I tell you what Andy, I admire you for standing by your principles. Instead of just complaining about the paid links issue you've stepped up and voted with the only mechanism that counts, your own site.
I believe it's Google's right to dictate what types of requirements it wants to hold sites to before they index them, but it is also your right to hold the same truth's and withhold your content until they are in accordance with your own standards.
Flimjo.com
· 1 year ago
It takes guts to do this, and I, too, admire this. I'm glad that I now know a way of blocking posts containing paid reviews. Being a total blogging ignorant, this post is priceless. I never thought someone could do this. Excellent.
John Honeck
· 1 year ago
I tell you what Andy, I admire you for standing by your principles. Instead of just complaining about the paid links issue you've stepped up and voted with the only mechanism that counts, your own site.
I believe it's Google's right to dictate what types of requirements it wants to hold sites to before they index them, but it is also your right to hold the same truth's and withhold your content until they are in accordance with your own standards.
Flimjo.com
· 1 year ago
It takes guts to do this, and I, too, admire this. I'm glad that I now know a way of blocking posts containing paid reviews. Being a total blogging ignorant, this post is priceless. I never thought someone could do this. Excellent.
Guillermo
· 1 year ago
I knew it! I knew that place in the picture!
Never paint my flag again!!!
;) Just kidding
Great post, as usual!
Guillermo
· 1 year ago
I knew it! I knew that place in the picture!
Never paint my flag again!!!
;) Just kidding
Great post, as usual!
Gab "SEO ROI" Goldenberg
· 1 year ago
Were there any preparations you made before blocking them? Also, if it's still in the index, how is that blocking Google? Or is it just its existence that's indexed, and not the content?
Also, for now I just see two folders disallowed, and for all crawlers, not just Googlebot.
Finally, not to be rude but I'm having a hard time with your grammar. Specifically, I don't understand this:
"It might be harder to rank, pages blocked using robots.txt still gather PageRank, and can appear in the index, though they would be looked on as dangling pages.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
It is a little naughty, some people will sometimes receive editorial links within reviews and receive a trackback, but I don't know of any spam plugin that checks robots.txt , plus the links will still be valuable in other search engines."
Looking forward to more detail! I'm considering something like user agent: googlebot disallow: /
and want to hear your thoughts. BTW, you have msn messenger? If you do, it's be great to chat :)
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Hi Gab
In my Linking Gotchas article I encouraged people to read the Matt Cutts interview with Eric multiple times.
It really is important to understand, there is a difference between blocking with robots.txt and using noindex for instance.
I haven't made the change to robots.txt yet, but it will just disallow Googlebot from specific articles.
I haven't made any special preparations for this, I don't really need to, as my content get splogged by probably 50 + blogs by now, and other legitimate syndication.
I wouldn't block Google totally, I am just doing this to stick to the letter of the law that Google seem to be insisting on... that is their problem.
Gab "SEO ROI" Goldenberg
· 1 year ago
Were there any preparations you made before blocking them? Also, if it's still in the index, how is that blocking Google? Or is it just its existence that's indexed, and not the content?
Also, for now I just see two folders disallowed, and for all crawlers, not just Googlebot.
Finally, not to be rude but I'm having a hard time with your grammar. Specifically, I don't understand this:
"It might be harder to rank, pages blocked using robots.txt still gather PageRank, and can appear in the index, though they would be looked on as dangling pages.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
It is a little naughty, some people will sometimes receive editorial links within reviews and receive a trackback, but I don't know of any spam plugin that checks robots.txt , plus the links will still be valuable in other search engines."
Looking forward to more detail! I'm considering something like user agent: googlebot disallow: /
and want to hear your thoughts. BTW, you have msn messenger? If you do, it's be great to chat :)
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Hi Gab
In my Linking Gotchas article I encouraged people to read the Matt Cutts interview with Eric multiple times.
It really is important to understand, there is a difference between blocking with robots.txt and using noindex for instance.
I haven't made the change to robots.txt yet, but it will just disallow Googlebot from specific articles.
I haven't made any special preparations for this, I don't really need to, as my content get splogged by probably 50 + blogs by now, and other legitimate syndication.
I wouldn't block Google totally, I am just doing this to stick to the letter of the law that Google seem to be insisting on... that is their problem.
glengara
· 1 year ago
Good luck mate, you made a big deal about not selling PR but I saw one of your "reviews", you were selling anchor text links....
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
There is actually a huge difference between selling anchor text links, and choosing to give SEO friendly links when writing a review in an editorial capacity, whether paid for or not.
Just read through my blog, and you will find almost every single link uses good anchor text where possible, and I often reword what I write to ensure people get a good link.
Even the links I just used to Flickr use good anchor text, not just "photo credit" which is what you find on most blogs when they use other people's pictures.
glengara
· 1 year ago
Good luck mate, you made a big deal about not selling PR but I saw one of your "reviews", you were selling anchor text links....
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
There is actually a huge difference between selling anchor text links, and choosing to give SEO friendly links when writing a review in an editorial capacity, whether paid for or not.
Just read through my blog, and you will find almost every single link uses good anchor text where possible, and I often reword what I write to ensure people get a good link.
Even the links I just used to Flickr use good anchor text, not just "photo credit" which is what you find on most blogs when they use other people's pictures.
Doug Heil
· 1 year ago
Yes; good luck with it. I'm with glengara.
It's amazing how obsessed people are with google and the paid review thing. Just a thought though; what if you did things just for your visitors only and did reviews for your visitors only, and did anchor text stuff just for your visitors only? You seem to be doing things only for google, and then writing post after post about what you did and why you did it because of google. Just wondering if you think that is a good strategy?
Look at what everyone has to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Then there are the sites that talk about others without linking at all
My company is based in the UK - It is my belief I am legally obligated to use links that are friendly, and it is just good practice.
As I am writing about SEO, using junk links wouldn't be a very good example to my readers would it?
Doug Heil
· 1 year ago
Yes; good luck with it. I'm with glengara.
It's amazing how obsessed people are with google and the paid review thing. Just a thought though; what if you did things just for your visitors only and did reviews for your visitors only, and did anchor text stuff just for your visitors only? You seem to be doing things only for google, and then writing post after post about what you did and why you did it because of google. Just wondering if you think that is a good strategy?
Look at what everyone has to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Then there are the sites that talk about others without linking at all
My company is based in the UK - It is my belief I am legally obligated to use links that are friendly, and it is just good practice.
As I am writing about SEO, using junk links wouldn't be a very good example to my readers would it?
Doug Heil
· 1 year ago
Well yes; but if it were obvious you do things for your visitors only, people like me would not be writing that it seems to be all about google and how google harms site owners, etc. Even the title of your blog post has the word google in it. It just seems to me that seo's need to sit back and relax a bit instead of doing most everything because of google. Either doing or not doing. The paid links issue is really not this difficult.
Andy; I agree with lots of things you write about, etc, and I also disagree with things as well. My point is that if you just relaxed a bit and did things for your visitors only you might be better off. Common sense should also tell you that a paid review is a paid review. It isn't anything else, so why should that link be given a boost in a search engine anyway? You see; I disagree with the entire premise of paid links being given a boost, no matter how many seo's wish it to be so.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
I look on Matt Cutts doing a review of Google Reader as being a paid review, or Techcrunch reviewing a site that Michael Arrington has equity.
The only difference is employment status
If I do an SEO review of someone's site, I need to link to it - If I want to share that review with my readers as content, why should I have to block the links?
There are people in the industry who have written paid reviews quite openly, I know Matt Cutts reads their blogs, yet they haven't had to suffer their green pixie dust being removed, and other potential penalties.
There are far worse things that Google should be looking at, such as the Wordpress.com tags which make it a linkfarm.
Doug Heil
· 1 year ago
Well yes; but if it were obvious you do things for your visitors only, people like me would not be writing that it seems to be all about google and how google harms site owners, etc. Even the title of your blog post has the word google in it. It just seems to me that seo's need to sit back and relax a bit instead of doing most everything because of google. Either doing or not doing. The paid links issue is really not this difficult.
Andy; I agree with lots of things you write about, etc, and I also disagree with things as well. My point is that if you just relaxed a bit and did things for your visitors only you might be better off. Common sense should also tell you that a paid review is a paid review. It isn't anything else, so why should that link be given a boost in a search engine anyway? You see; I disagree with the entire premise of paid links being given a boost, no matter how many seo's wish it to be so.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
I look on Matt Cutts doing a review of Google Reader as being a paid review, or Techcrunch reviewing a site that Michael Arrington has equity.
The only difference is employment status
If I do an SEO review of someone's site, I need to link to it - If I want to share that review with my readers as content, why should I have to block the links?
There are people in the industry who have written paid reviews quite openly, I know Matt Cutts reads their blogs, yet they haven't had to suffer their green pixie dust being removed, and other potential penalties.
There are far worse things that Google should be looking at, such as the Wordpress.com tags which make it a linkfarm.
Tim Nash
· 1 year ago
Just on the point of anchor text, UK accessibility legislation requires "companies" to maintain accessible websites. Most accessibility experts agree the general consensus is that an accessible web site is one that reaches the WAI level 1 and attempts to meet Level 2 (or in old money Bobby AA and AAA) To meet Level 2;
13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]
Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Therefore a UK business would be obliged to provide not only a search engine friendly link but more importantly a human friendly link.
Mike - Twenty Steps
· 1 year ago
And there's the thing, Tim. Make a link human friendly via the anchor text or title and you've probably made it search engine friendly too.
Of course what they define as a company is pretty woolly but that's for another day ;)
Tim Nash
· 1 year ago
Just on the point of anchor text, UK accessibility legislation requires "companies" to maintain accessible websites. Most accessibility experts agree the general consensus is that an accessible web site is one that reaches the WAI level 1 and attempts to meet Level 2 (or in old money Bobby AA and AAA) To meet Level 2;
13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]
Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Therefore a UK business would be obliged to provide not only a search engine friendly link but more importantly a human friendly link.
Mike - Twenty Steps
· 1 year ago
And there's the thing, Tim. Make a link human friendly via the anchor text or title and you've probably made it search engine friendly too.
Of course what they define as a company is pretty woolly but that's for another day ;)
Mike - Twenty Steps
· 1 year ago
Well this is one that I definitely want to watch! Absolutely hats off to you, Andy, for taking this stance.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
Too right. This is something that I advocated last year as a work around. Ultimately how can the Big G penalise you for that especially if you've robots.txt'd them off the original page?
I look forward to hearing how things work out with this.
Mike - Twenty Steps
· 1 year ago
Well this is one that I definitely want to watch! Absolutely hats off to you, Andy, for taking this stance.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
Too right. This is something that I advocated last year as a work around. Ultimately how can the Big G penalise you for that especially if you've robots.txt'd them off the original page?
I look forward to hearing how things work out with this.
Michael VanDeMar
· 1 year ago
Andy, good job.
I think though, especially reading the comments here and elsewhere, that most people really won't understand the logistics behind what you are doing, despite the explanation that you gave. Great thinking though. :)
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Michael I have seen some of the comments elsewhere
I gave some really big hints to some of the things I am going to be playing with, both in this article and some of my previous articles.
If I have a nofollow in a post, every syndicated copy of my content also gains a nofollow, unless I go the complicated route and use some of Sebastian's nofollow cloaking
If I use Nofollow, Google wins, unanimous decision.
By using this method, whilst I am certainly not happy to be doing it, I am taking a few punches, but win on points.
Michael VanDeMar
· 1 year ago
Andy, good job.
I think though, especially reading the comments here and elsewhere, that most people really won't understand the logistics behind what you are doing, despite the explanation that you gave. Great thinking though. :)
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Michael I have seen some of the comments elsewhere
I gave some really big hints to some of the things I am going to be playing with, both in this article and some of my previous articles.
If I have a nofollow in a post, every syndicated copy of my content also gains a nofollow, unless I go the complicated route and use some of Sebastian's nofollow cloaking
If I use Nofollow, Google wins, unanimous decision.
By using this method, whilst I am certainly not happy to be doing it, I am taking a few punches, but win on points.
ny seo
· 1 year ago
at the very least we have to say Andy makes it even more interesting.
my mouth is watering with anticipation over what you might come up with next...
i might be obligated to send you royalty checks soon, thanks again
ny seo
· 1 year ago
at the very least we have to say Andy makes it even more interesting.
my mouth is watering with anticipation over what you might come up with next...
i might be obligated to send you royalty checks soon, thanks again
Michael VanDeMar
· 1 year ago
RE: Update #3
Did you request it yet? What do you think the odds are, realistically, that they will reinclude you right off the bat? In what kind of timeline do you think you will get it, or how long are you willing to give it before you step up the noise level?
First off I am waiting for them to all be reported as being blocked after a crawl. I might have to give the Googlebot a nudge with some more links, but we will see tomorrow.
I know Donna had to jump through hoops, though most of that was missed posts - I kept very close track of mine. The same was true for Wendy (Emom) and Yaro.
I haven't blocked follow up posts that might have happened to the same domain.
I will also be doing something regarding disclosure, and have an advertising page explaining robots.txt soon.
Who knows how long it will take after that.
Michael VanDeMar
· 1 year ago
RE: Update #3
Did you request it yet? What do you think the odds are, realistically, that they will reinclude you right off the bat? In what kind of timeline do you think you will get it, or how long are you willing to give it before you step up the noise level?
First off I am waiting for them to all be reported as being blocked after a crawl. I might have to give the Googlebot a nudge with some more links, but we will see tomorrow.
I know Donna had to jump through hoops, though most of that was missed posts - I kept very close track of mine. The same was true for Wendy (Emom) and Yaro.
I haven't blocked follow up posts that might have happened to the same domain.
I will also be doing something regarding disclosure, and have an advertising page explaining robots.txt soon.
Who knows how long it will take after that.
Vlad
· 1 year ago
Andy,
I like your solution rather then an attempt to completely ban googlebot from my site few months ago.
After trying my way in sponsored reviews I gave up. Reason is simple. You have set the bar of how these reviews should be done. Anyone who is not trying to level with your reviews should be simply kicked off the PPP and other places.
It is a shame that some people have gotten with murder in the past. While some one like you has to resort to these manipulations.
I have to admit your approach make more sense the nofollow crap.
Vlad
· 1 year ago
Andy,
I like your solution rather then an attempt to completely ban googlebot from my site few months ago.
After trying my way in sponsored reviews I gave up. Reason is simple. You have set the bar of how these reviews should be done. Anyone who is not trying to level with your reviews should be simply kicked off the PPP and other places.
It is a shame that some people have gotten with murder in the past. While some one like you has to resort to these manipulations.
I have to admit your approach make more sense the nofollow crap.
amy
· 1 year ago
I hope you had permission to use Google Logo there.
Vlad
· 1 year ago
Is permission required to make a comic representation of something?
amy
· 1 year ago
I hope you had permission to use Google Logo there.
Vlad
· 1 year ago
Is permission required to make a comic representation of something?
David Deangelo
· 1 year ago
"I hope you had permission to use Google Logo there"
haha who cares!
David Deangelo
· 1 year ago
"I hope you had permission to use Google Logo there"
haha who cares!
Local SEO Guide
· 1 year ago
Andy,
Am I smoking crack or did I read in one of Matt Cutt's quotes over the past few months on this issue, I believe in relation to directories, that paid links are not the problem, paid links without editorial review of the links are the problem. If that is the case then why should GOOG have a problem with what you do or what Pay Per Post does or anybody else who claims to have an "editorial" process? Rhetorically asked of course.
Local SEO Guide
· 1 year ago
Andy,
Am I smoking crack or did I read in one of Matt Cutt's quotes over the past few months on this issue, I believe in relation to directories, that paid links are not the problem, paid links without editorial review of the links are the problem. If that is the case then why should GOOG have a problem with what you do or what Pay Per Post does or anybody else who claims to have an "editorial" process? Rhetorically asked of course.
Gaje Master
· 1 year ago
This post has given me a lot to think about when it comes to sponsored or paid post. I don't mind reading them on other blogs as long as they aren't feeding into it too much and making up stuff that you know isn't true or wrote on a site or product that they have probably never used before. I understand what you are saying in this post and wish you the best of luck.
Gaje Master
· 1 year ago
This post has given me a lot to think about when it comes to sponsored or paid post. I don't mind reading them on other blogs as long as they aren't feeding into it too much and making up stuff that you know isn't true or wrote on a site or product that they have probably never used before. I understand what you are saying in this post and wish you the best of luck.
Optimized
· 1 year ago
Andy,
I just wanted to write to say I agree with what you are doing. I don't understand some of the challenges you are receiving here...to help visitors understand where a link leads means using appropriate anchor text. That just makes sense, and that's the reason why search engines consider anchor text in rankings.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all washes out. Please keep us updated.
Optimized
· 1 year ago
Andy,
I just wanted to write to say I agree with what you are doing. I don't understand some of the challenges you are receiving here...to help visitors understand where a link leads means using appropriate anchor text. That just makes sense, and that's the reason why search engines consider anchor text in rankings.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all washes out. Please keep us updated.
Michelle MacPhearson
· 1 year ago
Andy, good stuff. This whole nofollow/paid links thing is ridiculous, and I really appreciate your doing what you can to speak up about the issue.
Michelle MacPhearson
· 1 year ago
Andy, good stuff. This whole nofollow/paid links thing is ridiculous, and I really appreciate your doing what you can to speak up about the issue.
zakenlinks
· 1 year ago
It is obvious that Google can't live with a supplemental business within its search engine ( SEO)
zakenlinks
· 1 year ago
It is obvious that Google can't live with a supplemental business within its search engine ( SEO)
Internet Marketing Joy
· 1 year ago
Great job Andy!
It's nice to read your article because every time I did..I always learn something new and useful.
Anyway good luck on your stand!..^^
Internet Marketing Joy
· 1 year ago
Great job Andy!
It's nice to read your article because every time I did..I always learn something new and useful.
Anyway good luck on your stand!..^^
MacBros
· 1 year ago
So are you going to end up placing a new Disallow in your .htaccess for every paid post that you do? Sorry, I'm a bit confused on how this works.
MacBros
· 1 year ago
So are you going to end up placing a new Disallow in your .htaccess for every paid post that you do? Sorry, I'm a bit confused on how this works.
MacBros
· 1 year ago
errr. not .htaccess, but rather robots.tct. LOL I'm not sure how .htaccess came up there. :p
MacBros
· 1 year ago
errr. not .htaccess, but rather robots.tct. LOL I'm not sure how .htaccess came up there. :p
Scott Salwolke
· 1 year ago
A lot to digest here. Not for the first time I've had to print out one of your entries so that I could take it all in. And use my highlighter. It's refreshing that instead of complaining your looking for solutions.
Scott Salwolke
· 1 year ago
A lot to digest here. Not for the first time I've had to print out one of your entries so that I could take it all in. And use my highlighter. It's refreshing that instead of complaining your looking for solutions.
Lorna
· 1 year ago
Just wondering... how effective is using robots.txt to set a nofollow on a page, compared to using nofollow meta tags for each page? For some of us looking into using robots.txt, we would sure be dealing with a long list of disallow URLs, and updating them looks to be more of a hassle compared to using meta tags.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Lorna they are apple's and oranges - they do different things
Lorna
· 1 year ago
Just wondering... how effective is using robots.txt to set a nofollow on a page, compared to using nofollow meta tags for each page? For some of us looking into using robots.txt, we would sure be dealing with a long list of disallow URLs, and updating them looks to be more of a hassle compared to using meta tags.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Lorna they are apple's and oranges - they do different things
Blekinge
· 1 year ago
I have to admit that i like your solution, rather then ban googlebot.
SEO friendly links are most often a good thing, making the link more user friendly. People are obsessed with Google and the paid reviews.
I can see only one weak point here. It is similar to viral marketing. How many people will want to pay for a potential negative review or no-follow links?
Blekinge
· 1 year ago
I have to admit that i like your solution, rather then ban googlebot.
SEO friendly links are most often a good thing, making the link more user friendly. People are obsessed with Google and the paid reviews.
I can see only one weak point here. It is similar to viral marketing. How many people will want to pay for a potential negative review or no-follow links?
Tom
· 1 year ago
So, how would this prevent Google from seeing what's on your main page?
I can understand that it will prevent Googlebot from seeing them once they've rolled off the main page, but wont those links still be indexed?
Tom
· 1 year ago
So, how would this prevent Google from seeing what's on your main page?
I can understand that it will prevent Googlebot from seeing them once they've rolled off the main page, but wont those links still be indexed?
Popular Wealth
· 1 year ago
I'd love another update - I noticed most of the pages you blocked have a blank PR toolbar reading.
You're still passing on internal pagerank to those pages and I'm really curious to see if a blocked page gathers pagerank in time.
Popular Wealth
· 1 year ago
I'd love another update - I noticed most of the pages you blocked have a blank PR toolbar reading.
You're still passing on internal pagerank to those pages and I'm really curious to see if a blocked page gathers pagerank in time.
Google Cash Guy
· 1 year ago
Tough call.. I think that if you want to remain in google's index then you need to play by their rules however stupid they may be.
Google Cash Guy
· 1 year ago
Tough call.. I think that if you want to remain in google's index then you need to play by their rules however stupid they may be.
All Comments
I believe it's Google's right to dictate what types of requirements it wants to hold sites to before they index them, but it is also your right to hold the same truth's and withhold your content until they are in accordance with your own standards.
I believe it's Google's right to dictate what types of requirements it wants to hold sites to before they index them, but it is also your right to hold the same truth's and withhold your content until they are in accordance with your own standards.
Never paint my flag again!!!
;) Just kidding
Great post, as usual!
Never paint my flag again!!!
;) Just kidding
Great post, as usual!
Also, for now I just see two folders disallowed, and for all crawlers, not just Googlebot.
Finally, not to be rude but I'm having a hard time with your grammar. Specifically, I don't understand this:
"It might be harder to rank, pages blocked using robots.txt still gather PageRank, and can appear in the index, though they would be looked on as dangling pages.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
It is a little naughty, some people will sometimes receive editorial links within reviews and receive a trackback, but I don't know of any spam plugin that checks robots.txt , plus the links will still be valuable in other search engines."
Looking forward to more detail! I'm considering something like user agent: googlebot
disallow: /
and want to hear your thoughts. BTW, you have msn messenger? If you do, it's be great to chat :)
In my Linking Gotchas article I encouraged people to read the Matt Cutts interview with Eric multiple times.
It really is important to understand, there is a difference between blocking with robots.txt and using noindex for instance.
I haven't made the change to robots.txt yet, but it will just disallow Googlebot from specific articles.
I haven't made any special preparations for this, I don't really need to, as my content get splogged by probably 50 + blogs by now, and other legitimate syndication.
I wouldn't block Google totally, I am just doing this to stick to the letter of the law that Google seem to be insisting on... that is their problem.
Also, for now I just see two folders disallowed, and for all crawlers, not just Googlebot.
Finally, not to be rude but I'm having a hard time with your grammar. Specifically, I don't understand this:
"It might be harder to rank, pages blocked using robots.txt still gather PageRank, and can appear in the index, though they would be looked on as dangling pages.
Ultimately links can always be redirected to a followup review which refers to the first, and that followup isn't a paid review.
It is a little naughty, some people will sometimes receive editorial links within reviews and receive a trackback, but I don't know of any spam plugin that checks robots.txt , plus the links will still be valuable in other search engines."
Looking forward to more detail! I'm considering something like user agent: googlebot
disallow: /
and want to hear your thoughts. BTW, you have msn messenger? If you do, it's be great to chat :)
In my Linking Gotchas article I encouraged people to read the Matt Cutts interview with Eric multiple times.
It really is important to understand, there is a difference between blocking with robots.txt and using noindex for instance.
I haven't made the change to robots.txt yet, but it will just disallow Googlebot from specific articles.
I haven't made any special preparations for this, I don't really need to, as my content get splogged by probably 50 + blogs by now, and other legitimate syndication.
I wouldn't block Google totally, I am just doing this to stick to the letter of the law that Google seem to be insisting on... that is their problem.
Just read through my blog, and you will find almost every single link uses good anchor text where possible, and I often reword what I write to ensure people get a good link.
Even the links I just used to Flickr use good anchor text, not just "photo credit" which is what you find on most blogs when they use other people's pictures.
Just read through my blog, and you will find almost every single link uses good anchor text where possible, and I often reword what I write to ensure people get a good link.
Even the links I just used to Flickr use good anchor text, not just "photo credit" which is what you find on most blogs when they use other people's pictures.
It's amazing how obsessed people are with google and the paid review thing. Just a thought though; what if you did things just for your visitors only and did reviews for your visitors only, and did anchor text stuff just for your visitors only? You seem to be doing things only for google, and then writing post after post about what you did and why you did it because of google. Just wondering if you think that is a good strategy?
Descriptive anchor text is helping users.
I could have just done
Picture Credits
Or even
Credits 1 2
I have even seen
Look at what everyone has to say
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Then there are the sites that talk about others without linking at all
My company is based in the UK - It is my belief I am legally obligated to use links that are friendly, and it is just good practice.
As I am writing about SEO, using junk links wouldn't be a very good example to my readers would it?
It's amazing how obsessed people are with google and the paid review thing. Just a thought though; what if you did things just for your visitors only and did reviews for your visitors only, and did anchor text stuff just for your visitors only? You seem to be doing things only for google, and then writing post after post about what you did and why you did it because of google. Just wondering if you think that is a good strategy?
Descriptive anchor text is helping users.
I could have just done
Picture Credits
Or even
Credits 1 2
I have even seen
Look at what everyone has to say
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Then there are the sites that talk about others without linking at all
My company is based in the UK - It is my belief I am legally obligated to use links that are friendly, and it is just good practice.
As I am writing about SEO, using junk links wouldn't be a very good example to my readers would it?
Andy; I agree with lots of things you write about, etc, and I also disagree with things as well. My point is that if you just relaxed a bit and did things for your visitors only you might be better off. Common sense should also tell you that a paid review is a paid review. It isn't anything else, so why should that link be given a boost in a search engine anyway? You see; I disagree with the entire premise of paid links being given a boost, no matter how many seo's wish it to be so.
The only difference is employment status
If I do an SEO review of someone's site, I need to link to it - If I want to share that review with my readers as content, why should I have to block the links?
There are people in the industry who have written paid reviews quite openly, I know Matt Cutts reads their blogs, yet they haven't had to suffer their green pixie dust being removed, and other potential penalties.
There are far worse things that Google should be looking at, such as the Wordpress.com tags which make it a linkfarm.
Andy; I agree with lots of things you write about, etc, and I also disagree with things as well. My point is that if you just relaxed a bit and did things for your visitors only you might be better off. Common sense should also tell you that a paid review is a paid review. It isn't anything else, so why should that link be given a boost in a search engine anyway? You see; I disagree with the entire premise of paid links being given a boost, no matter how many seo's wish it to be so.
The only difference is employment status
If I do an SEO review of someone's site, I need to link to it - If I want to share that review with my readers as content, why should I have to block the links?
There are people in the industry who have written paid reviews quite openly, I know Matt Cutts reads their blogs, yet they haven't had to suffer their green pixie dust being removed, and other potential penalties.
There are far worse things that Google should be looking at, such as the Wordpress.com tags which make it a linkfarm.
To meet Level 2;
Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Therefore a UK business would be obliged to provide not only a search engine friendly link but more importantly a human friendly link.
Of course what they define as a company is pretty woolly but that's for another day ;)
To meet Level 2;
Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Therefore a UK business would be obliged to provide not only a search engine friendly link but more importantly a human friendly link.
Of course what they define as a company is pretty woolly but that's for another day ;)
Too right. This is something that I advocated last year as a work around. Ultimately how can the Big G penalise you for that especially if you've robots.txt'd them off the original page?
I look forward to hearing how things work out with this.
Too right. This is something that I advocated last year as a work around. Ultimately how can the Big G penalise you for that especially if you've robots.txt'd them off the original page?
I look forward to hearing how things work out with this.
I think though, especially reading the comments here and elsewhere, that most people really won't understand the logistics behind what you are doing, despite the explanation that you gave. Great thinking though. :)
I gave some really big hints to some of the things I am going to be playing with, both in this article and some of my previous articles.
If I have a nofollow in a post, every syndicated copy of my content also gains a nofollow, unless I go the complicated route and use some of Sebastian's nofollow cloaking
If I use Nofollow, Google wins, unanimous decision.
By using this method, whilst I am certainly not happy to be doing it, I am taking a few punches, but win on points.
I think though, especially reading the comments here and elsewhere, that most people really won't understand the logistics behind what you are doing, despite the explanation that you gave. Great thinking though. :)
I gave some really big hints to some of the things I am going to be playing with, both in this article and some of my previous articles.
If I have a nofollow in a post, every syndicated copy of my content also gains a nofollow, unless I go the complicated route and use some of Sebastian's nofollow cloaking
If I use Nofollow, Google wins, unanimous decision.
By using this method, whilst I am certainly not happy to be doing it, I am taking a few punches, but win on points.
my mouth is watering with anticipation over what you might come up with next...
i might be obligated to send you royalty checks soon, thanks again
my mouth is watering with anticipation over what you might come up with next...
i might be obligated to send you royalty checks soon, thanks again
Did you request it yet? What do you think the odds are, realistically, that they will reinclude you right off the bat? In what kind of timeline do you think you will get it, or how long are you willing to give it before you step up the noise level?
You know they made Donna jump through some hoops when she did hers, right?
I know Donna had to jump through hoops, though most of that was missed posts - I kept very close track of mine.
The same was true for Wendy (Emom) and Yaro.
I haven't blocked follow up posts that might have happened to the same domain.
I will also be doing something regarding disclosure, and have an advertising page explaining robots.txt soon.
Who knows how long it will take after that.
Did you request it yet? What do you think the odds are, realistically, that they will reinclude you right off the bat? In what kind of timeline do you think you will get it, or how long are you willing to give it before you step up the noise level?
You know they made Donna jump through some hoops when she did hers, right?
I know Donna had to jump through hoops, though most of that was missed posts - I kept very close track of mine.
The same was true for Wendy (Emom) and Yaro.
I haven't blocked follow up posts that might have happened to the same domain.
I will also be doing something regarding disclosure, and have an advertising page explaining robots.txt soon.
Who knows how long it will take after that.
I like your solution rather then an attempt to completely ban googlebot from my site few months ago.
After trying my way in sponsored reviews I gave up. Reason is simple. You have set the bar of how these reviews should be done. Anyone who is not trying to level with your reviews should be simply kicked off the PPP and other places.
It is a shame that some people have gotten with murder in the past. While some one like you has to resort to these manipulations.
I have to admit your approach make more sense the nofollow crap.
I like your solution rather then an attempt to completely ban googlebot from my site few months ago.
After trying my way in sponsored reviews I gave up. Reason is simple. You have set the bar of how these reviews should be done. Anyone who is not trying to level with your reviews should be simply kicked off the PPP and other places.
It is a shame that some people have gotten with murder in the past. While some one like you has to resort to these manipulations.
I have to admit your approach make more sense the nofollow crap.
haha who cares!
haha who cares!
Am I smoking crack or did I read in one of Matt Cutt's quotes over the past few months on this issue, I believe in relation to directories, that paid links are not the problem, paid links without editorial review of the links are the problem. If that is the case then why should GOOG have a problem with what you do or what Pay Per Post does or anybody else who claims to have an "editorial" process? Rhetorically asked of course.
Am I smoking crack or did I read in one of Matt Cutt's quotes over the past few months on this issue, I believe in relation to directories, that paid links are not the problem, paid links without editorial review of the links are the problem. If that is the case then why should GOOG have a problem with what you do or what Pay Per Post does or anybody else who claims to have an "editorial" process? Rhetorically asked of course.
I just wanted to write to say I agree with what you are doing. I don't understand some of the challenges you are receiving here...to help visitors understand where a link leads means using appropriate anchor text. That just makes sense, and that's the reason why search engines consider anchor text in rankings.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all washes out. Please keep us updated.
I just wanted to write to say I agree with what you are doing. I don't understand some of the challenges you are receiving here...to help visitors understand where a link leads means using appropriate anchor text. That just makes sense, and that's the reason why search engines consider anchor text in rankings.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all washes out. Please keep us updated.
It's nice to read your article because every time I did..I always learn something new and useful.
Anyway good luck on your stand!..^^
It's nice to read your article because every time I did..I always learn something new and useful.
Anyway good luck on your stand!..^^
I'm not sure how .htaccess came up there. :p
I'm not sure how .htaccess came up there. :p
For some of us looking into using robots.txt, we would sure be dealing with a long list of disallow URLs, and updating them looks to be more of a hassle compared to using meta tags.
For some of us looking into using robots.txt, we would sure be dealing with a long list of disallow URLs, and updating them looks to be more of a hassle compared to using meta tags.
SEO friendly links are most often a good thing, making the link more user friendly. People are obsessed with Google and the paid reviews.
I can see only one weak point here. It is similar to viral marketing. How many people will want to pay for a potential negative review or no-follow links?
SEO friendly links are most often a good thing, making the link more user friendly. People are obsessed with Google and the paid reviews.
I can see only one weak point here. It is similar to viral marketing. How many people will want to pay for a potential negative review or no-follow links?
I can understand that it will prevent Googlebot from seeing them once they've rolled off the main page, but wont those links still be indexed?
I can understand that it will prevent Googlebot from seeing them once they've rolled off the main page, but wont those links still be indexed?
You're still passing on internal pagerank to those pages and I'm really curious to see if a blocked page gathers pagerank in time.
You're still passing on internal pagerank to those pages and I'm really curious to see if a blocked page gathers pagerank in time.