-
Website
http://andybeard.eu/ -
Original page
http://andybeard.eu/1099/will-google-offer-amnesty-to-socialspark-payperpost-bloggers.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
If you are in my place do you ask for reconsider?
Between your Blogroll and your "Must Visit" links I don't think you have a leg to stand on if Google decided those were paid links
You are seriously writing your advertising page to suggest you are selling a service by promoting SEO benefits.
http://xbrain.biz/news-interest-alert/
If you are in my place do you ask for reconsider?
Between your Blogroll and your "Must Visit" links I don't think you have a leg to stand on if Google decided those were paid links
You are seriously writing your advertising page to suggest you are selling a service by promoting SEO benefits.
http://xbrain.biz/news-interest-alert/
I wouldn't say now is a good time to start writing paid posts, unless we can first of all persuade Ran Fiskin and Danny Sullivan to write one just to make a statement ;)
I wouldn't say now is a good time to start writing paid posts, unless we can first of all persuade Ran Fiskin and Danny Sullivan to write one just to make a statement ;)
For me, I think the question is whether or not it's the "100% transparency" that Google (in particular) is after.
It seems to me, it's not. Or at the very least, not enough.
Clearly delineating links to be "advertising" etc. so that there would be absolutely no question to anyone visiting the page as to precisely what they are doesn't seem to be enough.
It seems to me that not only must it be made crystal clear to anyone visiting a page/site, it will only be deemed "acceptable" if it's made crystal clear to the spiders and algorithms as well.
Some of the posts I have written as "Paid Reviews" had upwards of 20 links, some to the person making the request, but also some to other sites.
That is something that wasn't really possible under a typical marketplace scenario, and certainly couldn't happen without extensive negotiation.
Would it be fair to just have the site paying the money in such a review have every single one of the links nofollowed? I don't know so, especially as I was choosing if and when to link, and what anchor text to use.
The links are editorial, I am being paid for my time, and effectively being given a penalty for using a specific payment processor for my consulting.
I noticed Andrew has just written an excellent overview of the changes SEOmoz have done on Yelp.
If someone from SEOmoz had written something on their own blog, they probably would have been forced to use nofollow on the links, because just as I am paid a token sum for writing reviews, SEOmoz earn thousands for SEO consultation from Yelp
For me, I think the question is whether or not it's the "100% transparency" that Google (in particular) is after.
It seems to me, it's not. Or at the very least, not enough.
Clearly delineating links to be "advertising" etc. so that there would be absolutely no question to anyone visiting the page as to precisely what they are doesn't seem to be enough.
It seems to me that not only must it be made crystal clear to anyone visiting a page/site, it will only be deemed "acceptable" if it's made crystal clear to the spiders and algorithms as well.
Some of the posts I have written as "Paid Reviews" had upwards of 20 links, some to the person making the request, but also some to other sites.
That is something that wasn't really possible under a typical marketplace scenario, and certainly couldn't happen without extensive negotiation.
Would it be fair to just have the site paying the money in such a review have every single one of the links nofollowed? I don't know so, especially as I was choosing if and when to link, and what anchor text to use.
The links are editorial, I am being paid for my time, and effectively being given a penalty for using a specific payment processor for my consulting.
I noticed Andrew has just written an excellent overview of the changes SEOmoz have done on Yelp.
If someone from SEOmoz had written something on their own blog, they probably would have been forced to use nofollow on the links, because just as I am paid a token sum for writing reviews, SEOmoz earn thousands for SEO consultation from Yelp
PageRank currently is the only measure of who links to you rather than how many people link to you.
It is also one of public perception, nothing to do with SEO or selling adverts. The public are told that PageRank is a measure of the quality of the information they are reading, and base purchase or other actions upon it.
The CPM and CPC metrics from SocialSpark will be interesting, but will still not identify whether the click was from an influential "linkerati" or just a curious passer by.
PageRank currently is the only measure of who links to you rather than how many people link to you.
It is also one of public perception, nothing to do with SEO or selling adverts. The public are told that PageRank is a measure of the quality of the information they are reading, and base purchase or other actions upon it.
The CPM and CPC metrics from SocialSpark will be interesting, but will still not identify whether the click was from an influential "linkerati" or just a curious passer by.
Precisely the problem I have, at least in part.
It's not up to you or I whether a link should or should not "pass value". I can certainly tell them specifically "not to" but it's not an option for me to "define" whether or not they should. That's their choice.
If they don't want to pass value, then fine, don't. But where I strongly disagree is to draw a line in the sand, not define what/were that line is, then decide that that line has been crossed and "penalize" or otherwise "defame" the owner for doing so.
If I gave every trick-or-treater that came to my home on halloween an extra candy bar if they linked to me, are the "black helicopters" going to swoop in and take away their "green pixie sticks."?
Demanding that an expert who derives income for the services they provide, to tell another expert who derives income for the services they provide how to do their job, or to do it for them, IMO is a tad bit out of whack.
Precisely the problem I have, at least in part.
It's not up to you or I whether a link should or should not "pass value". I can certainly tell them specifically "not to" but it's not an option for me to "define" whether or not they should. That's their choice.
If they don't want to pass value, then fine, don't. But where I strongly disagree is to draw a line in the sand, not define what/were that line is, then decide that that line has been crossed and "penalize" or otherwise "defame" the owner for doing so.
If I gave every trick-or-treater that came to my home on halloween an extra candy bar if they linked to me, are the "black helicopters" going to swoop in and take away their "green pixie sticks."?
Demanding that an expert who derives income for the services they provide, to tell another expert who derives income for the services they provide how to do their job, or to do it for them, IMO is a tad bit out of whack.
You are right, I like most people in this space went in and had a look and experimented with adding links (nofollowed I might add) to the tiny url links that PPP provided as add on options. I never did take up any of their options as most of what I saw didn't really pertain to my blog audience or niche. PPP may well be the reason why Ive been dinged, but then again there are of course a number of possible other reasons.Perhaps it was one of my other posts that discussed the launch of reviewme or maybe it was the single paid review I did for sponsored reviews for the bidvertiser product, or perhaps it was my support for dofollow, or maybe it was for the odd post I've wriiten criticising what goog do and how they do it sometimes, or maybe its my nofollowed aff url to TLA. Ive certainly never outputted a single TLA adlink.
Recently I also noticed a tail off on some of the terms I previously ranked pretty well on, so suspect that some of what's been applied to me is filtering through to my ranking ability too.
What may be clear is that they have taken linking (in any form) to TLA or PPP or reviewme as some kind of endorsement for a service that they are diametrically opposed to, despite their nofollow requests it would seem in the absence of any other explanation that this is the approach they've adopted by way of sending out the message that if you support such services, then you run the risk of eventual exclusion.
The upshot is that I'll never know for certain the reason why I was dinged.
What I do know is that to expect a person to use that reinclusion thing and lay down like someone begging forgiveness for some perceived crime against the Googmanity is a little bit rich and not really something I believe is justified or feel comfortable doing. I'll still blog, I'll still write good stuff and bad! Google can most certainly live without me and thankfully as can I without Google, it's just a little sad and ultimately negative of them to behave like this.
I was brought up to stand up to bullies behave in a way that treated people with courtesy and respect. I can't lie when I say that in some ways I am disappointed with them as I thought they were bigger people than this, yet the evidence of their actions seems to suggest that not all of them are; which leads me on to this whole thing about who is applying these penalties and under what kind of guidance.I'd say its been a scripted approach with a one look glance perhaps by some who might not be fully appraised with what they are doing. All we can do is speculate and draw conclusions. Be they right or wrong they'll fit the hypothesis of the ev idence presented, and the evidence presented suggests that all of this stuff was pretty uneccessary.
As for an amnesty...who knows. It seems that if you say the right things and take the right actions then they'll lift whatevcer it is that they've applied to you. At least that's been the experience of SEG.
Cheers
Rob
I think this is especially true when many of supposed wrongs were not, and still are not clearly defined or evenly applied, with the sites most influential to search results.
Google's current practice is also extremely unfair to the self employed who do not have the right to link through to the people feeding their families.
You are right, I like most people in this space went in and had a look and experimented with adding links (nofollowed I might add) to the tiny url links that PPP provided as add on options. I never did take up any of their options as most of what I saw didn't really pertain to my blog audience or niche. PPP may well be the reason why Ive been dinged, but then again there are of course a number of possible other reasons.Perhaps it was one of my other posts that discussed the launch of reviewme or maybe it was the single paid review I did for sponsored reviews for the bidvertiser product, or perhaps it was my support for dofollow, or maybe it was for the odd post I've wriiten criticising what goog do and how they do it sometimes, or maybe its my nofollowed aff url to TLA. Ive certainly never outputted a single TLA adlink.
Recently I also noticed a tail off on some of the terms I previously ranked pretty well on, so suspect that some of what's been applied to me is filtering through to my ranking ability too.
What may be clear is that they have taken linking (in any form) to TLA or PPP or reviewme as some kind of endorsement for a service that they are diametrically opposed to, despite their nofollow requests it would seem in the absence of any other explanation that this is the approach they've adopted by way of sending out the message that if you support such services, then you run the risk of eventual exclusion.
The upshot is that I'll never know for certain the reason why I was dinged.
What I do know is that to expect a person to use that reinclusion thing and lay down like someone begging forgiveness for some perceived crime against the Googmanity is a little bit rich and not really something I believe is justified or feel comfortable doing. I'll still blog, I'll still write good stuff and bad! Google can most certainly live without me and thankfully as can I without Google, it's just a little sad and ultimately negative of them to behave like this.
I was brought up to stand up to bullies behave in a way that treated people with courtesy and respect. I can't lie when I say that in some ways I am disappointed with them as I thought they were bigger people than this, yet the evidence of their actions seems to suggest that not all of them are; which leads me on to this whole thing about who is applying these penalties and under what kind of guidance.I'd say its been a scripted approach with a one look glance perhaps by some who might not be fully appraised with what they are doing. All we can do is speculate and draw conclusions. Be they right or wrong they'll fit the hypothesis of the ev idence presented, and the evidence presented suggests that all of this stuff was pretty uneccessary.
As for an amnesty...who knows. It seems that if you say the right things and take the right actions then they'll lift whatevcer it is that they've applied to you. At least that's been the experience of SEG.
Cheers
Rob
I think this is especially true when many of supposed wrongs were not, and still are not clearly defined or evenly applied, with the sites most influential to search results.
Google's current practice is also extremely unfair to the self employed who do not have the right to link through to the people feeding their families.
It is total war. Complete with double agents.
This has not been about reader experience or anything like it was told when we were asked to report on our "unpatriotic" neighbors and friends.
Expect amnesty when Google buys out Izea or TLA. Or, they go under.
It is total war. Complete with double agents.
This has not been about reader experience or anything like it was told when we were asked to report on our "unpatriotic" neighbors and friends.
Expect amnesty when Google buys out Izea or TLA. Or, they go under.
I know of a few popular, high PR sites that blatantly sell for TLA. Even the link to their "advertise on this site" link to TLA is followed. Yet, no PR penalty. However, these sites are not blogs and are not related to the SEO/SEM and Blogging markets.
I'm equally curious as to why sites displaying graphic ads without nofollow, but with good alt/title text are not being slapped. Sure, a 125x125 button isn't quite as SEF as a text link, but when done right, still offers a SEO benefit. Looking at the justifications that Google is giving, one would think that graphical ads would not be exempt.
The question in my mind is, will Google's recent actions force ad services like TLA to use nofollow on links or switch to graphical links, thus reducing the perceived benefit of using their services? Or will everything go underground?
I suspect the latter, though I would prefer a much more open approach.
Google would have a lot easier time making it's case against sponsored links if a huge portion of it's business wasn't tied up in selling contextual ad space. This just comes across too much like squeezing the competition.
I know of a few popular, high PR sites that blatantly sell for TLA. Even the link to their "advertise on this site" link to TLA is followed. Yet, no PR penalty. However, these sites are not blogs and are not related to the SEO/SEM and Blogging markets.
I'm equally curious as to why sites displaying graphic ads without nofollow, but with good alt/title text are not being slapped. Sure, a 125x125 button isn't quite as SEF as a text link, but when done right, still offers a SEO benefit. Looking at the justifications that Google is giving, one would think that graphical ads would not be exempt.
The question in my mind is, will Google's recent actions force ad services like TLA to use nofollow on links or switch to graphical links, thus reducing the perceived benefit of using their services? Or will everything go underground?
I suspect the latter, though I would prefer a much more open approach.
Google would have a lot easier time making it's case against sponsored links if a huge portion of it's business wasn't tied up in selling contextual ad space. This just comes across too much like squeezing the competition.
They know what to look for... they will hammer you hard..
On the other hand, PPP starts to be flexible when in comes to disclosure.. You don't need one on your post if you have sitewide.. I wonder what Google is gonna do about this? Punish sites which has a disclosure logo?
They know what to look for... they will hammer you hard..
On the other hand, PPP starts to be flexible when in comes to disclosure.. You don't need one on your post if you have sitewide.. I wonder what Google is gonna do about this? Punish sites which has a disclosure logo?
On the other hand, it is the small-time webmaster who is most likely to not have a clue about pagerank and the "evilness" of buying links - most are just gonna think "Wow, easy money for a few more advertising links" and go for it. Which is fine if Google are just penalizing pagerank, but could be devastating if at some point that has an effect on the organic SERPS.
On the other hand, it is the small-time webmaster who is most likely to not have a clue about pagerank and the "evilness" of buying links - most are just gonna think "Wow, easy money for a few more advertising links" and go for it. Which is fine if Google are just penalizing pagerank, but could be devastating if at some point that has an effect on the organic SERPS.
I have to agree with Michael, I'm done with Google. I no longer care what they do to me. I will survive without them if I have to. I'm going to run my blog my way, and I'm not going to let what they might do to me change that.
I really am tired of having their big foot hanging over my head. I have to try and create a blog which won't be affected if they decide to squish me with their foot. That's the challenge now.
I don't think they even care how much anger and resentment they are creating. Again, I say we have to take our power back. We gave the power to them. We can remove it.
Andy, what are the chances of holding a No-Google day - or perhaps a no google week, from December 24 ending at Midnight on December the 31st? I've heard people whispering about it for a while, let's do it and show them we're unhappy. Maybe then they'll realise they don't have the power they think they do.
Cheers,
Snoskred
And that really annoys me. You see, I come from a newspaper background, and to me, the absence of advertising strongly implies the lack of any influence. I'm nowhere near the print-media ideal of 60% - which I think excessive, frankly. But I do think of relevant, screened advertising as being an enhancement.
As for paid posts - well, frankly, I think it a lot more honest to do a paid post than it is to belong to something like "Pajamas Media." Either way, one is paid. But in order to succeed as a "postie" (for whatever service) you really do ultimately have to tell the truth.
More importantly, in order to stand out from the crowd of crap traffic producers, you have to come up with something new. For instance, when I "shilled" for LED xmas lighting, it occured to me that red led christmas lights were as good or probably better than whatever the military provided the Marines for bunker lighting, and would not strain power sources or screw with night vision.
So I suggested that Army Moms and Dads throw a string or six into a care package - and even took the extra step of looking for tiny generators that could live in a dufflebag thrown into the back of a humvee.
SEO and such makes my eyes roll, to be honest. I've never paid a whole lot of attention to it. Frankly, I realized early on that I had a choice - I could right good posts - or I could do kinda crappy posts that sucked in engines.
I'm a Blogger, Jim, not an SEO guy.
I'd just as soon that you guys did what you do, just like I do, and the engines paid attention to that, but I'd also like them to remember that most of us do not care about gaming the system, so long as the system works.
And if it stops working, we are simply going to find another system, 'because we really are not all that invested in ANY search engine. Not even Google.
I have to agree with Michael, I'm done with Google. I no longer care what they do to me. I will survive without them if I have to. I'm going to run my blog my way, and I'm not going to let what they might do to me change that.
I really am tired of having their big foot hanging over my head. I have to try and create a blog which won't be affected if they decide to squish me with their foot. That's the challenge now.
I don't think they even care how much anger and resentment they are creating. Again, I say we have to take our power back. We gave the power to them. We can remove it.
Andy, what are the chances of holding a No-Google day - or perhaps a no google week, from December 24 ending at Midnight on December the 31st? I've heard people whispering about it for a while, let's do it and show them we're unhappy. Maybe then they'll realise they don't have the power they think they do.
Cheers,
Snoskred
And that really annoys me. You see, I come from a newspaper background, and to me, the absence of advertising strongly implies the lack of any influence. I'm nowhere near the print-media ideal of 60% - which I think excessive, frankly. But I do think of relevant, screened advertising as being an enhancement.
As for paid posts - well, frankly, I think it a lot more honest to do a paid post than it is to belong to something like "Pajamas Media." Either way, one is paid. But in order to succeed as a "postie" (for whatever service) you really do ultimately have to tell the truth.
More importantly, in order to stand out from the crowd of crap traffic producers, you have to come up with something new. For instance, when I "shilled" for LED xmas lighting, it occured to me that red led christmas lights were as good or probably better than whatever the military provided the Marines for bunker lighting, and would not strain power sources or screw with night vision.
So I suggested that Army Moms and Dads throw a string or six into a care package - and even took the extra step of looking for tiny generators that could live in a dufflebag thrown into the back of a humvee.
SEO and such makes my eyes roll, to be honest. I've never paid a whole lot of attention to it. Frankly, I realized early on that I had a choice - I could right good posts - or I could do kinda crappy posts that sucked in engines.
I'm a Blogger, Jim, not an SEO guy.
I'd just as soon that you guys did what you do, just like I do, and the engines paid attention to that, but I'd also like them to remember that most of us do not care about gaming the system, so long as the system works.
And if it stops working, we are simply going to find another system, 'because we really are not all that invested in ANY search engine. Not even Google.
Seriously though, I do think the only chance of Google changing its policies with regards to PR is through sufficient enough pressure from the webmaster community. But it will take a lot, IMHO.
Seriously though, I do think the only chance of Google changing its policies with regards to PR is through sufficient enough pressure from the webmaster community. But it will take a lot, IMHO.
Neptunebaby
Neptunebaby
I have removed every sponsored spot, and all links and code I can find to PPP. I want my PR back, and I realize my punishment for blogging for pay might be permanant - in which case, I'll have to start all over again with a new URL.
My opinion of Google has certainly changed, though. I'll play the game ... but I'm no longer a fan. I guess "don't be evil" is a thing of the past.
I have removed every sponsored spot, and all links and code I can find to PPP. I want my PR back, and I realize my punishment for blogging for pay might be permanant - in which case, I'll have to start all over again with a new URL.
My opinion of Google has certainly changed, though. I'll play the game ... but I'm no longer a fan. I guess "don't be evil" is a thing of the past.
Google started the PR monster, it's time they killed it.
Google started the PR monster, it's time they killed it.
When will the governement start to take a bigger stand on this... When google controls 60-70% of the search world they control a lot of power.
They shouldnt be able to control what an individual site does... you would also think they would have held off this paid link stuff til after the doubleclick deal went through... so they would clearly lock up the advertisng world...
When will the governement start to take a bigger stand on this... When google controls 60-70% of the search world they control a lot of power.
They shouldnt be able to control what an individual site does... you would also think they would have held off this paid link stuff til after the doubleclick deal went through... so they would clearly lock up the advertisng world...
Do you know if this is still going on? I have signed up for Social Spark and Payperpost before I found out about this...
My google rank is 0. is that because I have to many affiliate ads on my page?
Thanks!
Then file for a Google reconsideration within Webmaster tools
Do you know if this is still going on? I have signed up for Social Spark and Payperpost before I found out about this...
My google rank is 0. is that because I have to many affiliate ads on my page?
Thanks!
Then file for a Google reconsideration within Webmaster tools