Andy, ironically, thanks for the link. For the longest time I defended Google when people started bashing them. You're not "bashing" them, but proving some points. These days, I'm really starting to have doubts about their priorities. I completely understand that they need to constantly work on their algorithm to keep the relevance high, but as you stated above, it seems you're guilty until proven innocent.
You know much more about this than I, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the reviews you've done, which is really a stupid thing to penalize you for, as they are very minimal and provide quality.
I like how they have you listed in the top 10 for SEO blogs in their own directory, but then turn around and do this. Looks like a double-standard to me. Are they recommending you or not?
If you're ability to pass PR were stripped, I supposed you wouldn't be able to pass PR to your own pages? If that's the case, it could be catastrophic! I think you'll figure that out very quickly though.
In any case, you have loads of loyal readers and no matter what Google does, they can't take you down. We'll all be here supporting you ;)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Josh, that screen capture is a little deceptive maybe, but if you look at the page I linked to unfortunately I am only top30 on the list, and it is far from comprehensive. It is another quality signal, but not such a huge one as people think. The funny thing is that PR5 and PR6 seem to be shown as if they are identical in the Google directory, at least at my screen resolution.
I don't think it has prevented the passing of PR internally, and the evidence I have for external is fairly inconclusive, based mainly on a drop for the Dofollow community to which I have lots of links.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Andy, ironically, thanks for the link. For the longest time I defended Google when people started bashing them. You're not "bashing" them, but proving some points. These days, I'm really starting to have doubts about their priorities. I completely understand that they need to constantly work on their algorithm to keep the relevance high, but as you stated above, it seems you're guilty until proven innocent.
You know much more about this than I, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the reviews you've done, which is really a stupid thing to penalize you for, as they are very minimal and provide quality.
I like how they have you listed in the top 10 for SEO blogs in their own directory, but then turn around and do this. Looks like a double-standard to me. Are they recommending you or not?
If you're ability to pass PR were stripped, I supposed you wouldn't be able to pass PR to your own pages? If that's the case, it could be catastrophic! I think you'll figure that out very quickly though.
In any case, you have loads of loyal readers and no matter what Google does, they can't take you down. We'll all be here supporting you ;)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Josh, that screen capture is a little deceptive maybe, but if you look at the page I linked to unfortunately I am only top30 on the list, and it is far from comprehensive. It is another quality signal, but not such a huge one as people think. The funny thing is that PR5 and PR6 seem to be shown as if they are identical in the Google directory, at least at my screen resolution.
I don't think it has prevented the passing of PR internally, and the evidence I have for external is fairly inconclusive, based mainly on a drop for the Dofollow community to which I have lots of links.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
First, I take issue with Google's position that all paid links - "paid" meaning links that were compensated for one way or another for whatever reason - should be discounted.
There are some paid links that are clearly out to game Google. I have no problem with those links being devalued/ignored. But there are also paid links that are highly editorial, with no intent to manipulate search results. Those types of paid links improve Google's user experience.
Paid/unpaid is only one of many quality signals - it should not be a deciding factor in determining link value.
Second, I haven't seen any evidence to believe that your site was intentionally penalized by Google. Let's keep in mind the obvious: Google is a collection of algorithms with no mind of its own. Just like a piece of software, even Googlers don't have complete control over how those algorithms behave. It's like breaking a rack of 9-ball. Even the guy breaking doesn't have complete control over where all the balls end up because there are simply too many factors involved.
If some sites that are linking into you violates Google's trust by manipulative linking practices, the PageRanks flowing into your domain will shrink, even if you yourself did nothing wrong.
If your TBPR used to be borderline 5 (e.g. 5.01) and your TBPR dips by a fraction (4.99) you will see a drop from 5 to 4, though in actuality you've only lost .02 TBPR.
As the web grows bigger, every URL's TBPR shrinks. Even if Google doesn't devalue any of your backlinks, you can lose TBPR just because the number of pages in Google's index increased.
I have not bought into Google/SEO's FUD campaigns aimed to make me believe that selling links leads to a penalty. When faced with the unknown, people sometimes assume the worst.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
First, I take issue with Google's position that all paid links - "paid" meaning links that were compensated for one way or another for whatever reason - should be discounted.
There are some paid links that are clearly out to game Google. I have no problem with those links being devalued/ignored. But there are also paid links that are highly editorial, with no intent to manipulate search results. Those types of paid links improve Google's user experience.
Paid/unpaid is only one of many quality signals - it should not be a deciding factor in determining link value.
Second, I haven't seen any evidence to believe that your site was intentionally penalized by Google. Let's keep in mind the obvious: Google is a collection of algorithms with no mind of its own. Just like a piece of software, even Googlers don't have complete control over how those algorithms behave. It's like breaking a rack of 9-ball. Even the guy breaking doesn't have complete control over where all the balls end up because there are simply too many factors involved.
If some sites that are linking into you violates Google's trust by manipulative linking practices, the PageRanks flowing into your domain will shrink, even if you yourself did nothing wrong.
If your TBPR used to be borderline 5 (e.g. 5.01) and your TBPR dips by a fraction (4.99) you will see a drop from 5 to 4, though in actuality you've only lost .02 TBPR.
As the web grows bigger, every URL's TBPR shrinks. Even if Google doesn't devalue any of your backlinks, you can lose TBPR just because the number of pages in Google's index increased.
I have not bought into Google/SEO's FUD campaigns aimed to make me believe that selling links leads to a penalty. When faced with the unknown, people sometimes assume the worst.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Halfdeck, back in January, this site was already a PR5 based on a 301 from an old blog, and a fair amount of quality links. I had just 100 subscribers.
In April it was still a PR5, I had picked up a lot of link.
Since April I have continued gaining links... quality editorial links from quality sites.
I am well aware that PageRank is just an algorithm based upon the collective whole as are maybe some of Google's other algorithms.
Technorati report I have gained something like 12,000 links in the last 6 months, which is about when the last update happened.
Google report 39804 links within the Webmaster Console, and yes I realize that that is not a real total, and that it includes nofollow link and links that are discounted.
I have a bunch of quality links among that. Techcrunch, Scoble, SEL, Wordpress codex, Techsmith, Calacanis, Mahalo (cough), Dmoz, Google Directory, Shoemoney, Problogger, Copyblogger, Adage, PayPerPost, Marketing Pilgrim
No disrespect to anyone reading this who links to me, I value every link and comment
This isn't the typical link profile that might suggest a site that isn't at least maintaining a status quo.
I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip despite some pretty serious link building over the last 6 months.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Halfdeck, back in January, this site was already a PR5 based on a 301 from an old blog, and a fair amount of quality links. I had just 100 subscribers.
In April it was still a PR5, I had picked up a lot of link.
Since April I have continued gaining links... quality editorial links from quality sites.
I am well aware that PageRank is just an algorithm based upon the collective whole as are maybe some of Google's other algorithms.
Technorati report I have gained something like 12,000 links in the last 6 months, which is about when the last update happened.
Google report 39804 links within the Webmaster Console, and yes I realize that that is not a real total, and that it includes nofollow link and links that are discounted.
I have a bunch of quality links among that. Techcrunch, Scoble, SEL, Wordpress codex, Techsmith, Calacanis, Mahalo (cough), Dmoz, Google Directory, Shoemoney, Problogger, Copyblogger, Adage, PayPerPost, Marketing Pilgrim
No disrespect to anyone reading this who links to me, I value every link and comment
This isn't the typical link profile that might suggest a site that isn't at least maintaining a status quo.
I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip despite some pretty serious link building over the last 6 months.
Snoskred
· 2 years ago
Andy,
This post truly makes me see red. I've been seeing red about Google for a little while now. I think what Google are doing is simply illegal.
If you feel the need to take legal action over this I'd just like you to know I'd be willing to donate some $$$ towards the costs. It won't be a huge amount because I'm not rich, but I do believe someone needs to take a stand. I'm probably not the only one who would be willing to donate.
I cannot believe that Google can be so hypocritical. Are they penalizing people using Adsense for paid links? Of course not.
They want the entire pie, and they're not willing to share.
I think it is time we bloggers got serious about not relying on them. We simply can't trust them to act in a fair manner. They can do what they like when they like, and there seems to be nobody sticking up for the bloggers.
A big thumbs down, Google. A huge one. If you annoy enough people, we're going to take our power back one of these days. We'll start using other search engines. We'll stop using your services. Think about what you are doing to people - think about the anger and resentment you are creating by being hypocrites. We the users created you - we can just as easily break you.
Snoskred
Snoskred
· 2 years ago
Andy,
This post truly makes me see red. I've been seeing red about Google for a little while now. I think what Google are doing is simply illegal.
If you feel the need to take legal action over this I'd just like you to know I'd be willing to donate some $$$ towards the costs. It won't be a huge amount because I'm not rich, but I do believe someone needs to take a stand. I'm probably not the only one who would be willing to donate.
I cannot believe that Google can be so hypocritical. Are they penalizing people using Adsense for paid links? Of course not.
They want the entire pie, and they're not willing to share.
I think it is time we bloggers got serious about not relying on them. We simply can't trust them to act in a fair manner. They can do what they like when they like, and there seems to be nobody sticking up for the bloggers.
A big thumbs down, Google. A huge one. If you annoy enough people, we're going to take our power back one of these days. We'll start using other search engines. We'll stop using your services. Think about what you are doing to people - think about the anger and resentment you are creating by being hypocrites. We the users created you - we can just as easily break you.
Snoskred
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
Andy, you have a solid, organic link profile. It does look like some of your backlinks were devalued. It still doesn't explain why your backlinks were devalued. It also doesn't tell me if the devaluation was manual or algorithmic.
"I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip"
That doesn't tell me anything unless I see a comprehensive list of all blogs that publish paid reviews and see what percentage of those blogs lost TBPR. And if some of those blog have TLA or embedded TLBroker blog post links on them, then it muddies the water even more.
You said your index penetration level is steady and your ranking hasn't suffered. If your site really suffered a huge loss of PageRank, you should of course be seeing a way bigger percentage of pages in the supplemental results.
If you're implying that Google is just toying with your toolbar rank, that sounds a little far-fetched to me.
Also, in fairness to absolute objectivity, a paid review like this
where you link to a site six times, often with laser-targeted anchor text - that feels unnatural to me. Even if I was head over heels about a site, I wouldn't link to the same site that many times in one blog post. 2-3 times maybe, but 6? You got "seo consultant", "about page", "seo basics", "seo" (those links to seo/seo basics category pages - could be just me, but I link to individual articles, never to a blogger's cat page), "link building", and "landing pages."
As far as you're providing a service to a paying customer, I don't see a problem with linking to a site 100 times in one post, but how can you claim that the links in that post are completely editorial? If you weren't paid, would you have linked to him 6 times in one post? Would you have linked to him at all?
I wouldn't have. The guy's "seo consulting" page, for example, is cryptic, to say the least. Unless I worked in SEO I wouldn't understand a single word written on that page. He isn't selling SEO to SEOs - he is selling consulting services to webmasters who may know nothing about SEO. Compare his site to Eric Ward's site, for example, which is extremely easy to understand.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Halfdeck, I am compiling some additional evidence, but I won't be publishing that in public, I might drop it to a few people in an email.
Shimon's was tough, and I do acknowledge that I am dancing along the line between something being totally white, and some shade of gray which is more like advertising, especially with that review.
The review was through sponsored reviews who do not have any chat interface, so I had to first of all get permission to contact the client direct as nothing was specified regarding that in the rules. Initially he was also looking for an overall review of the site, and not just the content although content was specified.
What was offered was something along the lines of my SEO Masterclass. It might have given him more traffic, but it would also have been quite critical, as it would for most SEO blogs, even mine. People have little time to perfect things and might disagree on some things, such as SEO friendly URLs.
Shimon asked me just to do the content review.
Maybe all my linking is unnatural, throughout the whole blog.
I don't link to Lyndon with "you might enjoy this [post]" I link to him as "you might enjoy this post on [linkbait]"
Shimon's whole site is heavily optimized for SEO Consultant, and if he left a comment here using that text as the anchor, as long as it linked to his blog (the one I reviewed) he would get away with it, because that is what the blog is about, the blog represents him clearly and is not a group effort, etc.
You know in absolute honestly, Shimon would have been quite happy with a post such as
"Shimon is an SEO Consultant, you might like his blog"
I could have written a 10 word post, and he would have received more traffic, I guarantee it.
I didn't link to individual posts, because his individual posts are actually quite short. The sum is greater than the individual parts.
My own reading preference is for long posts that go into detail and that is the type of individual post I link to.
At the time of the review, Shimon's rate was $60 per hour, and as this was around the same time as Rand published his big list of SEO salaries, that was remarkably low.
So I opted to link to a few categories, and my natural inclination isn't to write "You might enjoy this, this and this category", I use descriptive words.
The link to the about page is quite funny - the reason I gave the link was because I had read at the time that Darren Rowse gets the most traffic to his "About Me" page. I thought Shimon's was reasonable because it highlighted some of the significant firms he has worked for.
On a "like for like" consulting rate, what I get paid for reviews would be worth 2 hours of my time. I did actually spend a lot more time than that evaluating Shimon's site before I even put fingers to keyboard contacting him.
The final content isn't as good as some of my other pieces, but it could have been.
I agree that Eric is a good example of being up front with his fees, but many of the sites in the industry don't. A nice clean $60 per hour is much better than some of the packages some firms offer. Rates have gone up now, Shimon must be gaining some work.
I also disagree that everyone looking for SEO work is an outsider. Every person who has approached me so far had some knowledge of SEO already.
I am well aware that TBPR is taken from a snapshot, and real PR fluctuates in real time. I am comparing rankings for terms back over 6 months which I know the rankings for.
So I am comparing terms such as:- Volusion Day job killer Wordpress htaccess (this article might be a little too new) Wordpress Trademark (there I am competing with one of my own sites) Google meta redirects Meta redirects
One of the problems is that my site structure over the intervening 10 months since some of that content was written has become flatter
It is very hard to say something is purely based upon writing paid reviews, because almost every site is also selling links other than me.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
Andy, you have a solid, organic link profile. It does look like some of your backlinks were devalued. It still doesn't explain why your backlinks were devalued. It also doesn't tell me if the devaluation was manual or algorithmic.
"I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip"
That doesn't tell me anything unless I see a comprehensive list of all blogs that publish paid reviews and see what percentage of those blogs lost TBPR. And if some of those blog have TLA or embedded TLBroker blog post links on them, then it muddies the water even more.
You said your index penetration level is steady and your ranking hasn't suffered. If your site really suffered a huge loss of PageRank, you should of course be seeing a way bigger percentage of pages in the supplemental results.
If you're implying that Google is just toying with your toolbar rank, that sounds a little far-fetched to me.
Also, in fairness to absolute objectivity, a paid review like this
where you link to a site six times, often with laser-targeted anchor text - that feels unnatural to me. Even if I was head over heels about a site, I wouldn't link to the same site that many times in one blog post. 2-3 times maybe, but 6? You got "seo consultant", "about page", "seo basics", "seo" (those links to seo/seo basics category pages - could be just me, but I link to individual articles, never to a blogger's cat page), "link building", and "landing pages."
As far as you're providing a service to a paying customer, I don't see a problem with linking to a site 100 times in one post, but how can you claim that the links in that post are completely editorial? If you weren't paid, would you have linked to him 6 times in one post? Would you have linked to him at all?
I wouldn't have. The guy's "seo consulting" page, for example, is cryptic, to say the least. Unless I worked in SEO I wouldn't understand a single word written on that page. He isn't selling SEO to SEOs - he is selling consulting services to webmasters who may know nothing about SEO. Compare his site to Eric Ward's site, for example, which is extremely easy to understand.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Halfdeck, I am compiling some additional evidence, but I won't be publishing that in public, I might drop it to a few people in an email.
Shimon's was tough, and I do acknowledge that I am dancing along the line between something being totally white, and some shade of gray which is more like advertising, especially with that review.
The review was through sponsored reviews who do not have any chat interface, so I had to first of all get permission to contact the client direct as nothing was specified regarding that in the rules. Initially he was also looking for an overall review of the site, and not just the content although content was specified.
What was offered was something along the lines of my SEO Masterclass. It might have given him more traffic, but it would also have been quite critical, as it would for most SEO blogs, even mine. People have little time to perfect things and might disagree on some things, such as SEO friendly URLs.
Shimon asked me just to do the content review.
Maybe all my linking is unnatural, throughout the whole blog.
I don't link to Lyndon with "you might enjoy this [post]" I link to him as "you might enjoy this post on [linkbait]"
Shimon's whole site is heavily optimized for SEO Consultant, and if he left a comment here using that text as the anchor, as long as it linked to his blog (the one I reviewed) he would get away with it, because that is what the blog is about, the blog represents him clearly and is not a group effort, etc.
You know in absolute honestly, Shimon would have been quite happy with a post such as
"Shimon is an SEO Consultant, you might like his blog"
I could have written a 10 word post, and he would have received more traffic, I guarantee it.
I didn't link to individual posts, because his individual posts are actually quite short. The sum is greater than the individual parts.
My own reading preference is for long posts that go into detail and that is the type of individual post I link to.
At the time of the review, Shimon's rate was $60 per hour, and as this was around the same time as Rand published his big list of SEO salaries, that was remarkably low.
So I opted to link to a few categories, and my natural inclination isn't to write "You might enjoy this, this and this category", I use descriptive words.
The link to the about page is quite funny - the reason I gave the link was because I had read at the time that Darren Rowse gets the most traffic to his "About Me" page. I thought Shimon's was reasonable because it highlighted some of the significant firms he has worked for.
On a "like for like" consulting rate, what I get paid for reviews would be worth 2 hours of my time. I did actually spend a lot more time than that evaluating Shimon's site before I even put fingers to keyboard contacting him.
The final content isn't as good as some of my other pieces, but it could have been.
I agree that Eric is a good example of being up front with his fees, but many of the sites in the industry don't. A nice clean $60 per hour is much better than some of the packages some firms offer. Rates have gone up now, Shimon must be gaining some work.
I also disagree that everyone looking for SEO work is an outsider. Every person who has approached me so far had some knowledge of SEO already.
I am well aware that TBPR is taken from a snapshot, and real PR fluctuates in real time. I am comparing rankings for terms back over 6 months which I know the rankings for.
So I am comparing terms such as:- Volusion Day job killer Wordpress htaccess (this article might be a little too new) Wordpress Trademark (there I am competing with one of my own sites) Google meta redirects Meta redirects
One of the problems is that my site structure over the intervening 10 months since some of that content was written has become flatter
It is very hard to say something is purely based upon writing paid reviews, because almost every site is also selling links other than me.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
Andy, I'm running a quick-and-dirty link audit on your site with a new tool I'm building, but in the meanwhile, let me make a slight correction.
I said if your ranking hasn't changed, then you haven't lost much PageRank. That's not entirely right. Toolbar update effects only one thing: the green in your toolbar. Updates have no effect whatsoever on your ranking, traffic, or number of pages indexed. That's because as you know, internal PageRank is calculated daily, and the effects of any dramatic PageRank shifts that might have taken place have been in effect for quite some time now. So seeing no change in those factors doesn't say anything about the amount of PageRank directed at your site.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
Andy, I'm running a quick-and-dirty link audit on your site with a new tool I'm building, but in the meanwhile, let me make a slight correction.
I said if your ranking hasn't changed, then you haven't lost much PageRank. That's not entirely right. Toolbar update effects only one thing: the green in your toolbar. Updates have no effect whatsoever on your ranking, traffic, or number of pages indexed. That's because as you know, internal PageRank is calculated daily, and the effects of any dramatic PageRank shifts that might have taken place have been in effect for quite some time now. So seeing no change in those factors doesn't say anything about the amount of PageRank directed at your site.
studio equipment
· 2 years ago
I have observed as an interested and now, as a disinterested but sad, management professional a phenomenon that is as common as should not be. That is the nice small businesses becoming big and starting to throw their weight around. I am sure many of the visitors to this site will bear with me, that in this industry this phenomenon has been more frequent than in the smoke stack and service sector, but happen it does withoug fail.
Size brings about arrogance and paranoia.
Andy, there is little that I can do to help you. I however assure you that I sympathize with you and am solidly behind you in this David vs Goliath situation. All the best.
studio equipment
· 2 years ago
I have observed as an interested and now, as a disinterested but sad, management professional a phenomenon that is as common as should not be. That is the nice small businesses becoming big and starting to throw their weight around. I am sure many of the visitors to this site will bear with me, that in this industry this phenomenon has been more frequent than in the smoke stack and service sector, but happen it does withoug fail.
Size brings about arrogance and paranoia.
Andy, there is little that I can do to help you. I however assure you that I sympathize with you and am solidly behind you in this David vs Goliath situation. All the best.
Laura
· 2 years ago
Yesterday I noticed my blog dropped from a PR4 to a PR3. And all of my posts are now PR0. If making money through links or posts is the culprit then that explains it. Because my blog is a make money blog. I'm thinking this might be google's way of weeding out the spam sites and/or reducing the amount of people who are making money with their blogs. It doesn't really bother me, like I said on my post, it might be a good thing, for me anyway. :)
Laura
· 2 years ago
Yesterday I noticed my blog dropped from a PR4 to a PR3. And all of my posts are now PR0. If making money through links or posts is the culprit then that explains it. Because my blog is a make money blog. I'm thinking this might be google's way of weeding out the spam sites and/or reducing the amount of people who are making money with their blogs. It doesn't really bother me, like I said on my post, it might be a good thing, for me anyway. :)
Vlad
· 2 years ago
I will not be surprised to get my PR lowered. I think we are just putting too much spin on the entire PR issue. What I really notice lately that Google is very quick to index pages. Also the traffic from the organic search is on the rise for me. I do not mind if the lower my PR as long as they continue send my way visitors.
Vlad
· 2 years ago
I will not be surprised to get my PR lowered. I think we are just putting too much spin on the entire PR issue. What I really notice lately that Google is very quick to index pages. Also the traffic from the organic search is on the rise for me. I do not mind if the lower my PR as long as they continue send my way visitors.
Evil
· 2 years ago
Google had to do something about the paid links and they had to do it fast. Unfortunately for everyone, you can do things fast or you can do things right.
Will we have pagerank now or trustrank?
Paying someone to write about your site shouldn't ever be penalized. Journalists go on junkets all the time.
Evil
· 2 years ago
Google had to do something about the paid links and they had to do it fast. Unfortunately for everyone, you can do things fast or you can do things right.
Will we have pagerank now or trustrank?
Paying someone to write about your site shouldn't ever be penalized. Journalists go on junkets all the time.
Tomaz Mencinger
· 2 years ago
Andy, I'll be brutally honest with you and I hope you don't mind.
Just a few millimeters above this comment box I see this: Get Paid Just For Linking To Me.
In other words, you will pay me $7,50 if I link to you.
That's an obvious paid link.
You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant in your reply above) but it actually doesn't really matter what you think or how you interpret your links.
It's what Google thinks about them.
If you RELY on Google, then you HAVE to play their game and how THEY interpret the rules.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Tomaz I also allow people to use laser targeted links when they leave a comment or a trackback. I teach people how to give better links, thus naturally I would tend to give better targeted links than normal sites.
I do however see your point regarding the review my post affiliate links. That is an affiliate program. Instead of earning $15 for an affiliate signup, I only get $7.50 and the aim is to give someone something relevant to write about, and to earn $7.50 for it for something they would do anyway.
With a total of $22.50 from 3 reviews earned through that program, I don't think that is even a ripple. The RMP program converts terribly
The important message is that I don't rely on Google. I stated in the article if Google cut off my traffic totally that might have been a correct signal to give the public.
However nothing has touched my rankings or traffic, thus it could be looked on as a public smear campaign because I can't opt out of their toolbar, and Google's toolbar isn't telling the truth.
Google have switched it from meaning an indication of what other authority sites think of my site, to an indication of what juice my site can give to other sites.
Unfortunately they forgot to tell the general public that the meaning of the toolbar green is now different.
Tomaz Mencinger
· 2 years ago
Andy, I'll be brutally honest with you and I hope you don't mind.
Just a few millimeters above this comment box I see this: Get Paid Just For Linking To Me.
In other words, you will pay me $7,50 if I link to you.
That's an obvious paid link.
You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant in your reply above) but it actually doesn't really matter what you think or how you interpret your links.
It's what Google thinks about them.
If you RELY on Google, then you HAVE to play their game and how THEY interpret the rules.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Tomaz I also allow people to use laser targeted links when they leave a comment or a trackback. I teach people how to give better links, thus naturally I would tend to give better targeted links than normal sites.
I do however see your point regarding the review my post affiliate links. That is an affiliate program. Instead of earning $15 for an affiliate signup, I only get $7.50 and the aim is to give someone something relevant to write about, and to earn $7.50 for it for something they would do anyway.
With a total of $22.50 from 3 reviews earned through that program, I don't think that is even a ripple. The RMP program converts terribly
The important message is that I don't rely on Google. I stated in the article if Google cut off my traffic totally that might have been a correct signal to give the public.
However nothing has touched my rankings or traffic, thus it could be looked on as a public smear campaign because I can't opt out of their toolbar, and Google's toolbar isn't telling the truth.
Google have switched it from meaning an indication of what other authority sites think of my site, to an indication of what juice my site can give to other sites.
Unfortunately they forgot to tell the general public that the meaning of the toolbar green is now different.
David Airey
· 2 years ago
Hi Andy,
As Vlad mentioned, perhaps there's too much emphasis on Page Rank. I've read lately that Google might be doing away with it entirely, although there might not be any truth in that.
What's important, is how you rank for relevant terms, and you mention that your rankings have improved for some searches.
I can understand what you're saying about your regular readers noticing your PR drop, and that it's almost like a vote down, but your regular readers appreciate the quality content you publish, so it's not going to affect their opinion of you. My opinion anyway.
David Airey
· 2 years ago
Hi Andy,
As Vlad mentioned, perhaps there's too much emphasis on Page Rank. I've read lately that Google might be doing away with it entirely, although there might not be any truth in that.
What's important, is how you rank for relevant terms, and you mention that your rankings have improved for some searches.
I can understand what you're saying about your regular readers noticing your PR drop, and that it's almost like a vote down, but your regular readers appreciate the quality content you publish, so it's not going to affect their opinion of you. My opinion anyway.
Toby
· 2 years ago
All "Blog-Whores" that even show buttons and links to those sites will be penalized by Google automatically. You will have a a white page rank in the long-term, of course.
Toby
· 2 years ago
All "Blog-Whores" that even show buttons and links to those sites will be penalized by Google automatically. You will have a a white page rank in the long-term, of course.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
"You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant"
To be fair, I wasn't attacking Andy's business practices. The linking practices are way blacker than Andy's. I'm not going to sugarcoat that. My point was that on initial scan, the links didn't pass the smell test, not for me at least. With a Google reviewer, I doubt anyone gets a chance to clarify.
Anyway, it looks like your suspicions were right on the mark Andy. What Google's doing with the toolbar is idiotic.
Halfdeck
· 2 years ago
"You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant"
To be fair, I wasn't attacking Andy's business practices. The linking practices are way blacker than Andy's. I'm not going to sugarcoat that. My point was that on initial scan, the links didn't pass the smell test, not for me at least. With a Google reviewer, I doubt anyone gets a chance to clarify.
Anyway, it looks like your suspicions were right on the mark Andy. What Google's doing with the toolbar is idiotic.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Well you see this is a 5 day old story in some quarters, and a lot of good sites that have been hit.
Many of them are earning $10K+ per year from links and posts, and one click down on their PR isn't actually going to change very much, especially with PPP moving over to their own metrics.
The only way for this approach to work is to kill the TBPR on all the sites, and even all the traffic. Just PPP bloggers that is 50K Bloggers.
If they have their traffic taken away, I am sure 50K bloggers can probably get the traffic by other means.
Followup post coming with some more analysis (but no snitching)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Well you see this is a 5 day old story in some quarters, and a lot of good sites that have been hit.
Many of them are earning $10K+ per year from links and posts, and one click down on their PR isn't actually going to change very much, especially with PPP moving over to their own metrics.
The only way for this approach to work is to kill the TBPR on all the sites, and even all the traffic. Just PPP bloggers that is 50K Bloggers.
If they have their traffic taken away, I am sure 50K bloggers can probably get the traffic by other means.
Followup post coming with some more analysis (but no snitching)
Tim
· 2 years ago
Andy,
Great analysis. I'll look for the follow-up shortly. I want to get your opinion of top bloggers (I won't name names either) that have google-legitimate thumbnail ads, but provide a monthly "thank you" link, without a nofollow attribute, in a post. As a potential advertiser, I would see this and understand that I will get this great link as part of my ad placement, even if it is not stated specifically in my placement agreement. It is my opinion that these links are bought and paid for just as much as a review link, and if google penalizes for paid reviews, they must penalize for these links as well to be consistent.
Note - I am not opposed to ads, reviews, paid links at all. I just see a) hypocrisy and b) potential for abuse if google does not address the issue one way or the other.
Tim
Tim
· 2 years ago
Andy,
Great analysis. I'll look for the follow-up shortly. I want to get your opinion of top bloggers (I won't name names either) that have google-legitimate thumbnail ads, but provide a monthly "thank you" link, without a nofollow attribute, in a post. As a potential advertiser, I would see this and understand that I will get this great link as part of my ad placement, even if it is not stated specifically in my placement agreement. It is my opinion that these links are bought and paid for just as much as a review link, and if google penalizes for paid reviews, they must penalize for these links as well to be consistent.
Note - I am not opposed to ads, reviews, paid links at all. I just see a) hypocrisy and b) potential for abuse if google does not address the issue one way or the other.
Tim
lilian aka 5xmom
· 2 years ago
Just for the record, I first lose my PR5/10 on Oct 4th and over the next two days, I lost PR -1 in six of my blogs. I suppose I am famous enough to be noticed by Google. LOL, a lot of other sites did not get the penalty eventhough they write paid posts and sell text links.
lilian aka 5xmom
· 2 years ago
Just for the record, I first lose my PR5/10 on Oct 4th and over the next two days, I lost PR -1 in six of my blogs. I suppose I am famous enough to be noticed by Google. LOL, a lot of other sites did not get the penalty eventhough they write paid posts and sell text links.
Annie
· 2 years ago
Last year, my biggest blog dropped from a PR 6 to a 4. Now that I think about it, it was shortly after I added Text Link Ads code to the site. It could be a coincidence (I've seen sites drop in PR before for no particular reason), and the traffic never went down (and in fact has increased), but with all the stuff that's been going on lately on the buying-and-selling-links debate, I do wonder if that had anything to do with it.
Even though the $150 a month or whatever is pretty insignificant compared to earnings from other programs, it seems a shame to bow to Google's tyranny and remove the links just because of these threats. :\
Annie
· 2 years ago
Last year, my biggest blog dropped from a PR 6 to a 4. Now that I think about it, it was shortly after I added Text Link Ads code to the site. It could be a coincidence (I've seen sites drop in PR before for no particular reason), and the traffic never went down (and in fact has increased), but with all the stuff that's been going on lately on the buying-and-selling-links debate, I do wonder if that had anything to do with it.
Even though the $150 a month or whatever is pretty insignificant compared to earnings from other programs, it seems a shame to bow to Google's tyranny and remove the links just because of these threats. :\
Jack Humphrey
· 2 years ago
I just think it's absurd that people who put out good content have to spend so much time defending themselves and their sites like this.
This whole argument I was just thinking "Andy's blog rocks. His content is over the top in quality for his educational posts and I've learned a lot reading here." That's not BS. I know all the blogs in this niche - good and bad - we track them all. This one is in the top for quality, thoughtful, insightful writing.
Andy does a way better job than me with descriptive, patient posting for clarity. This comment is going to be 10 times longer than my average post for instance. :)
So why no one can see that Google IS NOT the savior of the web and quality search results, but rather, is holding the web community back from what they do best (creating more quality content) because we have to spend so damn much time protecting ourselves from a stupid all-inclusive algorithm is beyond me.
Google is taking a deliberate and lazy shortcut by having us all turn on each other, nark out each other, and casting huge nets to catch a relative handful of spammers who wouldn't rank at all if Google would just join the web and allow user ratings to affect their rankings. You can't SEO for people! We smell BS a mile away and we dont care what is in your freakin title tag!
Leaving everything up to an algorithm without including the human element is why we are all in this position right now with pagerank.
It isn't harmless either. For Andy's reasons above and others I have been on about for years, Pagerank can hurt online businesses that are providing true service and who are not in any way damaging the web by occasionally linking a certain way.
They Say Content Is King - Why Don't They Start Acting Like It?
Either the content is good or not when people get to a site and if Google would allow human ranking to in some way enter their algo, a lot more (overly optimized, valuless) sites in the top 10 would vanish while google's goal of relevancy based on good content would finally be realized.
Everyone is so damn worried about a thumbs up or down button going with Google's rankings like people are going to spam with it. NEWSFLASH: people are already spamming google, so what's the harm in trying to fix what's been broken since the beginning?
Let the surfer have at least a minor say about the sites they like and stop trying to shove sites down our throats and hiding sites that are truly more relevant than the ones in the top rankings from people who'd appreciate viewing them.
I don't believe Google is actively "treating" you a certain way Andy. Their rules written into their algo are simple commands written from a screwed up perspective and they weren't MEANT to catch you or I up in all this, but they have.
It's not intentional, but it's still evil if they continue to ignore the damage it is causing the people who fill their engine with the content they thrive on.
Google knows how long people stay on our sites and how many pages they view. They KNOW we are quality in one area of the Googleplex, yet in the engineering department they are totally clueless about what a quality site is and how to keep one from ending up in an unfair demotion with all the spammers and link whores.
They really need to address this immediately. I'm not riding on Google's freakin' space elevator if they can't even fix their search engine problems.
Jack Humphrey
· 2 years ago
I just think it's absurd that people who put out good content have to spend so much time defending themselves and their sites like this.
This whole argument I was just thinking "Andy's blog rocks. His content is over the top in quality for his educational posts and I've learned a lot reading here." That's not BS. I know all the blogs in this niche - good and bad - we track them all. This one is in the top for quality, thoughtful, insightful writing.
Andy does a way better job than me with descriptive, patient posting for clarity. This comment is going to be 10 times longer than my average post for instance. :)
So why no one can see that Google IS NOT the savior of the web and quality search results, but rather, is holding the web community back from what they do best (creating more quality content) because we have to spend so damn much time protecting ourselves from a stupid all-inclusive algorithm is beyond me.
Google is taking a deliberate and lazy shortcut by having us all turn on each other, nark out each other, and casting huge nets to catch a relative handful of spammers who wouldn't rank at all if Google would just join the web and allow user ratings to affect their rankings. You can't SEO for people! We smell BS a mile away and we dont care what is in your freakin title tag!
Leaving everything up to an algorithm without including the human element is why we are all in this position right now with pagerank.
It isn't harmless either. For Andy's reasons above and others I have been on about for years, Pagerank can hurt online businesses that are providing true service and who are not in any way damaging the web by occasionally linking a certain way.
They Say Content Is King - Why Don't They Start Acting Like It?
Either the content is good or not when people get to a site and if Google would allow human ranking to in some way enter their algo, a lot more (overly optimized, valuless) sites in the top 10 would vanish while google's goal of relevancy based on good content would finally be realized.
Everyone is so damn worried about a thumbs up or down button going with Google's rankings like people are going to spam with it. NEWSFLASH: people are already spamming google, so what's the harm in trying to fix what's been broken since the beginning?
Let the surfer have at least a minor say about the sites they like and stop trying to shove sites down our throats and hiding sites that are truly more relevant than the ones in the top rankings from people who'd appreciate viewing them.
I don't believe Google is actively "treating" you a certain way Andy. Their rules written into their algo are simple commands written from a screwed up perspective and they weren't MEANT to catch you or I up in all this, but they have.
It's not intentional, but it's still evil if they continue to ignore the damage it is causing the people who fill their engine with the content they thrive on.
Google knows how long people stay on our sites and how many pages they view. They KNOW we are quality in one area of the Googleplex, yet in the engineering department they are totally clueless about what a quality site is and how to keep one from ending up in an unfair demotion with all the spammers and link whores.
They really need to address this immediately. I'm not riding on Google's freakin' space elevator if they can't even fix their search engine problems.
Opal Tribble
· 2 years ago
Mine went from a 4 to a 3. I'm really not worried about it since most of my money is made via affiliate marketing. I mainly do affiliate marketing that on my other websites.
Occasionally I write paid posts if I think my readers would benefit but those reviews are rare and when I do them they are thorough. I treat them like a regular post. I had a feeling mine would drop so I'm not too surprised. I picked up one direct advertiser two months ago. It's a service that many of my readers use which is why they are on my website.
I had not idea mine had even dropped until I read that one of my blogging buddies had. I really don't pay too much attention to my PR. I did check after reading their comment and I noticed mine had dropped also. It does not seem to have affected my traffic
Opal Tribble
· 2 years ago
Mine went from a 4 to a 3. I'm really not worried about it since most of my money is made via affiliate marketing. I mainly do affiliate marketing that on my other websites.
Occasionally I write paid posts if I think my readers would benefit but those reviews are rare and when I do them they are thorough. I treat them like a regular post. I had a feeling mine would drop so I'm not too surprised. I picked up one direct advertiser two months ago. It's a service that many of my readers use which is why they are on my website.
I had not idea mine had even dropped until I read that one of my blogging buddies had. I really don't pay too much attention to my PR. I did check after reading their comment and I noticed mine had dropped also. It does not seem to have affected my traffic
PreBlogging
· 2 years ago
I am annoyed at this, it's not like they have come out and said, if you link to TLA or PPP we will dock you 1 PR point. This whole thing really makes me think that Google shoudl rethink the whole PageRank thing.
That all being said my site was reduced from a PR5 to a PR4 , and I have one PPP post and TLA ads on the home page.
PreBlogging
· 2 years ago
I am annoyed at this, it's not like they have come out and said, if you link to TLA or PPP we will dock you 1 PR point. This whole thing really makes me think that Google shoudl rethink the whole PageRank thing.
That all being said my site was reduced from a PR5 to a PR4 , and I have one PPP post and TLA ads on the home page.
Ruth
· 2 years ago
They are making it so hard for us small guys to get a page rank at all - I am way down on the list while these lame pages that have been there for a while but are totally unprofessional are high up on the list.
Ruth
· 2 years ago
They are making it so hard for us small guys to get a page rank at all - I am way down on the list while these lame pages that have been there for a while but are totally unprofessional are high up on the list.
Conservatory-Geezer
· 2 years ago
1. We are dependent on Google for traffic 2. Google depends on backlinks to rate a site 3. Anything that distorts 2., Google will penalize.
Google has made its own problem. PR has created a big business selling PR.
Solution: Do what traditional marketers have been saying all along, and find ways to promote your site outside the SEs. Then their traffic will be a happy bonus, rather than essential.
Conservatory-Geezer
· 2 years ago
1. We are dependent on Google for traffic 2. Google depends on backlinks to rate a site 3. Anything that distorts 2., Google will penalize.
Google has made its own problem. PR has created a big business selling PR.
Solution: Do what traditional marketers have been saying all along, and find ways to promote your site outside the SEs. Then their traffic will be a happy bonus, rather than essential.
Meg
· 2 years ago
Holy Cow Andy, now a PR3 - WTF?
Meg
· 2 years ago
Holy Cow Andy, now a PR3 - WTF?
Lisa Stewart
· 2 years ago
Hi Andy- thanks for the excellent and well thought out post and arguments FOR services like PayPerPost.
To play Gevil's Advocate- If a site (like PPP) is offering a fee to post and the fee is based entirely on Page Rank (and sometimes Alexa traffic) then why can't it be interpreted as paying for page rank? A post coming from PPP on a PR3 site may cost advertiser 10.00 and the SAME post on PR5 is 50.00.
Why wouldn't Google seeing this as gaming PR?
Thanks, Lisa
Lisa Stewart
· 2 years ago
Hi Andy- thanks for the excellent and well thought out post and arguments FOR services like PayPerPost.
To play Gevil's Advocate- If a site (like PPP) is offering a fee to post and the fee is based entirely on Page Rank (and sometimes Alexa traffic) then why can't it be interpreted as paying for page rank? A post coming from PPP on a PR3 site may cost advertiser 10.00 and the SAME post on PR5 is 50.00.
All Comments
You know much more about this than I, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the reviews you've done, which is really a stupid thing to penalize you for, as they are very minimal and provide quality.
I like how they have you listed in the top 10 for SEO blogs in their own directory, but then turn around and do this. Looks like a double-standard to me. Are they recommending you or not?
If you're ability to pass PR were stripped, I supposed you wouldn't be able to pass PR to your own pages? If that's the case, it could be catastrophic! I think you'll figure that out very quickly though.
In any case, you have loads of loyal readers and no matter what Google does, they can't take you down. We'll all be here supporting you ;)
It is another quality signal, but not such a huge one as people think.
The funny thing is that PR5 and PR6 seem to be shown as if they are identical in the Google directory, at least at my screen resolution.
I don't think it has prevented the passing of PR internally, and the evidence I have for external is fairly inconclusive, based mainly on a drop for the Dofollow community to which I have lots of links.
You know much more about this than I, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the reviews you've done, which is really a stupid thing to penalize you for, as they are very minimal and provide quality.
I like how they have you listed in the top 10 for SEO blogs in their own directory, but then turn around and do this. Looks like a double-standard to me. Are they recommending you or not?
If you're ability to pass PR were stripped, I supposed you wouldn't be able to pass PR to your own pages? If that's the case, it could be catastrophic! I think you'll figure that out very quickly though.
In any case, you have loads of loyal readers and no matter what Google does, they can't take you down. We'll all be here supporting you ;)
It is another quality signal, but not such a huge one as people think.
The funny thing is that PR5 and PR6 seem to be shown as if they are identical in the Google directory, at least at my screen resolution.
I don't think it has prevented the passing of PR internally, and the evidence I have for external is fairly inconclusive, based mainly on a drop for the Dofollow community to which I have lots of links.
There are some paid links that are clearly out to game Google. I have no problem with those links being devalued/ignored. But there are also paid links that are highly editorial, with no intent to manipulate search results. Those types of paid links improve Google's user experience.
Paid/unpaid is only one of many quality signals - it should not be a deciding factor in determining link value.
Second, I haven't seen any evidence to believe that your site was intentionally penalized by Google. Let's keep in mind the obvious: Google is a collection of algorithms with no mind of its own. Just like a piece of software, even Googlers don't have complete control over how those algorithms behave. It's like breaking a rack of 9-ball. Even the guy breaking doesn't have complete control over where all the balls end up because there are simply too many factors involved.
If some sites that are linking into you violates Google's trust by manipulative linking practices, the PageRanks flowing into your domain will shrink, even if you yourself did nothing wrong.
If your TBPR used to be borderline 5 (e.g. 5.01) and your TBPR dips by a fraction (4.99) you will see a drop from 5 to 4, though in actuality you've only lost .02 TBPR.
As the web grows bigger, every URL's TBPR shrinks. Even if Google doesn't devalue any of your backlinks, you can lose TBPR just because the number of pages in Google's index increased.
I have not bought into Google/SEO's FUD campaigns aimed to make me believe that selling links leads to a penalty. When faced with the unknown, people sometimes assume the worst.
There are some paid links that are clearly out to game Google. I have no problem with those links being devalued/ignored. But there are also paid links that are highly editorial, with no intent to manipulate search results. Those types of paid links improve Google's user experience.
Paid/unpaid is only one of many quality signals - it should not be a deciding factor in determining link value.
Second, I haven't seen any evidence to believe that your site was intentionally penalized by Google. Let's keep in mind the obvious: Google is a collection of algorithms with no mind of its own. Just like a piece of software, even Googlers don't have complete control over how those algorithms behave. It's like breaking a rack of 9-ball. Even the guy breaking doesn't have complete control over where all the balls end up because there are simply too many factors involved.
If some sites that are linking into you violates Google's trust by manipulative linking practices, the PageRanks flowing into your domain will shrink, even if you yourself did nothing wrong.
If your TBPR used to be borderline 5 (e.g. 5.01) and your TBPR dips by a fraction (4.99) you will see a drop from 5 to 4, though in actuality you've only lost .02 TBPR.
As the web grows bigger, every URL's TBPR shrinks. Even if Google doesn't devalue any of your backlinks, you can lose TBPR just because the number of pages in Google's index increased.
I have not bought into Google/SEO's FUD campaigns aimed to make me believe that selling links leads to a penalty. When faced with the unknown, people sometimes assume the worst.
In April it was still a PR5, I had picked up a lot of link.
Since April I have continued gaining links... quality editorial links from quality sites.
I am well aware that PageRank is just an algorithm based upon the collective whole as are maybe some of Google's other algorithms.
Technorati report I have gained something like 12,000 links in the last 6 months, which is about when the last update happened.
Google report 39804 links within the Webmaster Console, and yes I realize that that is not a real total, and that it includes nofollow link and links that are discounted.
I have a bunch of quality links among that. Techcrunch, Scoble, SEL, Wordpress codex, Techsmith, Calacanis, Mahalo (cough), Dmoz, Google Directory, Shoemoney, Problogger, Copyblogger, Adage, PayPerPost, Marketing Pilgrim
No disrespect to anyone reading this who links to me, I value every link and comment
This isn't the typical link profile that might suggest a site that isn't at least maintaining a status quo.
I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip despite some pretty serious link building over the last 6 months.
In April it was still a PR5, I had picked up a lot of link.
Since April I have continued gaining links... quality editorial links from quality sites.
I am well aware that PageRank is just an algorithm based upon the collective whole as are maybe some of Google's other algorithms.
Technorati report I have gained something like 12,000 links in the last 6 months, which is about when the last update happened.
Google report 39804 links within the Webmaster Console, and yes I realize that that is not a real total, and that it includes nofollow link and links that are discounted.
I have a bunch of quality links among that. Techcrunch, Scoble, SEL, Wordpress codex, Techsmith, Calacanis, Mahalo (cough), Dmoz, Google Directory, Shoemoney, Problogger, Copyblogger, Adage, PayPerPost, Marketing Pilgrim
No disrespect to anyone reading this who links to me, I value every link and comment
This isn't the typical link profile that might suggest a site that isn't at least maintaining a status quo.
I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip despite some pretty serious link building over the last 6 months.
This post truly makes me see red. I've been seeing red about Google for a little while now. I think what Google are doing is simply illegal.
If you feel the need to take legal action over this I'd just like you to know I'd be willing to donate some $$$ towards the costs. It won't be a huge amount because I'm not rich, but I do believe someone needs to take a stand. I'm probably not the only one who would be willing to donate.
I cannot believe that Google can be so hypocritical. Are they penalizing people using Adsense for paid links? Of course not.
They want the entire pie, and they're not willing to share.
I think it is time we bloggers got serious about not relying on them. We simply can't trust them to act in a fair manner. They can do what they like when they like, and there seems to be nobody sticking up for the bloggers.
A big thumbs down, Google. A huge one. If you annoy enough people, we're going to take our power back one of these days. We'll start using other search engines. We'll stop using your services. Think about what you are doing to people - think about the anger and resentment you are creating by being hypocrites. We the users created you - we can just as easily break you.
Snoskred
This post truly makes me see red. I've been seeing red about Google for a little while now. I think what Google are doing is simply illegal.
If you feel the need to take legal action over this I'd just like you to know I'd be willing to donate some $$$ towards the costs. It won't be a huge amount because I'm not rich, but I do believe someone needs to take a stand. I'm probably not the only one who would be willing to donate.
I cannot believe that Google can be so hypocritical. Are they penalizing people using Adsense for paid links? Of course not.
They want the entire pie, and they're not willing to share.
I think it is time we bloggers got serious about not relying on them. We simply can't trust them to act in a fair manner. They can do what they like when they like, and there seems to be nobody sticking up for the bloggers.
A big thumbs down, Google. A huge one. If you annoy enough people, we're going to take our power back one of these days. We'll start using other search engines. We'll stop using your services. Think about what you are doing to people - think about the anger and resentment you are creating by being hypocrites. We the users created you - we can just as easily break you.
Snoskred
"I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip"
That doesn't tell me anything unless I see a comprehensive list of all blogs that publish paid reviews and see what percentage of those blogs lost TBPR. And if some of those blog have TLA or embedded TLBroker blog post links on them, then it muddies the water even more.
You said your index penetration level is steady and your ranking hasn't suffered. If your site really suffered a huge loss of PageRank, you should of course be seeing a way bigger percentage of pages in the supplemental results.
If you're implying that Google is just toying with your toolbar rank, that sounds a little far-fetched to me.
Also, in fairness to absolute objectivity, a paid review like this
http://andybeard.eu/2007/05/seo-consulting.html
where you link to a site six times, often with laser-targeted anchor text - that feels unnatural to me. Even if I was head over heels about a site, I wouldn't link to the same site that many times in one blog post. 2-3 times maybe, but 6? You got "seo consultant", "about page", "seo basics", "seo" (those links to seo/seo basics category pages - could be just me, but I link to individual articles, never to a blogger's cat page), "link building", and "landing pages."
As far as you're providing a service to a paying customer, I don't see a problem with linking to a site 100 times in one post, but how can you claim that the links in that post are completely editorial? If you weren't paid, would you have linked to him 6 times in one post? Would you have linked to him at all?
I wouldn't have. The guy's "seo consulting" page, for example, is cryptic, to say the least. Unless I worked in SEO I wouldn't understand a single word written on that page. He isn't selling SEO to SEOs - he is selling consulting services to webmasters who may know nothing about SEO. Compare his site to Eric Ward's site, for example, which is extremely easy to understand.
Shimon's was tough, and I do acknowledge that I am dancing along the line between something being totally white, and some shade of gray which is more like advertising, especially with that review.
The review was through sponsored reviews who do not have any chat interface, so I had to first of all get permission to contact the client direct as nothing was specified regarding that in the rules.
Initially he was also looking for an overall review of the site, and not just the content although content was specified.
What was offered was something along the lines of my SEO Masterclass. It might have given him more traffic, but it would also have been quite critical, as it would for most SEO blogs, even mine. People have little time to perfect things and might disagree on some things, such as SEO friendly URLs.
Shimon asked me just to do the content review.
Maybe all my linking is unnatural, throughout the whole blog.
I don't link to Lyndon with "you might enjoy this [post]"
I link to him as "you might enjoy this post on [linkbait]"
Shimon's whole site is heavily optimized for SEO Consultant, and if he left a comment here using that text as the anchor, as long as it linked to his blog (the one I reviewed) he would get away with it, because that is what the blog is about, the blog represents him clearly and is not a group effort, etc.
You know in absolute honestly, Shimon would have been quite happy with a post such as
"Shimon is an SEO Consultant, you might like his blog"
I could have written a 10 word post, and he would have received more traffic, I guarantee it.
I didn't link to individual posts, because his individual posts are actually quite short. The sum is greater than the individual parts.
My own reading preference is for long posts that go into detail and that is the type of individual post I link to.
At the time of the review, Shimon's rate was $60 per hour, and as this was around the same time as Rand published his big list of SEO salaries, that was remarkably low.
So I opted to link to a few categories, and my natural inclination isn't to write "You might enjoy this, this and this category", I use descriptive words.
The link to the about page is quite funny - the reason I gave the link was because I had read at the time that Darren Rowse gets the most traffic to his "About Me" page.
I thought Shimon's was reasonable because it highlighted some of the significant firms he has worked for.
On a "like for like" consulting rate, what I get paid for reviews would be worth 2 hours of my time. I did actually spend a lot more time than that evaluating Shimon's site before I even put fingers to keyboard contacting him.
The final content isn't as good as some of my other pieces, but it could have been.
I agree that Eric is a good example of being up front with his fees, but many of the sites in the industry don't. A nice clean $60 per hour is much better than some of the packages some firms offer. Rates have gone up now, Shimon must be gaining some work.
I also disagree that everyone looking for SEO work is an outsider. Every person who has approached me so far had some knowledge of SEO already.
I am well aware that TBPR is taken from a snapshot, and real PR fluctuates in real time. I am comparing rankings for terms back over 6 months which I know the rankings for.
So I am comparing terms such as:-
Volusion
Day job killer
Wordpress htaccess (this article might be a little too new)
Wordpress Trademark (there I am competing with one of my own sites)
Google meta redirects
Meta redirects
One of the problems is that my site structure over the intervening 10 months since some of that content was written has become flatter
It is very hard to say something is purely based upon writing paid reviews, because almost every site is also selling links other than me.
"I have also looked at a number of other domains that are fairly prominent for paid reviews, not just JC, and they have also experienced a dip"
That doesn't tell me anything unless I see a comprehensive list of all blogs that publish paid reviews and see what percentage of those blogs lost TBPR. And if some of those blog have TLA or embedded TLBroker blog post links on them, then it muddies the water even more.
You said your index penetration level is steady and your ranking hasn't suffered. If your site really suffered a huge loss of PageRank, you should of course be seeing a way bigger percentage of pages in the supplemental results.
If you're implying that Google is just toying with your toolbar rank, that sounds a little far-fetched to me.
Also, in fairness to absolute objectivity, a paid review like this
http://andybeard.eu/2007/05/seo-consulting.html
where you link to a site six times, often with laser-targeted anchor text - that feels unnatural to me. Even if I was head over heels about a site, I wouldn't link to the same site that many times in one blog post. 2-3 times maybe, but 6? You got "seo consultant", "about page", "seo basics", "seo" (those links to seo/seo basics category pages - could be just me, but I link to individual articles, never to a blogger's cat page), "link building", and "landing pages."
As far as you're providing a service to a paying customer, I don't see a problem with linking to a site 100 times in one post, but how can you claim that the links in that post are completely editorial? If you weren't paid, would you have linked to him 6 times in one post? Would you have linked to him at all?
I wouldn't have. The guy's "seo consulting" page, for example, is cryptic, to say the least. Unless I worked in SEO I wouldn't understand a single word written on that page. He isn't selling SEO to SEOs - he is selling consulting services to webmasters who may know nothing about SEO. Compare his site to Eric Ward's site, for example, which is extremely easy to understand.
Shimon's was tough, and I do acknowledge that I am dancing along the line between something being totally white, and some shade of gray which is more like advertising, especially with that review.
The review was through sponsored reviews who do not have any chat interface, so I had to first of all get permission to contact the client direct as nothing was specified regarding that in the rules.
Initially he was also looking for an overall review of the site, and not just the content although content was specified.
What was offered was something along the lines of my SEO Masterclass. It might have given him more traffic, but it would also have been quite critical, as it would for most SEO blogs, even mine. People have little time to perfect things and might disagree on some things, such as SEO friendly URLs.
Shimon asked me just to do the content review.
Maybe all my linking is unnatural, throughout the whole blog.
I don't link to Lyndon with "you might enjoy this [post]"
I link to him as "you might enjoy this post on [linkbait]"
Shimon's whole site is heavily optimized for SEO Consultant, and if he left a comment here using that text as the anchor, as long as it linked to his blog (the one I reviewed) he would get away with it, because that is what the blog is about, the blog represents him clearly and is not a group effort, etc.
You know in absolute honestly, Shimon would have been quite happy with a post such as
"Shimon is an SEO Consultant, you might like his blog"
I could have written a 10 word post, and he would have received more traffic, I guarantee it.
I didn't link to individual posts, because his individual posts are actually quite short. The sum is greater than the individual parts.
My own reading preference is for long posts that go into detail and that is the type of individual post I link to.
At the time of the review, Shimon's rate was $60 per hour, and as this was around the same time as Rand published his big list of SEO salaries, that was remarkably low.
So I opted to link to a few categories, and my natural inclination isn't to write "You might enjoy this, this and this category", I use descriptive words.
The link to the about page is quite funny - the reason I gave the link was because I had read at the time that Darren Rowse gets the most traffic to his "About Me" page.
I thought Shimon's was reasonable because it highlighted some of the significant firms he has worked for.
On a "like for like" consulting rate, what I get paid for reviews would be worth 2 hours of my time. I did actually spend a lot more time than that evaluating Shimon's site before I even put fingers to keyboard contacting him.
The final content isn't as good as some of my other pieces, but it could have been.
I agree that Eric is a good example of being up front with his fees, but many of the sites in the industry don't. A nice clean $60 per hour is much better than some of the packages some firms offer. Rates have gone up now, Shimon must be gaining some work.
I also disagree that everyone looking for SEO work is an outsider. Every person who has approached me so far had some knowledge of SEO already.
I am well aware that TBPR is taken from a snapshot, and real PR fluctuates in real time. I am comparing rankings for terms back over 6 months which I know the rankings for.
So I am comparing terms such as:-
Volusion
Day job killer
Wordpress htaccess (this article might be a little too new)
Wordpress Trademark (there I am competing with one of my own sites)
Google meta redirects
Meta redirects
One of the problems is that my site structure over the intervening 10 months since some of that content was written has become flatter
It is very hard to say something is purely based upon writing paid reviews, because almost every site is also selling links other than me.
I said if your ranking hasn't changed, then you haven't lost much PageRank. That's not entirely right. Toolbar update effects only one thing: the green in your toolbar. Updates have no effect whatsoever on your ranking, traffic, or number of pages indexed. That's because as you know, internal PageRank is calculated daily, and the effects of any dramatic PageRank shifts that might have taken place have been in effect for quite some time now. So seeing no change in those factors doesn't say anything about the amount of PageRank directed at your site.
I said if your ranking hasn't changed, then you haven't lost much PageRank. That's not entirely right. Toolbar update effects only one thing: the green in your toolbar. Updates have no effect whatsoever on your ranking, traffic, or number of pages indexed. That's because as you know, internal PageRank is calculated daily, and the effects of any dramatic PageRank shifts that might have taken place have been in effect for quite some time now. So seeing no change in those factors doesn't say anything about the amount of PageRank directed at your site.
Size brings about arrogance and paranoia.
Andy, there is little that I can do to help you. I however assure you that I sympathize with you and am solidly behind you in this David vs Goliath situation. All the best.
Size brings about arrogance and paranoia.
Andy, there is little that I can do to help you. I however assure you that I sympathize with you and am solidly behind you in this David vs Goliath situation. All the best.
Will we have pagerank now or trustrank?
Paying someone to write about your site shouldn't ever be penalized. Journalists go on junkets all the time.
Will we have pagerank now or trustrank?
Paying someone to write about your site shouldn't ever be penalized. Journalists go on junkets all the time.
Just a few millimeters above this comment box I see this: Get Paid Just For Linking To Me.
In other words, you will pay me $7,50 if I link to you.
That's an obvious paid link.
You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant in your reply above) but it actually doesn't really matter what you think or how you interpret your links.
It's what Google thinks about them.
If you RELY on Google, then you HAVE to play their game and how THEY interpret the rules.
I teach people how to give better links, thus naturally I would tend to give better targeted links than normal sites.
I do however see your point regarding the review my post affiliate links. That is an affiliate program.
Instead of earning $15 for an affiliate signup, I only get $7.50 and the aim is to give someone something relevant to write about, and to earn $7.50 for it for something they would do anyway.
With a total of $22.50 from 3 reviews earned through that program, I don't think that is even a ripple.
The RMP program converts terribly
The important message is that I don't rely on Google. I stated in the article if Google cut off my traffic totally that might have been a correct signal to give the public.
However nothing has touched my rankings or traffic, thus it could be looked on as a public smear campaign because I can't opt out of their toolbar, and Google's toolbar isn't telling the truth.
Google have switched it from meaning an indication of what other authority sites think of my site, to an indication of what juice my site can give to other sites.
Unfortunately they forgot to tell the general public that the meaning of the toolbar green is now different.
Just a few millimeters above this comment box I see this: Get Paid Just For Linking To Me.
In other words, you will pay me $7,50 if I link to you.
That's an obvious paid link.
You can try your best to defend this with whatever you want (like you defended your 6 laser targeted links to the SEO consultant in your reply above) but it actually doesn't really matter what you think or how you interpret your links.
It's what Google thinks about them.
If you RELY on Google, then you HAVE to play their game and how THEY interpret the rules.
I teach people how to give better links, thus naturally I would tend to give better targeted links than normal sites.
I do however see your point regarding the review my post affiliate links. That is an affiliate program.
Instead of earning $15 for an affiliate signup, I only get $7.50 and the aim is to give someone something relevant to write about, and to earn $7.50 for it for something they would do anyway.
With a total of $22.50 from 3 reviews earned through that program, I don't think that is even a ripple.
The RMP program converts terribly
The important message is that I don't rely on Google. I stated in the article if Google cut off my traffic totally that might have been a correct signal to give the public.
However nothing has touched my rankings or traffic, thus it could be looked on as a public smear campaign because I can't opt out of their toolbar, and Google's toolbar isn't telling the truth.
Google have switched it from meaning an indication of what other authority sites think of my site, to an indication of what juice my site can give to other sites.
Unfortunately they forgot to tell the general public that the meaning of the toolbar green is now different.
As Vlad mentioned, perhaps there's too much emphasis on Page Rank. I've read lately that Google might be doing away with it entirely, although there might not be any truth in that.
What's important, is how you rank for relevant terms, and you mention that your rankings have improved for some searches.
I can understand what you're saying about your regular readers noticing your PR drop, and that it's almost like a vote down, but your regular readers appreciate the quality content you publish, so it's not going to affect their opinion of you. My opinion anyway.
As Vlad mentioned, perhaps there's too much emphasis on Page Rank. I've read lately that Google might be doing away with it entirely, although there might not be any truth in that.
What's important, is how you rank for relevant terms, and you mention that your rankings have improved for some searches.
I can understand what you're saying about your regular readers noticing your PR drop, and that it's almost like a vote down, but your regular readers appreciate the quality content you publish, so it's not going to affect their opinion of you. My opinion anyway.
To be fair, I wasn't attacking Andy's business practices. The linking practices are way blacker than Andy's. I'm not going to sugarcoat that. My point was that on initial scan, the links didn't pass the smell test, not for me at least. With a Google reviewer, I doubt anyone gets a chance to clarify.
Anyway, it looks like your suspicions were right on the mark Andy. What Google's doing with the toolbar is idiotic.
To be fair, I wasn't attacking Andy's business practices. The linking practices are way blacker than Andy's. I'm not going to sugarcoat that. My point was that on initial scan, the links didn't pass the smell test, not for me at least. With a Google reviewer, I doubt anyone gets a chance to clarify.
Anyway, it looks like your suspicions were right on the mark Andy. What Google's doing with the toolbar is idiotic.
Many of them are earning $10K+ per year from links and posts, and one click down on their PR isn't actually going to change very much, especially with PPP moving over to their own metrics.
The only way for this approach to work is to kill the TBPR on all the sites, and even all the traffic. Just PPP bloggers that is 50K Bloggers.
If they have their traffic taken away, I am sure 50K bloggers can probably get the traffic by other means.
Followup post coming with some more analysis (but no snitching)
Many of them are earning $10K+ per year from links and posts, and one click down on their PR isn't actually going to change very much, especially with PPP moving over to their own metrics.
The only way for this approach to work is to kill the TBPR on all the sites, and even all the traffic. Just PPP bloggers that is 50K Bloggers.
If they have their traffic taken away, I am sure 50K bloggers can probably get the traffic by other means.
Followup post coming with some more analysis (but no snitching)
Great analysis. I'll look for the follow-up shortly. I want to get your opinion of top bloggers (I won't name names either) that have google-legitimate thumbnail ads, but provide a monthly "thank you" link, without a nofollow attribute, in a post. As a potential advertiser, I would see this and understand that I will get this great link as part of my ad placement, even if it is not stated specifically in my placement agreement. It is my opinion that these links are bought and paid for just as much as a review link, and if google penalizes for paid reviews, they must penalize for these links as well to be consistent.
Note - I am not opposed to ads, reviews, paid links at all. I just see a) hypocrisy and b) potential for abuse if google does not address the issue one way or the other.
Tim
Great analysis. I'll look for the follow-up shortly. I want to get your opinion of top bloggers (I won't name names either) that have google-legitimate thumbnail ads, but provide a monthly "thank you" link, without a nofollow attribute, in a post. As a potential advertiser, I would see this and understand that I will get this great link as part of my ad placement, even if it is not stated specifically in my placement agreement. It is my opinion that these links are bought and paid for just as much as a review link, and if google penalizes for paid reviews, they must penalize for these links as well to be consistent.
Note - I am not opposed to ads, reviews, paid links at all. I just see a) hypocrisy and b) potential for abuse if google does not address the issue one way or the other.
Tim
Even though the $150 a month or whatever is pretty insignificant compared to earnings from other programs, it seems a shame to bow to Google's tyranny and remove the links just because of these threats. :\
Even though the $150 a month or whatever is pretty insignificant compared to earnings from other programs, it seems a shame to bow to Google's tyranny and remove the links just because of these threats. :\
This whole argument I was just thinking "Andy's blog rocks. His content is over the top in quality for his educational posts and I've learned a lot reading here." That's not BS. I know all the blogs in this niche - good and bad - we track them all. This one is in the top for quality, thoughtful, insightful writing.
Andy does a way better job than me with descriptive, patient posting for clarity. This comment is going to be 10 times longer than my average post for instance. :)
So why no one can see that Google IS NOT the savior of the web and quality search results, but rather, is holding the web community back from what they do best (creating more quality content) because we have to spend so damn much time protecting ourselves from a stupid all-inclusive algorithm is beyond me.
Google is taking a deliberate and lazy shortcut by having us all turn on each other, nark out each other, and casting huge nets to catch a relative handful of spammers who wouldn't rank at all if Google would just join the web and allow user ratings to affect their rankings. You can't SEO for people! We smell BS a mile away and we dont care what is in your freakin title tag!
Leaving everything up to an algorithm without including the human element is why we are all in this position right now with pagerank.
It isn't harmless either. For Andy's reasons above and others I have been on about for years, Pagerank can hurt online businesses that are providing true service and who are not in any way damaging the web by occasionally linking a certain way.
They Say Content Is King - Why Don't They Start Acting Like It?
Either the content is good or not when people get to a site and if Google would allow human ranking to in some way enter their algo, a lot more (overly optimized, valuless) sites in the top 10 would vanish while google's goal of relevancy based on good content would finally be realized.
Everyone is so damn worried about a thumbs up or down button going with Google's rankings like people are going to spam with it. NEWSFLASH: people are already spamming google, so what's the harm in trying to fix what's been broken since the beginning?
Let the surfer have at least a minor say about the sites they like and stop trying to shove sites down our throats and hiding sites that are truly more relevant than the ones in the top rankings from people who'd appreciate viewing them.
I don't believe Google is actively "treating" you a certain way Andy. Their rules written into their algo are simple commands written from a screwed up perspective and they weren't MEANT to catch you or I up in all this, but they have.
It's not intentional, but it's still evil if they continue to ignore the damage it is causing the people who fill their engine with the content they thrive on.
Google knows how long people stay on our sites and how many pages they view. They KNOW we are quality in one area of the Googleplex, yet in the engineering department they are totally clueless about what a quality site is and how to keep one from ending up in an unfair demotion with all the spammers and link whores.
They really need to address this immediately. I'm not riding on Google's freakin' space elevator if they can't even fix their search engine problems.
This whole argument I was just thinking "Andy's blog rocks. His content is over the top in quality for his educational posts and I've learned a lot reading here." That's not BS. I know all the blogs in this niche - good and bad - we track them all. This one is in the top for quality, thoughtful, insightful writing.
Andy does a way better job than me with descriptive, patient posting for clarity. This comment is going to be 10 times longer than my average post for instance. :)
So why no one can see that Google IS NOT the savior of the web and quality search results, but rather, is holding the web community back from what they do best (creating more quality content) because we have to spend so damn much time protecting ourselves from a stupid all-inclusive algorithm is beyond me.
Google is taking a deliberate and lazy shortcut by having us all turn on each other, nark out each other, and casting huge nets to catch a relative handful of spammers who wouldn't rank at all if Google would just join the web and allow user ratings to affect their rankings. You can't SEO for people! We smell BS a mile away and we dont care what is in your freakin title tag!
Leaving everything up to an algorithm without including the human element is why we are all in this position right now with pagerank.
It isn't harmless either. For Andy's reasons above and others I have been on about for years, Pagerank can hurt online businesses that are providing true service and who are not in any way damaging the web by occasionally linking a certain way.
They Say Content Is King - Why Don't They Start Acting Like It?
Either the content is good or not when people get to a site and if Google would allow human ranking to in some way enter their algo, a lot more (overly optimized, valuless) sites in the top 10 would vanish while google's goal of relevancy based on good content would finally be realized.
Everyone is so damn worried about a thumbs up or down button going with Google's rankings like people are going to spam with it. NEWSFLASH: people are already spamming google, so what's the harm in trying to fix what's been broken since the beginning?
Let the surfer have at least a minor say about the sites they like and stop trying to shove sites down our throats and hiding sites that are truly more relevant than the ones in the top rankings from people who'd appreciate viewing them.
I don't believe Google is actively "treating" you a certain way Andy. Their rules written into their algo are simple commands written from a screwed up perspective and they weren't MEANT to catch you or I up in all this, but they have.
It's not intentional, but it's still evil if they continue to ignore the damage it is causing the people who fill their engine with the content they thrive on.
Google knows how long people stay on our sites and how many pages they view. They KNOW we are quality in one area of the Googleplex, yet in the engineering department they are totally clueless about what a quality site is and how to keep one from ending up in an unfair demotion with all the spammers and link whores.
They really need to address this immediately. I'm not riding on Google's freakin' space elevator if they can't even fix their search engine problems.
Occasionally I write paid posts if I think my readers would benefit but those reviews are rare and when I do them they are thorough. I treat them like a regular post.
I had a feeling mine would drop so I'm not too surprised. I picked up one direct advertiser two months ago. It's a service that many of my readers use which is why they are on my website.
I had not idea mine had even dropped until I read that one of my blogging buddies had. I really don't pay too much attention to my PR. I did check after reading their comment and I noticed mine had dropped also. It does not seem to have affected my traffic
Occasionally I write paid posts if I think my readers would benefit but those reviews are rare and when I do them they are thorough. I treat them like a regular post.
I had a feeling mine would drop so I'm not too surprised. I picked up one direct advertiser two months ago. It's a service that many of my readers use which is why they are on my website.
I had not idea mine had even dropped until I read that one of my blogging buddies had. I really don't pay too much attention to my PR. I did check after reading their comment and I noticed mine had dropped also. It does not seem to have affected my traffic
That all being said my site was reduced from a PR5 to a PR4 , and I have one PPP post and TLA ads on the home page.
That all being said my site was reduced from a PR5 to a PR4 , and I have one PPP post and TLA ads on the home page.
2. Google depends on backlinks to rate a site
3. Anything that distorts 2., Google will penalize.
Google has made its own problem. PR has created a big business selling PR.
Solution: Do what traditional marketers have been saying all along, and find ways to promote your site outside the SEs. Then their traffic will be a happy bonus, rather than essential.
2. Google depends on backlinks to rate a site
3. Anything that distorts 2., Google will penalize.
Google has made its own problem. PR has created a big business selling PR.
Solution: Do what traditional marketers have been saying all along, and find ways to promote your site outside the SEs. Then their traffic will be a happy bonus, rather than essential.
To play Gevil's Advocate- If a site (like PPP) is offering a fee to post and the fee is based entirely on Page Rank (and sometimes Alexa traffic) then why can't it be interpreted as paying for page rank?
A post coming from PPP on a PR3 site may cost advertiser 10.00 and the SAME post on PR5 is 50.00.
Why wouldn't Google seeing this as gaming PR?
Thanks,
Lisa
To play Gevil's Advocate- If a site (like PPP) is offering a fee to post and the fee is based entirely on Page Rank (and sometimes Alexa traffic) then why can't it be interpreted as paying for page rank?
A post coming from PPP on a PR3 site may cost advertiser 10.00 and the SAME post on PR5 is 50.00.
Why wouldn't Google seeing this as gaming PR?
Thanks,
Lisa