-
Website
http://andybeard.eu/ -
Original page
http://andybeard.eu/1131/before-i-deal-the-fud-i%e2%80%99m-going-to-ask-you-to-put-on-your-regular-user-hat.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
No one but those running BL checks on the site would ever see the paid post.
Good post I totally agree.
No one but those running BL checks on the site would ever see the paid post.
Good post I totally agree.
I am not God...EvilGoogle is....and the song goes on,,,,Do not Be Evil..:)
I am not God...EvilGoogle is....and the song goes on,,,,Do not Be Evil..:)
Most webmasters now know the gist of what Google will do about paid links, however no one except Google knows what links are considered "paid links". By Google's definition, it will regard certain sponsored links as "non-paid links", while certain suspicious links to be paid links without any question.
Most webmasters now know the gist of what Google will do about paid links, however no one except Google knows what links are considered "paid links". By Google's definition, it will regard certain sponsored links as "non-paid links", while certain suspicious links to be paid links without any question.
1)If you are writing a paid post , mention clearly that it is a paid post.
2)Do not just favor the product to earn money , blog about both its pros and cons , and that demands extensive research , which most bloggers hesitate from.
Ultimately Google are not interested in whether the review was of good quality or not, but on the supposed "damage" such reviews do to their search results.
Matt's post didn't achieve its purpose based upon my research, because he falsely suggested that the sites he provided screenshots of would be the ones appearing in the SERPs instead of the Mayo clinic, when in fact for terms like Gamma Knife the trademark holder and patent holder might appear, which is appropriate.
This is supposing that these satellite sites were an experiment for the patent holder, but it seems they were experimenting with paid reviews on a non primary domain, but the information on the sites certainly seems to be as valid as Wikipedia content, maybe more so, as you would expect from a patent holder for the technology.
If Google can't effectively clear up what it thinks of as something totally black, how can they ever reduce the width of the vast grey area?
1)If you are writing a paid post , mention clearly that it is a paid post.
2)Do not just favor the product to earn money , blog about both its pros and cons , and that demands extensive research , which most bloggers hesitate from.
Ultimately Google are not interested in whether the review was of good quality or not, but on the supposed "damage" such reviews do to their search results.
Matt's post didn't achieve its purpose based upon my research, because he falsely suggested that the sites he provided screenshots of would be the ones appearing in the SERPs instead of the Mayo clinic, when in fact for terms like Gamma Knife the trademark holder and patent holder might appear, which is appropriate.
This is supposing that these satellite sites were an experiment for the patent holder, but it seems they were experimenting with paid reviews on a non primary domain, but the information on the sites certainly seems to be as valid as Wikipedia content, maybe more so, as you would expect from a patent holder for the technology.
If Google can't effectively clear up what it thinks of as something totally black, how can they ever reduce the width of the vast grey area?
Matt has been very lucky that no one questions goog's motives and morality for allowing this poor/low standard of quality so it can profit off it.
Matt has been very lucky that no one questions goog's motives and morality for allowing this poor/low standard of quality so it can profit off it.
It's not ok to sell links to help a site rank #1.. But it is ok to accept money to place an advertisement above the natural listings.. Seems like a massive ethical issue to me..
It's not ok to sell links to help a site rank #1.. But it is ok to accept money to place an advertisement above the natural listings.. Seems like a massive ethical issue to me..
Wikipedia is a terrible authority on a lot of subjects yet still ranks well with Google. If I were a "regular user" I might be mislead by the information given there. The trouble is not paid links, it is simply bad information.
There is lots of bad information on the web. You Tube is an example. In You Tube's case, the highest quality content they have is usually something they do not have the copyright to show.
An excellent post Andy, and you are right on!
Matt Cutts is over rated. Very little of what he says is very helpful and most of it can be found from much more reliable sources.
Wikipedia is a terrible authority on a lot of subjects yet still ranks well with Google. If I were a "regular user" I might be mislead by the information given there. The trouble is not paid links, it is simply bad information.
There is lots of bad information on the web. You Tube is an example. In You Tube's case, the highest quality content they have is usually something they do not have the copyright to show.
An excellent post Andy, and you are right on!
Matt Cutts is over rated. Very little of what he says is very helpful and most of it can be found from much more reliable sources.
But just because his example isn't infallible doesn't mean his argument is incorrect.
This was the first public attempt by Google to prove that paid links and reviews have a negative effect on search results, and as such you would expect it to be flawless.
There are other aspects of this that Google and in particular Matt Cutts are trying to warp, such as all search engines looking on paid links the same.
Just a year ago all the search engines were asked at SES Chicago about how they treat paid links, and whilst Matt clarified the statement in a comment on SEOmoz, none of the search engines were suggesting that they would be dishing out severe penalties to sites that wrote the occasional piece of paid content.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/search-engines-say-o...
But just because his example isn't infallible doesn't mean his argument is incorrect.
This was the first public attempt by Google to prove that paid links and reviews have a negative effect on search results, and as such you would expect it to be flawless.
There are other aspects of this that Google and in particular Matt Cutts are trying to warp, such as all search engines looking on paid links the same.
Just a year ago all the search engines were asked at SES Chicago about how they treat paid links, and whilst Matt clarified the statement in a comment on SEOmoz, none of the search engines were suggesting that they would be dishing out severe penalties to sites that wrote the occasional piece of paid content.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/search-engines-say-o...
and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. how useful can G's tactic be if they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
insert additional trite cliché here:______________
and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. how useful can G's tactic be if they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
insert additional trite cliché here:______________
I was very very disappointed with Matt's post. The post is supposed to clearly show how the average user is negatively impacted by the use of paid links and how paid links can skew results and create less accurate SERPs. What it really did was underline the problem Google is facing in determining a "real" link.
If the problem is : what makes a page have the most authority is how many other relevant sites link to it - And results can be fixed by acquiring inbound links through other means other than organic.
Then what is the answer?
What is organic anyway?
Is it organic when i start a new blog and ask 20 link builders that I know to mention my new site on some of their sites?
Is it organic when one of those link builders the next day asks me to digg some of their articles?IS it organic when I pay some on in third-world country $1.00 for every inbound link they acquire>
If natural linking is the way you want a system to work and natural links are impossible to detect then knocking out sites with paid links is a drop in the bucket.
In a system where links are the method of currency and you can counterfeit so easily then the whole economy will eventually collapse.
I would be curious to hear what you think the solution to Google's dilemma is.
Lisa
I was very very disappointed with Matt's post. The post is supposed to clearly show how the average user is negatively impacted by the use of paid links and how paid links can skew results and create less accurate SERPs. What it really did was underline the problem Google is facing in determining a "real" link.
If the problem is : what makes a page have the most authority is how many other relevant sites link to it - And results can be fixed by acquiring inbound links through other means other than organic.
Then what is the answer?
What is organic anyway?
Is it organic when i start a new blog and ask 20 link builders that I know to mention my new site on some of their sites?
Is it organic when one of those link builders the next day asks me to digg some of their articles?IS it organic when I pay some on in third-world country $1.00 for every inbound link they acquire>
If natural linking is the way you want a system to work and natural links are impossible to detect then knocking out sites with paid links is a drop in the bucket.
In a system where links are the method of currency and you can counterfeit so easily then the whole economy will eventually collapse.
I would be curious to hear what you think the solution to Google's dilemma is.
Lisa
In my experience, when a user types a broad query such as "radiosurgery" they typically want overviews, tutorials, and introductions to the topic rather than a) paid posts showing up in the search results, or alternatively b) websites that received links mainly from paid posts.
I did research into the site buying links, but decided not to highlight that site because it was beside the point. But I'm aware of not only braintumortreatment.org but also things like truthaboutradiosurgery.com (which has a lot of duplicate content compared to braintumortreatment.org) that appear to be by the same person. Ultimately when writing the post I decided that running multiple sites with duplicate content was beside the point of the paid link post, so I consciously decided not to talk much about the site receiving paid links in my post.
There is a fair amount of duplicate content in those 2 sites, but they are still not your usual thin affiliate sites, too much care has been taken with references and the registration symbols for the trademark. No Adsense in sight - looks like an SEO experiment to me by someone being very careful but still taking care to offer quality information.
One of the posts you highlighted is using gamma knife as anchor text.
Another links through to the gammaknife.org site
http://www.millionbabyboomers.com/baby_boomers_...
That site is owned by Elekta
Domain ID:D51642222-LROR
Domain Name:GAMMAKNIFE.ORG
Created On:12-Jan-2001 11:54:34 UTC
Last Updated On:05-Dec-2007 09:57:30 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Jan-2009 11:54:34 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Group NBT plc aka NetNames (R60-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:059628353-NETBEN
Registrant Name:Elekta AB
Registrant Organization:Elekta AB
Registrant Street1:BOX 7593
Registrant Street2:Kungstensgaten 18
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Stockholm
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:103 93
Registrant Country:SE
Registrant Phone:+46.858725597
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:Marika.Yeung@elekta.com
Admin ID:059403066-NETBEN
Admin Name:Marika Yeung
Admin Organization:Elekta Instrument AB
Admin Street1:BOX 7593
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Stockholm
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:103 93
Admin Country:SE
Admin Phone:+46.858725597
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+46.858725500
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:Marika.Yeung@elekta.com
Tech ID:70710230-NETBENT
Tech Name:Netnames USA Hostmaster
Tech Organization:NetNames USA Inc.
Tech Street1:NetNames USA Inc.
Tech Street2:430 W. 14th # 401
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:n/a
Tech Postal Code:NY 10014
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+44.2126274599
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+44.2126275744
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:tech@netnamesusa.com
Name Server:NS59.1AND1.CO.UK
Name Server:NS60.1AND1.CO.UK
The "braintumortreatment" site is registered by the same person as "truthaboutradiosurgery" and their house seems to be for sale. I can't find a direct employment connection with Elekta but the sites do not smell like affiliate sites.
Matt, if your argument is that some non native speakers of English who don't know much about SEO are writing about topics they don't know a huge amount about, for close to minimum wage, fair enough, but that is the blogosphere with or without paid posts, and if they weren't writing paid posts, they would be creating MFA sites and chosing their content based on high paying adsense keywords, not based upon their knowledge.
If a political candidate decided that a certain aspect of healthcare was important to them, and their supporters linked through, I am sure that would also be a fairly irrelevant result.
If someone wasn't earning money from writing a blog post, the money would go to someone else for a different way of promoting a website, outsourcing articles, press releases, viral content such as screensavers, free reports, Wordpress Themes etc
At the end of the day a few low end blogs who have hardly any links themselves on a particular topic from other authorities shouldn't affect search results very much, and if they do there is something wrong.
Blogs with higher authority are likely to be more topic focused, and reviews are ordered more for professional opinion or marketing.
As an example I am currently deciding if I have time to review Wordze, a keyword research tool.
They haven't requested any links at all in the review, I didn't need to request that I have full editorial control.
I could use an affiliate link and not use nofollow, and that link could well pass juice through redirects.
Opting to just use a normal editorial link, for some reason Google would want me to stick nofollow on it.
Either way I would still get paid for my time, experience, and for the exposure I give.
At the end of the day the payment is more of a token gesture of respect for my time, and the only influence is on whether I write about them, or maybe about whether Google Reader might eventually give some control over private RSS subscriptions, or how many more results Technorati give for links to older blog posts, or maybe why people should move to Feedblitz for email subscriptions because they are CAN SPAM compliant.
$130 is just one hour of a competent SEO's time, maybe 2 at a stretch if they are cheap in the US.
If I spend a few hours on a review of Wordze, they can't be buying a link from me.
Even if I disagree with people I still give them SEO friendly links, because that is better for my readers.
Rules need to be fair and equal... common sense needs to prevail and it shouldn't take years to clear up grey areas
It is going to be fun seeing how many articles are written about things like Payday Loans on Google Knol
In my experience, when a user types a broad query such as "radiosurgery" they typically want overviews, tutorials, and introductions to the topic rather than a) paid posts showing up in the search results, or alternatively b) websites that received links mainly from paid posts.
I did research into the site buying links, but decided not to highlight that site because it was beside the point. But I'm aware of not only braintumortreatment.org but also things like truthaboutradiosurgery.com (which has a lot of duplicate content compared to braintumortreatment.org) that appear to be by the same person. Ultimately when writing the post I decided that running multiple sites with duplicate content was beside the point of the paid link post, so I consciously decided not to talk much about the site receiving paid links in my post.
There is a fair amount of duplicate content in those 2 sites, but they are still not your usual thin affiliate sites, too much care has been taken with references and the registration symbols for the trademark. No Adsense in sight - looks like an SEO experiment to me by someone being very careful but still taking care to offer quality information.
One of the posts you highlighted is using gamma knife as anchor text.
Another links through to the gammaknife.org site
http://www.millionbabyboomers.com/baby_boomers_...
That site is owned by Elekta
Domain ID:D51642222-LROR
Domain Name:GAMMAKNIFE.ORG
Created On:12-Jan-2001 11:54:34 UTC
Last Updated On:05-Dec-2007 09:57:30 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Jan-2009 11:54:34 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Group NBT plc aka NetNames (R60-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:059628353-NETBEN
Registrant Name:Elekta AB
Registrant Organization:Elekta AB
Registrant Street1:BOX 7593
Registrant Street2:Kungstensgaten 18
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Stockholm
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:103 93
Registrant Country:SE
Registrant Phone:+46.858725597
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:Marika.Yeung@elekta.com
Admin ID:059403066-NETBEN
Admin Name:Marika Yeung
Admin Organization:Elekta Instrument AB
Admin Street1:BOX 7593
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Stockholm
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:103 93
Admin Country:SE
Admin Phone:+46.858725597
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+46.858725500
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:Marika.Yeung@elekta.com
Tech ID:70710230-NETBENT
Tech Name:Netnames USA Hostmaster
Tech Organization:NetNames USA Inc.
Tech Street1:NetNames USA Inc.
Tech Street2:430 W. 14th # 401
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:n/a
Tech Postal Code:NY 10014
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+44.2126274599
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+44.2126275744
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:tech@netnamesusa.com
Name Server:NS59.1AND1.CO.UK
Name Server:NS60.1AND1.CO.UK
The "braintumortreatment" site is registered by the same person as "truthaboutradiosurgery" and their house seems to be for sale. I can't find a direct employment connection with Elekta but the sites do not smell like affiliate sites.
Matt, if your argument is that some non native speakers of English who don't know much about SEO are writing about topics they don't know a huge amount about, for close to minimum wage, fair enough, but that is the blogosphere with or without paid posts, and if they weren't writing paid posts, they would be creating MFA sites and chosing their content based on high paying adsense keywords, not based upon their knowledge.
If a political candidate decided that a certain aspect of healthcare was important to them, and their supporters linked through, I am sure that would also be a fairly irrelevant result.
If someone wasn't earning money from writing a blog post, the money would go to someone else for a different way of promoting a website, outsourcing articles, press releases, viral content such as screensavers, free reports, Wordpress Themes etc
At the end of the day a few low end blogs who have hardly any links themselves on a particular topic from other authorities shouldn't affect search results very much, and if they do there is something wrong.
Blogs with higher authority are likely to be more topic focused, and reviews are ordered more for professional opinion or marketing.
As an example I am currently deciding if I have time to review Wordze, a keyword research tool.
They haven't requested any links at all in the review, I didn't need to request that I have full editorial control.
I could use an affiliate link and not use nofollow, and that link could well pass juice through redirects.
Opting to just use a normal editorial link, for some reason Google would want me to stick nofollow on it.
Either way I would still get paid for my time, experience, and for the exposure I give.
At the end of the day the payment is more of a token gesture of respect for my time, and the only influence is on whether I write about them, or maybe about whether Google Reader might eventually give some control over private RSS subscriptions, or how many more results Technorati give for links to older blog posts, or maybe why people should move to Feedblitz for email subscriptions because they are CAN SPAM compliant.
$130 is just one hour of a competent SEO's time, maybe 2 at a stretch if they are cheap in the US.
If I spend a few hours on a review of Wordze, they can't be buying a link from me.
Even if I disagree with people I still give them SEO friendly links, because that is better for my readers.
Rules need to be fair and equal... common sense needs to prevail and it shouldn't take years to clear up grey areas
It is going to be fun seeing how many articles are written about things like Payday Loans on Google Knol
Are users also eager to see sponsored link posts ahead of all other results as well?
If the goal is giving user best search experience then placing sponsored links at bottom of search results would be best.
Are users also eager to see sponsored link posts ahead of all other results as well?
If the goal is giving user best search experience then placing sponsored links at bottom of search results would be best.
Lisa, we do think of ads as a type of search and try to show the most relevant ads we can (not just the ones where the advertiser is willing to pay the most). We also apply relevancy tests on whether to show ads on the top vs. the side, so that we only promote ads from the right-hand side to the top slot if we think that they're very useful.
Lisa, we do think of ads as a type of search and try to show the most relevant ads we can (not just the ones where the advertiser is willing to pay the most). We also apply relevancy tests on whether to show ads on the top vs. the side, so that we only promote ads from the right-hand side to the top slot if we think that they're very useful.
Getting a site to top of results pages for a set of keywords *seems* to be a matter of to whom you give your money. I do write at length about the conflict in Mission: Organizing The World’s Information (minus everything we didn’t get paid for)
Having clean results and then taking money to circumvent those results are a conflict.. Slapping paid link/sponsored link above the link doesn't change the placement of the link. The perception for searcher is that the top result is the BEST result. To buy desirable SERP placement you can buy paid links from a third party or you can pay Google.
By knocking out sites that sell links you also knock out competition- but you also drive UP the prices of high ranking sites that sell links and create another market for cheap links on zero or low rank sites. The problem was inadvertently created by Google in the first place by making links the cornerstone of Page Rank.
Getting a site to top of results pages for a set of keywords *seems* to be a matter of to whom you give your money. I do write at length about the conflict in Mission: Organizing The World’s Information (minus everything we didn’t get paid for)
Having clean results and then taking money to circumvent those results are a conflict.. Slapping paid link/sponsored link above the link doesn't change the placement of the link. The perception for searcher is that the top result is the BEST result. To buy desirable SERP placement you can buy paid links from a third party or you can pay Google.
By knocking out sites that sell links you also knock out competition- but you also drive UP the prices of high ranking sites that sell links and create another market for cheap links on zero or low rank sites. The problem was inadvertently created by Google in the first place by making links the cornerstone of Page Rank.
Actually the little shadow Avatar looks like him..:)
I guess better to be a shadow than TheSpamMan...
Okay back to reality! Andy after years of being a commentetor I decided to change hats and become a Blogger. Maybe it is just in time anyway, because I am getting tired of blogging in cemeteries. I am running out of popular blogs to blog on because I seem to be the most favorite commentetor to Ban!
I should thank Matt Cutts for that, being he was the first one to Ban me, with a public ridicule of his famous post, "How to ban a users by Nuking them with an SQL command!"
Well if it was not Matt, I am sure someone else would have done it. Matt is the Clint Eastwood: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!
I am not really a Socialite, nor am I a GraveDigger; so, no FaceBook or Digg for me!
But as a commentator, I am going to miss it a lot. It is really nice to visit different Bloggers and get to know their world! Maybe I will never become a real Blogger and will always have one foot here and one foot there. Maybe I am slow and retarded, or just FuBar!
Well I let the Netizens figure that out for themselves, and I do hope they use consensus not electoral. The voting system really sucks now days. Everyone pulling the switch in mass Hysteria!
Anyway, I better save some Rant for my Blog..:)
So anyone interested in giving me some feedback on a BlogoSphere please drop by http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/
Oh and go to the /blogtest/ folder of the domain for MyBlog, because I want to get it Google ready before going live.
Thank you all, and especially Andy for being my BigBloggerBrother.
Igor
As long as what people write complies with my comment policy, their comment stays and gets a link for their contribution.
Complying with my comments policy for most individuals is fairly easy, though lots of comments get deleted or links removed.
Ultimately I want a link to be a reference to the person leaving the comment, not to junk thin affiliate sites with little or no personal information.
Not to company sites unless someone links using their own name etc.
I have no problems with anchor text, as long as in some way the site still identifies with them. I do check these things.
At the end of the day what people write in comments stays on the web. If people say something stupid, it is going to remain, and I am unlikely to accept payment for having a comment removed ;)
Actually the little shadow Avatar looks like him..:)
I guess better to be a shadow than TheSpamMan...
Okay back to reality! Andy after years of being a commentetor I decided to change hats and become a Blogger. Maybe it is just in time anyway, because I am getting tired of blogging in cemeteries. I am running out of popular blogs to blog on because I seem to be the most favorite commentetor to Ban!
I should thank Matt Cutts for that, being he was the first one to Ban me, with a public ridicule of his famous post, "How to ban a users by Nuking them with an SQL command!"
Well if it was not Matt, I am sure someone else would have done it. Matt is the Clint Eastwood: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!
I am not really a Socialite, nor am I a GraveDigger; so, no FaceBook or Digg for me!
But as a commentator, I am going to miss it a lot. It is really nice to visit different Bloggers and get to know their world! Maybe I will never become a real Blogger and will always have one foot here and one foot there. Maybe I am slow and retarded, or just FuBar!
Well I let the Netizens figure that out for themselves, and I do hope they use consensus not electoral. The voting system really sucks now days. Everyone pulling the switch in mass Hysteria!
Anyway, I better save some Rant for my Blog..:)
So anyone interested in giving me some feedback on a BlogoSphere please drop by http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/
Oh and go to the /blogtest/ folder of the domain for MyBlog, because I want to get it Google ready before going live.
Thank you all, and especially Andy for being my BigBloggerBrother.
Igor
As long as what people write complies with my comment policy, their comment stays and gets a link for their contribution.
Complying with my comments policy for most individuals is fairly easy, though lots of comments get deleted or links removed.
Ultimately I want a link to be a reference to the person leaving the comment, not to junk thin affiliate sites with little or no personal information.
Not to company sites unless someone links using their own name etc.
I have no problems with anchor text, as long as in some way the site still identifies with them. I do check these things.
At the end of the day what people write in comments stays on the web. If people say something stupid, it is going to remain, and I am unlikely to accept payment for having a comment removed ;)
Example: the search community criticized Google for displaying ads for keywords like "buy links." That's an actionable, constructive criticsm - what did Matt Cutts do? He disabled many of those AdWords ads.
Another example: I think you've criticized Google several times over the fact that you have to admit guilt to file reconsideration but what if you believe you are innocent?
"I don’t want to force people to make a claim that they’ve violated our guidelines in order to do a reconsideration request. I believe that we’ve already softened our language on that form once and that we added the option to say “something happened on this domain before I got to it.â€
But your feedback is something that I’ve heard before, and I’ll try to have someone at Google look at what we can do to remove that concern."
You see what I'm getting at? Google is listening; bloggers can either raise hell comparing Google to the gestapo and terrorists which wastes MY TIME as a reader and makes me no money reading it, credits bloggers with no mindshare because they are just rehashing the same message over and over again, and most importantly, will be ignored for the most part by Googlers because the criticism "Google is a terrorist" is not actionable - or bloggers can resist the temptation of launching attack bait in the hopes of gaining links and traffic and raise actionable issues Googlers can do something about.
At the end of the day, you aren't raising an actionable concern. Until someone builds Artificial Intelligence into Google, Google will continue to be a link-based engine. It's easy for people to sit on their asses and say "a computer should be able to tell the difference between an image of an apple and an orange." Image recognition is easy for humans to do; its not easy for machines. And same goes for understanding and evaluating the quality of a paid review based on content analysis. Machines don't understand language.
I have never complained about TLA advertising, but the potential changes to the wording on the reconsideration forms is a good thing though those that have happened whilst it is softer language, still imply guilt.
"no longer" - that mean you are acknowledging it did in the past, thus you still have to plead guilty.
I did include actionable things in the post
1. Level playing field - do I have to name sites that Matt reads and haven't received a penalty for paid reviews?
2. Image advertising that passes pagerank - clearing up the grey area and Google's own advertising is actionable - I mentioned Leweb3 previously in a comment on Matt's blog, so it isn't the first time
3. Disclosure - it only took me 6 months to encourage Jason Calacanis to get some disclosure in his sidebar, even though he was insisting people writing paid posts should have it in the top of every post. If Matt wants champion in post disclosure for humans, from everyone, he needs to do it himself.
4. I would appreciate Matt nofollowing every link he makes to Google from his private blog.
International employment law is murky, but in many countries a subcontracted employee has similar rights to a full time employee and stockholder. Google is dictating that subcontractors could receive a penalty for linking to their employers with a followable link, even though they have been doing it before Google existed.
5. Do you really think it is necessary for Google to evaluate the possible value of a paid review any differently to normal content that is on topic?
If a paid review itself can rank highly in the search engines, and receive editorial links and valuable comments, logic dictates that the links from the review have value as well.
Maybe I should just publish SEOed press releases for $20 - I could automate it, and advertisers would still get the same value from the links and complete editorial control.
The only real difference is that it wouldn't take me hours to research and write the reviews, and there would be no opinion.
I have been raising actionable things for Google since this blog was reawakened last October.
One of the primary purposes was to clear up some of the grey area preventing me from honestly accepting investment offers in a startup.
If I could turn back the clock a year and have just 100 subscribers but the grey areas cleared up I would be extremely happy.
Example: the search community criticized Google for displaying ads for keywords like "buy links." That's an actionable, constructive criticsm - what did Matt Cutts do? He disabled many of those AdWords ads.
Another example: I think you've criticized Google several times over the fact that you have to admit guilt to file reconsideration but what if you believe you are innocent?
"I don’t want to force people to make a claim that they’ve violated our guidelines in order to do a reconsideration request. I believe that we’ve already softened our language on that form once and that we added the option to say “something happened on this domain before I got to it.â€
But your feedback is something that I’ve heard before, and I’ll try to have someone at Google look at what we can do to remove that concern."
You see what I'm getting at? Google is listening; bloggers can either raise hell comparing Google to the gestapo and terrorists which wastes MY TIME as a reader and makes me no money reading it, credits bloggers with no mindshare because they are just rehashing the same message over and over again, and most importantly, will be ignored for the most part by Googlers because the criticism "Google is a terrorist" is not actionable - or bloggers can resist the temptation of launching attack bait in the hopes of gaining links and traffic and raise actionable issues Googlers can do something about.
At the end of the day, you aren't raising an actionable concern. Until someone builds Artificial Intelligence into Google, Google will continue to be a link-based engine. It's easy for people to sit on their asses and say "a computer should be able to tell the difference between an image of an apple and an orange." Image recognition is easy for humans to do; its not easy for machines. And same goes for understanding and evaluating the quality of a paid review based on content analysis. Machines don't understand language.
I have never complained about TLA advertising, but the potential changes to the wording on the reconsideration forms is a good thing though those that have happened whilst it is softer language, still imply guilt.
"no longer" - that mean you are acknowledging it did in the past, thus you still have to plead guilty.
I did include actionable things in the post
1. Level playing field - do I have to name sites that Matt reads and haven't received a penalty for paid reviews?
2. Image advertising that passes pagerank - clearing up the grey area and Google's own advertising is actionable - I mentioned Leweb3 previously in a comment on Matt's blog, so it isn't the first time
3. Disclosure - it only took me 6 months to encourage Jason Calacanis to get some disclosure in his sidebar, even though he was insisting people writing paid posts should have it in the top of every post. If Matt wants champion in post disclosure for humans, from everyone, he needs to do it himself.
4. I would appreciate Matt nofollowing every link he makes to Google from his private blog.
International employment law is murky, but in many countries a subcontracted employee has similar rights to a full time employee and stockholder. Google is dictating that subcontractors could receive a penalty for linking to their employers with a followable link, even though they have been doing it before Google existed.
5. Do you really think it is necessary for Google to evaluate the possible value of a paid review any differently to normal content that is on topic?
If a paid review itself can rank highly in the search engines, and receive editorial links and valuable comments, logic dictates that the links from the review have value as well.
Maybe I should just publish SEOed press releases for $20 - I could automate it, and advertisers would still get the same value from the links and complete editorial control.
The only real difference is that it wouldn't take me hours to research and write the reviews, and there would be no opinion.
I have been raising actionable things for Google since this blog was reawakened last October.
One of the primary purposes was to clear up some of the grey area preventing me from honestly accepting investment offers in a startup.
If I could turn back the clock a year and have just 100 subscribers but the grey areas cleared up I would be extremely happy.
Definitely the post is worth a lot.. You have said what it feels when we put in the hats of a webmaster. when we were kicked in for a tag which is not even in w3c.
But Andy.. is there anything we can do? coz google said they reduce the relevance in their own search engine.. not ours.. they said they will decrease the size of the green bar on the tool bar provided by them, not ours. Paid posts do influence the link juice, but what is the exact procedure to identify?
No follow? no way coz many a user doesn't even know what that stuff is.. and the blogspot blogs(they are the ones with most number of paid posts, i believe)have the nofollow attribute as the default option.. OOps.! did i forgot that blogger is owned by google..?
No offense meant Mr. Google, coz you are providing some of the best services around. Am a fan of thy services in many area.
Definitely the post is worth a lot.. You have said what it feels when we put in the hats of a webmaster. when we were kicked in for a tag which is not even in w3c.
But Andy.. is there anything we can do? coz google said they reduce the relevance in their own search engine.. not ours.. they said they will decrease the size of the green bar on the tool bar provided by them, not ours. Paid posts do influence the link juice, but what is the exact procedure to identify?
No follow? no way coz many a user doesn't even know what that stuff is.. and the blogspot blogs(they are the ones with most number of paid posts, i believe)have the nofollow attribute as the default option.. OOps.! did i forgot that blogger is owned by google..?
No offense meant Mr. Google, coz you are providing some of the best services around. Am a fan of thy services in many area.
Let's examine Google's hypocracy.
Warning mature jornalistic content!!!
[link moderated]
I ask of all to be civil in discussing this and not be sock puppetiers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_pup... on behalf of Google.
Thank you,
Igor
Let's see if Google indexes the page!
Let's examine Google's hypocracy.
Warning mature jornalistic content!!!
[link moderated]
I ask of all to be civil in discussing this and not be sock puppetiers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_pup... on behalf of Google.
Thank you,
Igor
Let's see if Google indexes the page!
Of course. In the quote I posted, Matt agrees with you on that.
"do I have to name sites that Matt reads and haven't received a penalty for paid reviews?"
As Danny Sullivan wrote somewhere, Google chose not to apply visible PageRank penalties to every link selling site Google knows about. Nevermind the fact that the TBPR penalty is more of a slap on the wrist than a real penalty (if other sites are foolish enough to use toolbar PR for ranking metric you should take it up with them, not Google), just because the toolbar PR remains untouched does not mean the site's outbound links were not devalued.
"Image advertising that passes pagerank"
Image ads aren't necessarily paid links. I've negotiated image ad deals for a client without any money changing hands. If a web designer, for example, links to one of its clients who provided positive testimonal for the design work, which cost $3,000, that link is not necessarily a paid link depending on the intention behind the payment.
Also, considering that these paid link discussions lead to text link brokers losing an avenue of advertising, I like to see less talk, not more. What do we gain by exposing link buy opportunities to Google? Nothing. By the time we're done with this conversation, SEOs/link buyers will run out of places to buy links. We've moved far away from the "below the radar" principle.
"I would appreciate Matt nofollowing every link he makes to Google from his private blog."
The paid link debate is not about money changing hands. It's about intent of payment. Is Google paying Matt Cutts to have its search results rank higher on Google? No? End of story.
"Do you really think it is necessary for Google to evaluate the possible value of a paid review any differently to normal content that is on topic?"
Of course Google *should* judge pages based on information usefulness, accuracy, entertainment value, style, wit, etc - not on any superficial fingerprints like a PayPerPost gif image or the words "payperpost" somewhere on a site or the fact that someone paid for the review. Journalists, reporters, novelists are paid for covering an issue or a product (though if Anderson Cooper was doing a report on Walmart, Walmart wouldn't be the one paying Anderson for his time, and in cases where CNN covers a subsidiary of AOL/Time Warner, they disclose).
But Google, even if it wanted to rank pages on merit, doesn't have the technology to do so. It is relying on links because right now there's no other way. So yeah, it is absolutely necessary for Google to do what its doing. Is it right? No. But Google has no other choice. In 10 years, maybe things will be different. But it is utterly ridiculous to push for "solutions" (e.g. Google should move away from link based analysis) that cannot be implemented.
Of course. In the quote I posted, Matt agrees with you on that.
"do I have to name sites that Matt reads and haven't received a penalty for paid reviews?"
As Danny Sullivan wrote somewhere, Google chose not to apply visible PageRank penalties to every link selling site Google knows about. Nevermind the fact that the TBPR penalty is more of a slap on the wrist than a real penalty (if other sites are foolish enough to use toolbar PR for ranking metric you should take it up with them, not Google), just because the toolbar PR remains untouched does not mean the site's outbound links were not devalued.
"Image advertising that passes pagerank"
Image ads aren't necessarily paid links. I've negotiated image ad deals for a client without any money changing hands. If a web designer, for example, links to one of its clients who provided positive testimonal for the design work, which cost $3,000, that link is not necessarily a paid link depending on the intention behind the payment.
Also, considering that these paid link discussions lead to text link brokers losing an avenue of advertising, I like to see less talk, not more. What do we gain by exposing link buy opportunities to Google? Nothing. By the time we're done with this conversation, SEOs/link buyers will run out of places to buy links. We've moved far away from the "below the radar" principle.
"I would appreciate Matt nofollowing every link he makes to Google from his private blog."
The paid link debate is not about money changing hands. It's about intent of payment. Is Google paying Matt Cutts to have its search results rank higher on Google? No? End of story.
"Do you really think it is necessary for Google to evaluate the possible value of a paid review any differently to normal content that is on topic?"
Of course Google *should* judge pages based on information usefulness, accuracy, entertainment value, style, wit, etc - not on any superficial fingerprints like a PayPerPost gif image or the words "payperpost" somewhere on a site or the fact that someone paid for the review. Journalists, reporters, novelists are paid for covering an issue or a product (though if Anderson Cooper was doing a report on Walmart, Walmart wouldn't be the one paying Anderson for his time, and in cases where CNN covers a subsidiary of AOL/Time Warner, they disclose).
But Google, even if it wanted to rank pages on merit, doesn't have the technology to do so. It is relying on links because right now there's no other way. So yeah, it is absolutely necessary for Google to do what its doing. Is it right? No. But Google has no other choice. In 10 years, maybe things will be different. But it is utterly ridiculous to push for "solutions" (e.g. Google should move away from link based analysis) that cannot be implemented.
On that basis, we should really be working on removing just about the entire blogosphere, shouldn't we? It's okay to not know what you are talking about for free; but to be paid and ignorant is a sin.
On that basis, we should really be working on removing just about the entire blogosphere, shouldn't we? It's okay to not know what you are talking about for free; but to be paid and ignorant is a sin.
You think Google gives a rats' ass about ethics? Paid links threaten Google's business model. It's that simple. And if you're pissed about the inability to make money selling links which, in general, make very little money compared to other types of revenue streams, you need to either quit the online marketing racket or find a better monetization scheme, because if you care that much about your TLA or PPP you aren't making alot of dough.
Stop banging your head against the wall - which leads you nowhere - and focus on taking control of your own destiny and on making insane amounts of cash instead of worry about someone else's company. Selling links will never make you rich.
What would happen if Jason Calacanis decided to turn Mahalo into a viable tagspace, and divided up 50% of Mahalo equity ($50M) between those people who used it.
What would happen if there was also revenue sharing involved?
Employees and shareholders seem to be allowed to influence search results, Matt does it all the time from his personal blog.
Paid links are bad but clean affiliate links are ok? How can Google tell whether there is a backend script that is picking up referral data?
I know affiliate sites that use clean linking and work by referrer currently.
What would happen if Amazon or Ebay had used clean links from the outset?
What if someone sells links but adds parameters to them for more accurate referral tracking?
What happens if someone offers clean PPC links that pass juice?
What is the difference between a linking scheme that affects pagerank and what both Technorati and Wordpress.com do with tagspace?
How about answers.com and their autolinking plugin?
I try to keep my arguments focused on issues that directly affect my future business plans, which are certainly intended to make me more than $20 per hour writing paid posts.
The paid posts I have written up until now have had some additional strategic value, or were just useful enough for my audience to be worth writing about anyway.
You think Google gives a rats' ass about ethics? Paid links threaten Google's business model. It's that simple. And if you're pissed about the inability to make money selling links which, in general, make very little money compared to other types of revenue streams, you need to either quit the online marketing racket or find a better monetization scheme, because if you care that much about your TLA or PPP you aren't making alot of dough.
Stop banging your head against the wall - which leads you nowhere - and focus on taking control of your own destiny and on making insane amounts of cash instead of worry about someone else's company. Selling links will never make you rich.
What would happen if Jason Calacanis decided to turn Mahalo into a viable tagspace, and divided up 50% of Mahalo equity ($50M) between those people who used it.
What would happen if there was also revenue sharing involved?
Employees and shareholders seem to be allowed to influence search results, Matt does it all the time from his personal blog.
Paid links are bad but clean affiliate links are ok? How can Google tell whether there is a backend script that is picking up referral data?
I know affiliate sites that use clean linking and work by referrer currently.
What would happen if Amazon or Ebay had used clean links from the outset?
What if someone sells links but adds parameters to them for more accurate referral tracking?
What happens if someone offers clean PPC links that pass juice?
What is the difference between a linking scheme that affects pagerank and what both Technorati and Wordpress.com do with tagspace?
How about answers.com and their autolinking plugin?
I try to keep my arguments focused on issues that directly affect my future business plans, which are certainly intended to make me more than $20 per hour writing paid posts.
The paid posts I have written up until now have had some additional strategic value, or were just useful enough for my audience to be worth writing about anyway.
Google by taking away the only income that the bloggers can earn is constraining and squashing the voice of the people.
Bloggers are in the forefront of journalism they are the voice of the underprivileged and underrepresented minoroties.
Through Google a blogger post can be discovered and read, so new information can surface to light!
If Google wants to keep its results relevent it has tons of ways of doing it! There are many filter technologies available that can be used to filter our the junk, and detect relevency without penalizing bloggers for paid links.
@Matt Cutts, since when Google has become an authority on a topic? Google is nothing more than a search engine! A search engine is used for search not to claim authority.
If one needs to know an authority on a particular subject they can refer to WikiPedia and other industry resources that use human editors to scrutenize the author's publication.
Matt, are you guys not working on Knol to enable you to identify authority?
Googling for brain surgery and finding Igor The Frankenstein as the first result for brain surgery and going there to make an appoitment is not going to happen!
Google by taking away the only income that the bloggers can earn is constraining and squashing the voice of the people.
Bloggers are in the forefront of journalism they are the voice of the underprivileged and underrepresented minoroties.
Through Google a blogger post can be discovered and read, so new information can surface to light!
If Google wants to keep its results relevent it has tons of ways of doing it! There are many filter technologies available that can be used to filter our the junk, and detect relevency without penalizing bloggers for paid links.
@Matt Cutts, since when Google has become an authority on a topic? Google is nothing more than a search engine! A search engine is used for search not to claim authority.
If one needs to know an authority on a particular subject they can refer to WikiPedia and other industry resources that use human editors to scrutenize the author's publication.
Matt, are you guys not working on Knol to enable you to identify authority?
Googling for brain surgery and finding Igor The Frankenstein as the first result for brain surgery and going there to make an appoitment is not going to happen!
There are many professional reviews done on the web every day. Money exchanges hands, and those reviews contribute in a positive way to the web. Relevant links within such content should count just as much as a link posted in any content which is "unpaid".
As previous commentators have said, why on earth can Google not filter the poor quality, irrelevant content from the quality content, where links are concerned? They are a search engine, it's the entire reason they exist, isn't it?
Labelling paid links as 'bad' is going to do no one any favours. Nulling links within content that a reader would consider poor quality, or irrelevant, is.
Bottom line: people who write well, and who's work would otherwise be considered an asset to the web, should not be penalised because they were paid for something.
I am left with only 2 choices at the end of all this. Either Google is not up to the job of proper filtering, or they actively choose to put the blame on the webmaster, and paid content. Which is it?
There are many professional reviews done on the web every day. Money exchanges hands, and those reviews contribute in a positive way to the web. Relevant links within such content should count just as much as a link posted in any content which is "unpaid".
As previous commentators have said, why on earth can Google not filter the poor quality, irrelevant content from the quality content, where links are concerned? They are a search engine, it's the entire reason they exist, isn't it?
Labelling paid links as 'bad' is going to do no one any favours. Nulling links within content that a reader would consider poor quality, or irrelevant, is.
Bottom line: people who write well, and who's work would otherwise be considered an asset to the web, should not be penalised because they were paid for something.
I am left with only 2 choices at the end of all this. Either Google is not up to the job of proper filtering, or they actively choose to put the blame on the webmaster, and paid content. Which is it?
Google a 207 billion market value company blaming the little Webmaster for earning a few hundred dollars a month to support their passion for journalism.
Pathetic, Pathetic, Pathetic!
Google is stealing candy from children!
Google a 207 billion market value company blaming the little Webmaster for earning a few hundred dollars a month to support their passion for journalism.
Pathetic, Pathetic, Pathetic!
Google is stealing candy from children!
Evil Google and Dr Evil Matt Cutts
Thank you,
Igor
Evil Google and Dr Evil Matt Cutts
Thank you,
Igor
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060927-1...
The blog http://evilmattcutts.com/ since has been taken down but, the origanl reference by Barry is still around.
Just in case, for posterity I have uploaded the Evil Mat Cutts pic to my server.
And including it in this comment.
Regards,
Igor
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060927-1...
The blog http://evilmattcutts.com/ since has been taken down but, the origanl reference by Barry is still around.
Just in case, for posterity I have uploaded the Evil Mat Cutts pic to my server.
And including it in this comment.
Regards,
Igor
Okay, here is the link for all you who care.
http://www.igorthetroll.com/images/matt-cutts-e...
Okay, here is the link for all you who care.
http://www.igorthetroll.com/images/matt-cutts-e...