existence. With its Chief software engineer running around from Blog to Blog social engineering a pseudo perception of Happy Google serves you best!
Can you imagine if Ford, Citibank, or any other fortune 500 company would behave in such matter?
US Department of Justice, SEC, and many other industry related government and non for profit consumer advocacy agencies and groups would be screaming bloody murder and lining up with Anti Trust and Anti Monopoly lawsuits by the dozens.
Recall the US Department of Justice and the European union lawsuits against Microsoft!
Show me one successful lawsuit against Google.
Does US government has an alternative motive to keep the public in the dark and let Google reign free an unconstrained with its powerful hands on search data?
This is a neoconservative right wing agenda, and unless we escalate this above SEO we all have a lot to lose!
We will lose our freedoms, our rights, our ability to survive and exist as a rational society!
Can you imagine talk to Google as your Wife?
You really need to read some of Michael’s posts to really understand and get a full grasp on what is this about.
And have a look at this video and see if you would be happy having Marry Google as your wife!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGfaQCY_bo4
Regards,
Igor
December 31st, 2007 at 3:26 am
If you look at Matt Cutts.com traffic trends it shows his reputation and usefulness of his PR blog proportionally goes down the drain:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/mattcutts.com
But nice he bothers to comment here at least.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:53 am
Mr. Troll do you have a first name or you are generic..:)
We need to be careful here, everyone make sure to reserve your Troll name before they are all taken!
December 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Okay another MC “post”, gimme a freackin break please!
You’ve got bark wolf but your blog is lit up like a Xmas tree with no_follows.
Is that automatic, to decrease blog spam or intentional, I found your blog through Sphinn and now you are on MY YAHOO page, which is shared with countess millions annonomously unlike Google Reader puke which I had to remove from my bookmarks simply because there was too much carp, and someday Google may decide to publish all of my emails, so I deleted my account. I know they still have a damn good profile of me now though, so it probably doesn’t matter.
So now comes the choice, my serps are pretty much the same across the board, do I screw with my hard fought victories with the other two so I don’t cross Google, not in a milliom years, my organic traffic from Yahoo! pays the bills and “Live.com” is just a bonus.
What I am saying is I could still thrive and struggle to keep up with orders just from the traffic Yahoo! sends me if Google dropped me tommorow.
That may be of big concern to ad-cents gamers, me been there done that, I still have all the lovely additions on my house and a two year old GTO that will do wheelies if I try hard enough.
Them were the days $1 for every Firefox download, WOW we made out like bandits!
But now that every living creature on the planet that I come into contact with has downloaded and tried FF or didn’t even try it, switched back to IE6 or 7 within a matter of minutes, I would not put a sponsored ad on my web properties unless I was being paid by the publisher and I sure as hell would not put a “no-follow” on their add(that was meant for blog spam I think??)
Dan
December 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Funny you linked to Google Checkout, I got my first and last charge-back that cost me $115.00 plus 50%, no you will no longer buy from me using Google BF.
Had to get that out feel much better, have to get my own blog some day BLOGGER not@!
December 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
yes nofollow stuff is automatic
December 31st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Google Juice is something we earn for our hard work. Who is to dectate to us how we spend our money? Google, Goverment, or a guy with a hat collecting nickles.
I follow when there is a reason to follow. Hey if I was as rich as Matt with a no limit bank account at Google, I would follow even my favorite porn sites, which I still do because of my patronage of them!
So Matt with PR 7 blog wants to dectate what we should follow? I do not think so. Matt, you are no bloggers` friend, just a Fat Cat with Google juice stuck in the Head!
December 31st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Sorry, I have got Google shillelaghs, it’s a disease that causes delirium whenever you hear or see nofollow.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!
December 31st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Igor, your links may say no follow, but they are still followed(unless cloaked). I tried the PR sculpting on one of my sites, no follow didn’t seem to mean a thing to spiders(or the poor souls that clicked on them!)
December 31st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
dann, you might as well throw your robots.txt away as well if you believe in what you`ve just said..:)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
So basically I have to educate all the computer illiterate people who run their blogs on some free service, on how to add nofollow to links when they review my products?
Matt, are you gonna pay me salary to do this, or are you going to educate all computer illiterate bloggers on the Internet so I don’t have to?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Google is the most used search engine but why should we modify the way we run our websites because they say so.
Freedom stops when it starts to prevent others to have their freedom. If I want to modify all external links in my website it’s my choice and if I don’t who else will complain other than Google because we are not helping them to give us relevant search results. They can improve or modify the results they give us but they can’t dictate our activities !!!
They can ban my websites but I will never change anything unless it harms others.