Andy Beard - Internet Business Systems Discussion - Latest Comments in Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

daryl — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:29:28 -0000

Think there maybe 2 sets rules on paid links depending upon who the website is ... many large press outfits sell links and seem to have little effect on PR whereas Mr average with blog trying to earn a $ is punished. Maybe just me but I think the double standard relates to fact that certain media maybe able to be more damaging to Googles Reputation ... the monopoly power of google is becoming scary in my eyes. Just my thoughts

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

daryl — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:29:28 -0000

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Donkey Odie — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:16:38 -0000

Snoskre wrote:

"If Google doesn't want people to be able to earn money via page rank, they could simply hide the page ranks OF EVERYONE. They could come out and say Ok, we've had enough of people using Page Rank for earning money, and we're removing it from all sites effective immediately."

This thing has monopoly and anti-trust written all over it. Of course they'd prefer not to remove PR altogether, cause they want people having any tools possible to sell more google ads, and they are trying to eliminate competition through their monopoly position as the rater, stat collector, ad market, etc.

I'm actually surprised that when I search on Yahoo for "anti-trust practices", that despite there being 5 million search returns, there isn't a sponsored link pointing to Google, Yahoo-bombing them with the most appropriate terms.

I've heard stories like Lizzie's above, and others who had sites that had never used paid ads or paid links, but still got PR whacked just for talking about an advertising competitor to Google. That's creepy stuff.

The other thing that bugs the hell out of me, is that some bloggers worked hard to build up a good blog, and received a good PR rank, THEN they attracted sponsors, then they got whacked. So, the earned the PR 'legitimately' under google's rules, but then they are penalized for what they had already earned. The paid links didn't give them more PR, they already had that. It makes no sense, other than Google wanting to chase other advertisers from our blogs.

Any word if this has gotten to the feds investigating the DoubleClick purchase?

The phrase "Google does Evil" resonates more every day.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Donkey Odie — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:16:38 -0000

Snoskre wrote:

Any word if this has gotten to the feds investigating the DoubleClick purchase?

The phrase "Google does Evil" resonates more every day.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

mblair — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:21:18 -0000

@Michael - Just wanted to clarify and say that PPP does have an option for a "neutral" review that can be positive or negative. I don't know what percentages choose that of course. Plus, some handle it more like Andy does and only take reviews that are on their terms. I didn't mean to imply I think advertorials are something Google should punish. Google shouldn't even be in this business of making lists of who's naughty and nice. Just stick to giving us relevant results when we search. In fact, if they could just classify the information and let the searchers decide what filters to use even better.

What I think is funny about the whole thing is that they make PageRank and then they give themselves a 10. The epitome of quality. Is this a joke?

One thing I want to bring up though in response to what you said -- all of these attacks against visible PageRank may be only the first shot across the bow. Actual rankings may be next, a la John Chow. But unlike John Chow's site, many sites are unfortunately dead in the water without qualified leads coming in from their Google traffic.

I know you suggest that those sites quit whining and play by Google's rules if they can't take the heat, but I still think it is worth whining about.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

mblair — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:21:18 -0000

What I think is funny about the whole thing is that they make PageRank and then they give themselves a 10. The epitome of quality. Is this a joke?

I know you suggest that those sites quit whining and play by Google's rules if they can't take the heat, but I still think it is worth whining about.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Snoskred — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:25:05 -0000

Advice - not sure quite what to call you. ;) But this is in response to what you said.

Guess whose fault it is that anyone can "game" google at all? Hmm.. let me think for a minute. Google?

I completely agree with what you are saying about how they are acting. There is something wrong with their model. They have forgotten that they are a search engine - they have become the Link Police!

Any good search engine should reflect the actual state of the internet. If you search for something, you should be able to find what is out there. It may not be what you are looking for, but it is what exists.

Google should be fighting the content stealers and the scrapers, not bloggers and webmasters who are creating real content. Those are the people they should be targeting to remove from their directory. Is the reason they do not do that because the majority of those scraper type blogs are using Adsense? Well right there they have a conflict of interest, don't they!

If Google doesn't want people to be able to earn money via page rank, they could simply hide the page ranks OF EVERYONE. They could come out and say Ok, we've had enough of people using Page Rank for earning money, and we're removing it from all sites effective immediately.

That's not what they've done. Instead they have embarked on a campaign of insanity!

Check my blog later today because I have written something on this topic that I'm quite excited about posting. ;)

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Snoskred — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:25:05 -0000

Advice - not sure quite what to call you. ;) But this is in response to what you said.

Guess whose fault it is that anyone can "game" google at all? Hmm.. let me think for a minute. Google?

I completely agree with what you are saying about how they are acting. There is something wrong with their model. They have forgotten that they are a search engine - they have become the Link Police!

That's not what they've done. Instead they have embarked on a campaign of insanity!

Check my blog later today because I have written something on this topic that I'm quite excited about posting. ;)

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Advice Network Writing contest — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:29:28 -0000

I'd like to say to Snoskred that saying someone is "Gaming Google" like it is a bad thing is sort of missing the point.

Google is acting like the recording industry association right now. There is something wrong with their model, not with what bloggers are doing. If I learn that I can get more business by getting more hits from Google if bloggers link to me, then why not pay bloggers to link to me? I'm not doing anything wrong, unethical, or immoral.

If google decides they don't like those results, they should change their algorithm. Lowering peoples page rank is punishing customers for googles mistakes.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Advice Network Writing contest — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:29:28 -0000

I'd like to say to Snoskred that saying someone is "Gaming Google" like it is a bad thing is sort of missing the point.

If google decides they don't like those results, they should change their algorithm. Lowering peoples page rank is punishing customers for googles mistakes.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

robwatts — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:40:23 -0000

http://www.accc.gov.au/cont...

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

robwatts — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:40:23 -0000

http://www.accc.gov.au/cont...

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Mark Putnam — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:36:33 -0000

very confusing,
so whenever you do paid post your rank goes down?
I thought it was the advertisers rank that was affected
hopefully my blog Lame News will go un-noticed by the PR-Nazis (i've only done 2 paid posts so far, anyway)

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Mark Putnam — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:36:33 -0000

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Clement — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:12:34 -0000

Snoskred

You write :I don't know what messed up laws they have in the US, but in Australia where I live, that kind of behaviour is against the trade practices act. Google is *already* being taken to court by the ACCC regarding sponsored links.

My comments: Can you share me a link to a blog/site that mentions that Google is being taken to court in Australia? I am really interested in this one. For some days, I have been thinking that somewhere the law must have answer to all this.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Clement — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:12:34 -0000

Snoskred

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

webduck — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:53:06 -0000

That was my thought exactly, a pompous snob. I write for PPP also, and I resent it when anyone tries to label me as one of the "the little people" in so many words. Oh well, as usual, it is all about GREED and POWER. Ugh!

You know, it seems to me that the whole hoopla about the PayPerPost/Google PR Slapdown is that what PPP does works, and maybe Google is feeling the heat of competition just a bit. If we could just get that PPP RealRank going, I would be a happy camper.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

webduck — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:53:06 -0000

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

smemon — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:50:54 -0000

initially, when google whipped out the chainsaw, i was scared.

but looking at the bigger picture here lads, i think google are actually chainsawing themselves along with us..

if pagerank is now heavily modified and 'paid link'/ad free, then there ain't gonna be many sites who can rank highly in it and any sites that do rank highly, won't be able to sell links - rendering PR useless only to SERPS perhaps.

if SERPS rely on PR, then many sites/blogs will not be listed and google as search engine will become useless to us and it's not returning what we want.

so google may have snookered themselves with this move and that's why i'm secretly happy :-)

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

smemon — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:50:54 -0000

initially, when google whipped out the chainsaw, i was scared.

but looking at the bigger picture here lads, i think google are actually chainsawing themselves along with us..

if SERPS rely on PR, then many sites/blogs will not be listed and google as search engine will become useless to us and it's not returning what we want.

so google may have snookered themselves with this move and that's why i'm secretly happy :-)

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Adam — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:46:12 -0000

Used to be a TC regular but no longer visit them after their regular attacks on PPP (and thus indirectly on us). I have no time for all these guys who claim the high moral ground because they are not posties because of blah blah blah.

It actually gives me some satisfaction seeing them on the defensive now.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

Adam — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:46:12 -0000

It actually gives me some satisfaction seeing them on the defensive now.

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

mblair — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:56:59 -0000

Another point Duncan - you correctly noted that Google does seem to be grinding the axe harder against PPP than TLA.

If we can stipulate that:

1) The reason for both sets of penalties has been to thwart paid links.

2) All paid links without nofollow are basically equal as far as their ability to manipulate Google's search results

...then what basis does Google really have to draw that distinction?

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

mblair — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:56:59 -0000

Another point Duncan - you correctly noted that Google does seem to be grinding the axe harder against PPP than TLA.

If we can stipulate that:

1) The reason for both sets of penalties has been to thwart paid links.

2) All paid links without nofollow are basically equal as far as their ability to manipulate Google's search results

...then what basis does Google really have to draw that distinction?

Re: Wrong Reaction From Techcrunch On Paid Links?

mblair — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:43:19 -0000

Duncan, I don't think it is fair to construe all PPP/ReviewMe contracts as "advertorial". According to American Heritage dictionary an advertorial is "an advertisement promoting the interests or opinions of a corporate sponsor, often presented in such a way as to resemble an editorial."

Many of these paid reviews are structured so they do not necessarily "promote the interests or opinions" of a sponsor but are structured in a manner similar to the way Andy has handled his -- being paid for a real, editorial review. So, if you are sitting in Andy's shoes, a PPP review can even be more trusted than a regular sponsor link in nature as a full review is going to likely be a more stringent review than an ordinary site sponsor would have.