Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website
Recently the head Google’s Webspam team, Matt Cutts, made an announcement that Google is targeting websites that are selling text based advertising. This change goes hand in hand with a new initiative that encourages people to report websites they think, but can’t prove, might be selling paid advertisements.
In his post on hidden links Matt gives some details of links that were clearly designed to fool the search engines. However at the end of the post he slips this extra bit of information in:
To make sure that you’re in good shape, go with both human-readable disclosure and machine-readable disclosure, using any of the methods I mentioned above.
Further down in response to some comments he elaborates on his position as follows:
… paid links should provide some form of machine-readable disclosure (e.g. redirect through a url that is forbidden by robots.txt) so that search engines aren’t affected by the paid link.
This change in policy is exactly the opposite of Google’s published webmaster guidelines which state:
Make pages for users, not for search engines … Another useful test is to ask, “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”
Matt further states that Google will be looking at paid text advertising more closely and that they are now actively seeking reports from people willing to turn in other web publishers. This change in policy amounts to a virtual witch hunt where one publisher can turn in anyone whether they know the facts or not. One of the members of SEO Class Rae Hoffman writes:
My general opinions on paid links aren’t important and neither are yours. This isn’t about whether or not paid links should or shouldn’t have value. What matters is that Google is going to decide whether you’re good or evil based on a guess they know full well has a coin flip toss chance of being accurate in the case of paid links done well. What is important is that Google stands up and admits their own weakness and finds another solution to their issue that doesn’t involve penalizing me or you, based on their “best guess” to a problem they themselves created when they based their entire algorithm on links.
You may wonder does this really happen, does Google look at reported text link advertisements, and is this really something to be concerned about? In 2005 the well known and respected tech industry blogger Jeremy Zawodny was attacked on multiple fronts for selling text link advertising which caused Jeremy to respond:
Well, judging by the reaction to my sponsored links post I’ve struck a nerve. And I have to say, it feels like there’s a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of FUD out there. I’m still trying to digest everything. But so far I’ve found that there are at least three sides to this issue
While the issue did eventually die down, it seemed to coincidentally coincide with Jeremy’s announcement that he would stop selling advertising.
So the question remains; does Google have the right to tell you how to run your website and dictate how you are allowed to make a living? Andy Beal, internet marketing expert, has this to say:
I don’t like to impose on others, my thoughts on disclosure (I personally disclose any relationships in our disclosure policy), but I think Google is going too far with this “best practice”. What business does Google have in dictating the disclosure of any business relationships on others?
Some argue that would should accept and embrace Google’s policy because it makes the internet a better place. However I point out the naive nature of that belief on my blog:
… if you’re one of those people who think Google is in to make the world better, let’s remember Google is a for profit company. Their interest in keeping the organic side clean and spam free, is really governed by their need to maintain a spot people are willing to visit for them to put paid advertisements on.
This sentiment is echoed by Robert Scoble, a pioneer in the blogging world:
If Google’s result set isn’t the best Google’s market share will start to go down as people figure out there are better engines out there. That, in turn, will hurt Google’s advertising business. Not to mention that if advertisers know there’s a cheaper way to get onto Google’s search engine than by buying an ad, they’ll go with that system.
Jason Calcanis, former owner of Weblogs Inc now with Sequoia Capital, agrees this step is really about search engines protecting their business model:
SEO folks are going wild–as expected. 90% of SEO (yes, I made that % up) is going to end soon as a practice because Google/Yahoo/MSN and the other search engines are going to need to eliminate it in order to maintain the integrity of their indexes.
Over at Threadwatch, known for it’s critical views of the search engines and their motives this opinion emerges:
Google sells AdWords ads for companies selling text links. If they don’t like the practice why not start the cleanup at Google.com
Reactions are coming from all across the web in reference to what some feel is Google’s real intent. For example Jack of All Blogs says:
Now I’m not one to question Google’s methods, but this sounds like discrimination to me. And it sounds like Google is admitting that their algorithm still cannot match human intelligence when it comes to filtering content.
Personally, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not if Google will EVER be able to meaningfully track paid links if they’re not overtly notified as such on your blog.
Chris Winfield from 10e20 wonders if this will be an effective tactic someone could use against you:
You want to knock off your fiercest competitor and have been trying to find a clever, new way. So you buy a few links on a bunch of different sites for your competitor and then go on over and fill out the link spam report with all of the juicy details. Your competitor gets banned from Google and you move up a spot in the SERPs.
This is the view shared by James Robertson:
I think Google needs to be careful about enforcement here, or a lot of innocent sites could get snagged.
And for those of you who thought you were earning an honest living selling advertising on your websites, Quadszilla of SEOBlackhat offers a wake up call of what Google now thinks about you:
It’s a war. Google has cast you as the enemy. Make sure you are prepared.
Some publishers aren’t at all happy about Google’s new position which they feel is dictating how you should run your website in a way that doesn’t inconvenience them:
The arrogance of Google knows no bounds - what right have they got to dictate to webmasters how they use their page space?
Commerce360 agrees that it’s not Google’s place to govern your business:
But shouldn’t you own your sliver of the value, and be able to monetize it? Both legally and morally in terms of the relationships between websites and the Google index? Why should they keep 100% of the value? And if sharing in that value is confusing to their algorithms, is that really our problem?
Over the years Google has shown a preference for working around problems in an algorithmic fashion because as webomatica points out:
You simply can’t scale humans looking at every link and determining if it was paid or not, especially when some of the sites are intentionally not disclosing financial relationships and keeping them hidden.
I’m sure the people at Google would fully endorse Markus Urban’s tongue in cheek solution of forcing publishers to label their links with their intent:
Hell, maybe we just need to create new linking standards since rel=”nofollow” is a little lacking these days. How about:
rel=”pure_and_organic”
rel=”paid_for_with_cash”
rel=”paid_for_with_googlecheckout”
rel=”as_a_favor”
rel=”I_own_the_parent_company_stock”
rel=”affiliate_link”
rel=”indirect_benefit”
Lastly Phillip Lessen points out that Google itself is not without fault when it comes to looking for ways to profit from web advertising:
The thing is: some paid links are intended to game the web and reap revenue without added value to end users. But you know what? Some AdSense too are intended to game the web and reap revenue without added value.
While Google may be the start page for the internet, they aren’t a body of elected officials appointed to protect our interests on the web. They are a public company who need to show growth and profit to their shareholders every quarter. If you agree that people should be able to build, publish and advertise on the web without Google acting as an ad hoc, defacto, regulating board that serves their own interests you need to help spread this information. Send a link to this post to friend via email, bookmark this post on social bookmarking sites like Digg, Netscape, and Delicious or write about it on your own website.
The more people that you can educate about Google’s intent to monopolize, rule and govern the way advertising is done on the internet, the better. We like Google and we feel they generally are a good company. What we don’t like is them telling anyone, including you, how you should run your business and why you should change it. There’s no need for you to sacrifice your profitability because their algorithm is unable to determine the intent of a link.
Share This
RSS
April 16th, 2007 at 12:23 am
[...] Edited to add: A good round-up of opinions on the issue can be found on the SEO Class blog here. [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 12:38 am
[...] If you’re looking for some additional commentary stop by SEO Class for Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Great mashup. Thank you.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:00 am
[...] to Graywolf for alerting me to this nonsense. Futher commentary on SEO Class Matt Cutts is raising a posse and going after paid links. ps. I would include a cartoon of Matt as [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Bottom line: Google wants to control the internet, everything on the internet.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:09 am
[...] SEO Class: Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 6:07 am
[...] Google Tells You How to Run Your Business How Can So Many PHD’s Be So Wrong Google Wants Reports of Paid Links … What a Joke [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Great post!
With real thoughts and not just copy & paste.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:38 am
[...] SEOCLASS offers a broad round up of comments in the blogosphere here: Google Wants To Tell You How To Run Your Website [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
[...] world has been fairly predictable - virtually everyone is up in arms. For a great mash-up see here, more good commentary [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 9:41 am
[...] the unbiased information you’ll hear from the presenters, check out Michael’s post on Google wants to tell you how to run your website. The next class is a two day workshop the 17th & 18th of May in Manhattan. If you’re [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am
As I understood it Matt was looking for test cases to validate existing algos in development. Shouldn’t we better try to figure out what these might accomplish? Perhaps Googlebot learned to read text like “buy an undetectable PR8 link for just …$$ and you get four PR6 links for free” on images?
April 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
You have given an Excellent example of conflict between the strategy and how it conflicts with the webmaster guidelines.
Could not have put it in a more elegant way. Bravo!
April 16th, 2007 at 11:46 am
[...] Michael on why Google wants to tell you how to run your website. [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
[...] Michael on why Google wants to tell you how to run your website. [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] being said, a number of posts at Google engineer Matt Cutts' blog has many in the blogosphere up in arms. While there's still some speculation as to the exact nature and future consequences of [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Besides all of the above, here’s a question I would be asking. WHY, with all of Google’s vast fortunes, would they need to ask US for this information? You mean to tell me that their own employees (who I’m sure are paid quite handsomely) cannot provide Matt with a few sites that they believe are selling links, with which they can test their ideas on? They need US to give them that? It’s bad enough that Google’s vast fortunes and incredible intelligence cannot cover one little algo problem, but it’s even worse that they would need us to help them out. Do you smell anything? The stink of something rotten is getting mighty strong.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
[...] If you want to read more about this, check out the really great breakdown that Graywolf has put together here. If you liked this post, please consider voting for it in the social [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
But Google is about to include formats for Text Link adverts to be inserted in posts.
Amazon is already doing it.
Cheers and God bless.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
For those “SEOs” out there worried about this, take another look at your profession. Is acquiring paid links the ONLY thing a webmaster can do to increase placement? LOL! I’ve heard many of the “gurus” feed their clogs with the statement, “Google owes you nothing” but now you’re all implying they do! I’m surprised no one has taken a look at the positive implications here. When Google decides to apply this to their algorithms (if they haven’t already), no longer will organic optimization be a game dictated by the biggest bank accounts. So, what’s the problem people? Are you all worried because the jig’s up and you’re no longer “gurus”. I would suggest you all take Quadszilla’s advice and remember this is business, not a democracy!
April 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Again, the issue isn’t whether or not paid links should or shouldn’t help your rankings. This isn’t about abolishing paid links. The *issue* is that Google is going to be guessing at who is selling links. You don’t sell links, but you could easily be flagged for it if the person reviewing you guesses wrong. Re-read the post - the issue is Google’s inability to detect paid links and their solution being a witch hunt where they guess who is or isn’t evil - *NOT* the fact that they want to detect and/or devalue paid links.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
@Sugarrae I’m a little confused by your interpretation of Matt’s post (if that’s the post you’re referring to). You’re saying Google is not going to use this data to devalue links from paid link provider sites? That was my interpretation and I don’t remember reading anything in Matt’s post about penalties being issued.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
[...] one here, another here, and one more here). There’s been a lot of postings about it, with a great summary here by GrayWolf at SEOclass.com, some here by GrayWolf at Wolf-Howl.com, more here from Todd Malicoat [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
>>>You’re saying Google is not going to use this data to devalue links from paid link provider sites?
I’m saying there is a big chance their data could be wrong. Good paid links aren’t detectable. How does Google know for a fact if a link has been paid for? The obvious ones “sponsored sites” yes - but a crafty paid link doesn’t have a footprint in many cases… so the only way to know is to basically guess - in some cases - and that is a huge potential problem.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Adam, I’m not an SEO. I just think Google should stop investing in their link based system and move on to more important aspects of their search algorithm. The more they invest in the link economy, the more people who want to cheat it will invest because the value of good results will be higher.
Google should work in developing meaning in search, not adjusting their link counting and ranking system. And if they don’t invest in the Semantic Web, someone better is going to come along and Google will just have to step down or buy them out.
All of which makes me think this isn’t about the Google search. Perhaps its about something else.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
@Sugarrae - Oh I see and I completely agree with you on that. There is no way an algorithm can definitively determine if a link is paid or not. Even if the links are listed under something like “Sponsored Links,” how could they possibly know if I put the words, “Sponsored Links” there simply because I wanted to standardize my site with others in my niche? No one besides the people I tell could know that. So, yes I agree with you but do I think that’s going to stop them? Not a chance! Google will always do what’s good for Google and no one can blame them for that. Instead of doing exactly what Matt wants us to do and come up with tons of solutions in the form of forum posts and blog comments, we should all remain silent about this and continue doing business as normal. One of Google’s main flaws with enhancing their algorithms is that they are reactive to what the SEO community is doing. Us continuing to talk about it in places we know Googlers read only feeds the beast.
@Elaine Vigneault - Yep, it is about something else. It’s called AdWords.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
[...] the hot issue of yesterday was more focused on paid links, I tried digging up a little bit how this came to be and found out [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
[...] way of knowing that someone hasn’t paid me (or promised me something) to write this very post.Now they’re saying not only will they be cracking down on those godless link sellers, they als…. Google says it’s not fair to visitors who may not realize links are [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
[...] SEO Class, by Michael Gray. Great read with lots of links. [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
[...] More on SEO Class [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 4:13 am
After this recent comment, I hate Matt Cutts and Google with a passion. This bloated, spoiled, rich arrogant bastard that wants to tell me how to run my website !
Babylon / Googleyon must fall.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:36 am
[...] don’t sell links but I see a huge problem with Google trying to collect data about those who do. It’s very easy for Google’s statements to have a chilling [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Let’s try and remember that Matt is a decent guy. While I certainly disagree with what Google is attempting to do at the moment, we should be limiting commentary to Google and not to their employees on a personal level.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am
[...] 3. Defining exactly what a paid link is is impossible. Okay, so paying cash is obviously what you meant but is that any different than a link to a client or to a buddy who helped you submit your site to 1,000 free web directories? If I’m right with that assumption then it’s really about determining motivation. In my humble opinion, humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss! [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
[...] - SEOClass has the following title for the post discussing this topic “Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website” [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Maybe Matt Cutts is a form of spam. He rarely provides enough information to be useful, and causes a lot of readers confusion.
I suggest all links to his sit be deleted. We should also all send notice of this spam to Google.
I hope he does not take this serious, but imagine if this started to happen with any opposing point of views out there.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
[...] been sleeping once more. Again days have passed without an open feed reader. And again iMissed the hype or was it a [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“While I certainly disagree with what Google is attempting to do at the moment, we should be limiting commentary to Google and not to their employees on a personal level.”
Agreed. I don’t know the guy, but there’s no reason to make this personal. He seems like he might at least try to be a nice person sometimes. Besides, the guy has a cute cat.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
In post 20 Adam Moro makes the point that Google doesn’t owe SEO people anything and it is a point well taken, but…
With this policy in place it seems that if you want to advertise on your site, you’d better stick to the Google program.
Accepting ads on relevant pages does not necessarily mean that a web publisher is gaming the search engines. Relevant ads do have value to the end user - often much more value than ads provided by Ad Sense - and they provide a revenue stream for the site that is not afflicted with the bidding vagaries of the Ad Sense program.
In effect this policy means that sites with enough traffic to generate income by independently advertising - even if the ads are clearly marked as advertising - are being seen as eil doers.
As impossible as the concept may be for SEO & Google to grasp, not every site is fixated on Google. Some web masters actually care about what they offer end users - and reviewed, relevant, text ads are both helpful and nonintrusive.
If Google decides that the only advertising that is acceptable is advertising provided by Google, everyone should be concerned.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
[...] de deixar mais algumas referências sobre este assunto: Google wants to tell you how to run your website, Paid links are spam? e revisiting payed links. Realmente não se percebe esta abordagem do Google [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
[...] If I’m right with that assumption, then it’s really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss! [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
[...] Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website - SEO Class.com [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
A simple boycott may be the answer.. there are other search engines you know.
All users have to do is stop using them.
And it would not be impossible. Nothing is impossible, as google is doing.
Could they be boycotted out of existence?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
This totally sucks - newbies won’t appreciate it, but anyone who has some serious investment will. If it becomes a fact it is only going to increase the amount of spam around and not decrease it.
It is so stupid - READ THE HISTORY BOOKS - prohibition does not work!!
Any form of Dobbing is bull. Become a dobber, become a snitch. Do in your fellow web master and Google becomes the arbiter of the decision.
At first Google was our friend because it provided us with results, we welcomed it. The word Google had such a friendly ring to it. Like we would welcome it into our family, but …
I can see a time where Google may switch archetypal roles and by synonymous with the devil.
But I could be wrong…
Also, what gets my goat is that this company is positively raking it in and trying to abrogate the whole internet revenue stream for themselves.
SELFISH BASTARDS.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
[...] additional discussion here and [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Npte to Google:
Monoplies are illegal in Our Country, The USA,
and the gov’t loves to bust them up… especially if there is good political motivation.
Be careful, google, there probably are more legal precedents in the country that are being violated.
Just because you are in ‘cyberspace’, does not exempt you.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“A simple boycott may be the answer.. there are other search engines you know.”
Simple? Have you ever organized a boycott? They are extremely difficult. And worse is that there isn’t a good alternative yet. When there is, sure Google will lose tons of users.
But what does Google care if they lose some search customers? They’ve got people hooked on adsense and gmail and all their other products where they can stick the ads.
No, if Google is going to go down, it’s going to be a legal battle, not a consumer battle. Just like Microsoft.
(Did I mention I’m glad I never bought Google stock?)
April 17th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I have to agree with Sugarrae, but as for Google starting a witch hunt, what do you call a Spam Report? It’s been there for God knows how long and no one had any qualms about using it. Don’t tell me you never ever used the spam report form. I haven’t used it for a couple of years but when I started in this biz I reported plenty of spam sites.
Nothing has changed
As for Google taking your freedoms away - SEOs, look at your profession. Your use of the TITLE, META tags, anchor text, link baiting - every aspect of your profession is dictated by how Google operates. And now all the sudden you’re bitching that Google shouldn’t dictate what you do with your websites, when the only reason you buy links is because of Google.
I’d stand by what Sugarrae said - Google sucks at detecting some paid links. The solution is obvious and its really not all that hard - buy links under the radar and quit bitching.
If you’re scared of competitors reporting your site, remember that Google is slow to manually ban individual sites that get reported. They prefer to modify their algorithm. That means reported sites will not see any penalties for a long time to come.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Oh My God, were all going to get kicked off the internet!
Not Really.
Google doesnt own the internet, as may be perceived.
There is Msn, Ask, Yahoo, and many other places for people to search.
Seriously.
If google deindexes me or not, they only deindex me from their engine, they have no say with the others. You will Not ‘dissappear” from the internet, although it seems that what many want us to believe.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:11 am
[...] recent uproar and backlash over Matt Cutt’s announcement of a war on buying links is pretty interesting. I especially [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 1:42 am
>>>Don’t tell me you never ever used the spam report form
I will tell you I never ever have and can say it with 100% honesty. I a big believer in karma - besides, competition - upstanding or using every trick in the book - keeps you on your toes.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:39 am
[...] If I’m right with that assumption, then it’s really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss! [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 5:47 am
google is trying the microsoft strategy of buying out competitors so they can create a
monopoly governed by google. google will not succeed, and the adwords/adsense/adsense for search models will only serve to take away one of the last remaining opportunites for the “little guy” who with some savy & luck has managed to build his own little fiefdom. i like google, but sometimes they are simply some of the biggest business assholes in the biz.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 am
I don’t like this rumour one bit. If I place a paid text link that’s completely and utterly relevant (and not for SEO purposes), why should I be penalised for my own good judgement? Some of us make a reasonable living on the Net, and Google has no right to begin making these decisions.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:13 am
“I’m a big believer in karma”
So am I, but I don’t see how filing a spam report on a spammer is bad karma.
“Some of us make a reasonable living on the Net, and Google has no right to begin making these decisions.”
Google can do whatever it wants. If you don’t like it,
1. Stop using Google products
2. Dump your Google stocks
3. Install a robots.txt Disallow:/ to keep Googlebot off your sites
4. Ignore anything Google tells you. Cloak. Keyword spam. Use hidden text. Build doorway pages. Buy links. Do whatever you want with your site - it’s your site.
Think about this. Link sellers above the radar are only going to get their ability to pass PageRank nuked, and that isn’t going to show on the Toolbar. As long as enough green is showing, you’re not going to lose any business - unless to get that green you’re buying PageRank from somewhere else.
The only people that’s really gonna get shafted are the link buyers.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 am
I don’t know what yahoo and MSN people are doing at this point of time, why don’t they introduce their “advertisement for publishers” program on global scale? Perhaps this can stop Google from dictating web.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
[...] is a very touchy subject within the search marketing community and has generated a whole lot of debate. As with all matters of this type, we at eyefall aim to be completely ethical in all the methods [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
>>>but I don’t see how filing a spam report on a spammer is bad karma
To me, it is, because it is trying to hurt another for my own gain. Very few people using spam reports report a site for the “good of Google”. Most do it because that site is direct competition and they submit the report only due to their hope to benefit from it as a result. My general feeling always has been that spammers keep me on my toes and force me to be a better SEO when I simply set my mind to beating them and not reporting them.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“To me, it is, because it is trying to hurt another for my own gain.”
Yeah, I see your point, but if I raise my Adwords bid I’m knocking someone else down a notch lower. If I’m playing 9-ball for 1K a set and I win 4 sets in a row, I gain 4K while my opponent loses 4K. That’s just business, nothing personal.
In a way it is underhanded because spam or no spam,I’m not beating an SEO with better SEO. But like people tested Floyd Landis for steroids, its not illegal to call for a test, and if he tests positive, he doesn’t deserve his title. What I seem to be hearing is Floyd shouldn’t be tested for steroids or that there’s nothing wrong with a little steroid use and that to me is ridiculous.
“Most do it because that site is direct competition and they submit the report only due to their hope to benefit from it as a result”
Yeah, I know, people are damn selfish
April 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
How many of you use adwords? Take em off for a while. Put a dent in their pocketbooks. Piss off their investors. Take down those those google search forms on your site. Everyone complains and then just stays in their pocket. They don’t own the internet…… WE DO!
April 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
[...] Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
[...] of course was just SUPPOSED to combat blog spam). While much has been written about this topic, by people far more intelligent and informed than I, I’d like to sum up Google’s [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
This is all so lame! How many paid link programs does Google run? C’mon folks, give it a little thought . . . What’s stupid is anyone following Googles lead for their promotion. Aren’t you people tired of Google telling you what to do, while they rake in the bucks as you shell out yours?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
It sounds like google is having trouble determining what website is most content relative and most worthy to be in the top ranks–How is that all of the worlds problem??? Do not sell paid text links? I am new to the online world of webmasterizm(made that up), but I thought that was what a lot of website owners did to keep afloat while working on SEO.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:19 am
[...] Class has listed reactions around the web, and is worried that Google wants to tell us how to run our websites. Any [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Makes no sense at all. So it’s OK to submit to a free directory?? but not a paid one or featured link?
This is frikkin madness.
I posted it on the Google stock forum, but it moves pretty fast on there.
I suggest you do.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/goog
April 19th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
[...] If you would like to read more about the paid link reports, please check out Andy Beal, Rich Ord, and Graywolf. [...]
April 20th, 2007 at 4:40 am
[...] I was looking at my Digg friends and saw an article that really peaked my interest. I clicked on Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website and was just blown away. That article is extremely detailed and very important for you to read if [...]
April 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Google is the IRS of the Web…
Quick, what are these people talking about?
“I think I’ve found a loophole I can exploit!”
“How can I avoid being penalized for this?”
“Do I have to tell them about everything I do?”
“Why do they care where the money comes from?”
“This is t…
April 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
[...] to paid linking fud - from graywolf at seoclass, on his site, scoreboardmedia, aaron, and [...]
April 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
[...] to paid linking fud - from graywolf at seoclass, on his site, scoreboardmedia, aaron, and [...]
April 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
[...] to paid linking fud - from graywolf at seoclass, on his site, scoreboardmedia, aaron, and [...]
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[...] If I’m right with that assumption, then it’s really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss! [...]
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
[...] Matt Cutts most recent vendetta against (oh please let me participate to the whole dramatization of the Google = Evil policy) paid [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Since 2005 I have been trying to figure out why my site fell out of Google. Now the truth is evident. Commercial Text links on your site will kill your site. If you are an affiliate of Amazon.com, HistoricAviation.com, Orbitz.com, or any other .com you are out of business in Google. My site at YellowAirplane.com has over 2500 pages and 36,000 external links. The old Netscape Composer automatically put no-follow statements on all external links but Microsoft FrontPage does not. I removed all of the no-follow statements trying to figure out why Google kicked me out.
With over 36,000 external links a robots.txt file will be something incredible in size. Adding No-Follow text to every external link will be impossible.
If you are an affiliate of any other company other than Google, you are being hurt by their web discrimination. I have lost 92% of my income and have spent all of the last two years working on why my site fell out of google. If you are an affiliate of any company, please write to them and complain about the Google Screwgole.
YellowAirplane.com was on the top of all North Pole Expedition sites, but now it doesn’t even show up in Google. Try this, go to Yahoo.com and search for North Pole Tours or F-14 models, or F-16 models. YellowAirplane is on the first page for actually over 1000 search words or phrases, but why don’t they even show up in Google where, prior to 2005, YellowAirplane was the top there too.
This new Google Algorithm has destroyed my Expedition Business and my model sales too. Really it has cost Amazon.com, Historic Aviation, Historic Rail, and Incredible Adventures, Hundreds of thousands in sales hurting their businesses tremendously.
If you own a web business write to every one of your affiliate webmasters. Also, write to your congressman too. We need to put an end to small business discrimination that Google is putting on all webmasters. I’m a disabled vet and a 92% cut in my income is murder.
Here’s a big question for the readers. Does Google have a list of sites that are considered spam or are excluded from their site in any way?
It should be a law that if any business or anyone has a site on a black list, the list should be made public and the webmaster should be notified.
C. Jeff Dyrek, webmaster
http://www.yellowairplane.com
April 25th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Now what will happen to newly registered websites. May new websites needs backlinks from quality and well crawled website. And most of the new websites things buying a link from famous websits / portals / directories is better option to grab traffic as well as achieve search engine ranking. But now what will all new sites do?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Google are just playing dog in the manger. My theory: they want total domination of all paid links. They’re seeing that blogs can make more from paid links than they do from publishing Adsense ads.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:12 am
This whole thing makes me wonder if people who report paid links are going to be lumped in with the enemy, similar to how the fbi puts you on their terrorist watch list if you report suspicious activities.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
[...] to pass along on this or this one because I’m too busy right now and it’s already been covered in all of the usual locations (and every one is a better dissertation on the subject than I [...]
April 29th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Here’s an observation that I have not read anything about, but may be the answer to all of these comments all in one.
I’ve been tracking my site for the last two years in Google’s directory by typing in site:yellowairplane.com in their search engine. The interesting thing is that the results are extremely variable. On some days my site will have only 12 pages listed and on other days it will be up to 36,000. Where do all of these extra pages come from? Here’s the interesting part, I have just over 36,000 external links. Google may not know that they have a problem but their computers are working overtime giving them incredible variable results. It appears that their bot is counting all of my external links as a whole page.
I have tons of paid ads and one important problem that I did recently find out is that Microsoft FrontPage has or had a problem with certain type of link errors that it calls good but they are not. I started having the errors where I would have links that looked like this file:/// FronPage returned these as good links on my local machine and also on my server, when in fact, these were actually dead links, but the FrontPage link checker could not find them as errors. My site ended up with over 11,000 of these errors when I first converted to FrontPage. Their link checker would only show up 2500 pages on my site and would only show about five to twenty of these links at a single link check. The truth is that there were 11,000 of these errors created in my site by the FrontPage program on conversion.
I fixed these errors a month ago and now my website is having much more stable results when typing in site:yellowairplane.com and the relivent pages are now showing up in a much higher page ranking just a couple of days ago.
Typing in North Pole Tours now has my expedition page at number 13 in the search results where no pages even showed up in the search results on Google. I’m first in Yahoo.
Maybe many other sites have internal errors that are not found by their composing program, yet Google does see these errors and rejects them. Does anyone know. Also, maybe the Google Algothrym has a problem that is causing their cache to jump wildly and cause so many relivant sites to be kicked around without Google knowing that this is even happening. In other words the problems that so many sites are having on Google may not be anything on your site, it may be that Google has a big problem with their system and it isn’t really evident to their engineers. Or, your site may have problems that your publishing program doesn’t even see itself and you do not get the proper reports informing you of these errors.
Thanks,
Jeff.
What are your ideas?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:19 am
[...] If I’m right with that assumption, then it’s really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It’s a virtual coin toss! [...]
May 9th, 2007 at 3:58 am
I’m always puzzle about Google!
May 9th, 2007 at 4:02 am
How about Google PR,why my site is from 0 to 5 first time!
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
[...] to paid linking fud - from graywolf at seoclass, on his site, scoreboardmedia, aaron, and [...]
May 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
What Industry needs is a competitor. This SE is now become a all Google affair…
This is not good…We need few more good players so as to ease out the presseure of dependency on Goog..
June 7th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
[...] to the very core of my discussion on white hat vs black hat SEO. There’s one of the most intelligent summaries of the situation over at SEO class. They’ve pulled a lot of quotes from a lot of respected bloggers. My [...]
June 15th, 2007 at 12:04 am
[...] Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website (SEOClass – nice round up) [...]
June 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am
This is so confusing my brain hurts!
Please help me understand this “karma” thing people keep talking about because being Buddhist myself, I must have it totally wrong so maybe another Buddhist here can help me out.
If I understand this right, using one’s financial resources to try to edge someone else out, who may and/or likely does have fewer or no financial resources is good karma, or at least not bad karma, right?
But, reporting someone who is using black-hat techniques to take advantage of others who are either unwilling to or not knowing enough to use black-hat techniques, that’s bad karma, right?
So, spending money to beat someone else out of a position they more deserve is good, or at least not bad but, reporting someone who is doing bad, is definitely not good.
We are talking about the same karma, right?
It gets even more confusing for me at this point because I have never reported a competitor, in fact I link to most of them but the scrapper sites and the multiple interlinked spamming domains I have reported, I shouldn’t have?
Or, is it a case of one judging others’ intentions based on what one would intend for one’s own actions? If that is the case, I applaud your not doing what you think others would do if that is what you your self would do.
Beyond that I get even more confused. People want to use techniques to artificially inflate the relative merit of their site but then cry when they will then have to compete on an even playing field and again content becomes more important?
Personally I wish Google would just devalue, to 0, obviously paid links, which are not THAT hard to detect, and leave it at that. People then could buy and sell links all they wanted although they would just be selling and buying what could be a worthless commodity.
This SEO stuff is way to confusing. I think I’ll just concentrate on building a web site for visitors and gaining links the old fashion way, organically.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Thanks
July 11th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
google is not the only place to get business from. they’re just one method available and too many people put all their eggs in that one basket and are now freaking out.
if your business is legitimate it doesnt really matter what google does with you. their are other means of advertising your website and gaining traffic.
google can’t tell me i can’t sell advertising on my sites, and they’re trying to tell me i can only sell THEIR advertising on my sites.
F-them. business existed before them, and so did MY business. they’ll lose more than gain once this becomes common knowlege.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:35 am
[...] Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website (SEOClass – nice round up) [...]
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
[...] Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website - Google is targeting websites that are selling tex… If you agree that people should be able to build, publish and advertise on the web without Google acting as an ad hoc, defacto, regulating board that serves their own interests you need to help spread this information. [...]
August 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
This is a well written and informative article. I agree with many of the points shared — Google doesn’t want the competition and paid links takes away from their earnings.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
[...] Following Matt’s advice on paid links I’ve looked at this blog to reveal sneaky commercial links, although nobody really likes this idea. [...]
September 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
google is scary and powerful and soon to be a monopoly if not already
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
[...] paid link is. The propoganda whore and I then took is a step further in regards to explaining why Google shouldn’t tell you how to run your website. As a side note, if you aren’t up to date on the FUD whore’s opinion on paid links and [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
[...] to add: A good round-up of opinions on the issue can be found on the SEO Class blog here. — Subscribe to the Sugarrae [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Great post,,
thanks for sharing…
I agree with many of the points shared — Google doesn’t want the competition and paid links takes away from their earnings.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
[...] Google Shouldn’t Tell You How to Run Your Website [...]
November 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Great post,,
thanks for sharing…
I agree with many of the points
December 13th, 2007 at 11:30 am
A classic post.
Of course, formatting links so that they look unpaid, to try to get them to pass page rank so you can accept increased payments for them, is only worth doing because a search engine (Google) exists.
But does accepting increased payments for paid links that pass page rank mean you are making links for search engines to benefit yourself? More to the point, does making paid links “for users not search engines” means formatting paid links appropriately, so as to not pass page rank/game Google?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Google has gone overboard with their discrimination against paid text links. Text links aren`t just used for PR purposes, they can in fact also help drive traffic to another site.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Yahoo asks $299 a year for them to add your site to its directory. Isn`t that another form of paid for links? Somehow I can`t see them getting penalized by Google for it though.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Bio. 2008
I’m Addie Trippeer and I am in 3ed grade and I am a Homeschooler. I love Pandas, Tigers, Giraffs and last but not least I love Horses and I couldn’t love High School Musical 1 and 2 more!
I am 9 years old and I know a little bit of piano
My mom crochets and is a piano teacher. My dad shoots Rabits, Turkey and dear and he runs the computers for the humen genom sequincing center. I did my best to spell that. My dream role is Elphaba in Wicked and Wicked is my favorite musical also. My hobbies are having sleepovers with my friends, Acting (I’v been in Charlottes web as baby Wilbur and Tilly as a child in heaven.)Reading, Singing, Art, Playing Vidio games and Playing Basketball. I have an anoying and loveable sister who loves pink and she loves to pick her nose and she loves princesses and Barbie she is in 1st grade. I love anything blue and sparkely I also am a fan of soccer and my friend Lauren Hariss and I both agree that Zac Efron is the cutest boy in the universe and we both love Hannah Montana also, we share a lot of things in comen. My friend Isaac shares a lot of things in comen with me also. He likes blue just like me and Star Wars and he loves playing Star Wars battle front two on the X-box just like me.
I hate Chocolate Cake and M&Ms and I hate most meats the only meats I like are Fish, Bakon and Turkey although I am a big cheese eater. I am a humungous fan of Black Olives I would eat them all day if I could and I love romen noodles. Although my family does not eat out often my favorite restronts include Applebees, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Sonic and Long John Silvers. I have a turtle named Camoron, a cat named Olivia and a dog named Sadie I love them so much! They are so cute! my birthday is 10/05/1998 exept I wish it wasn’t because there is bloody gools everywhere when you go to Walgreens or somtthing it’s really freeky.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
How about Google PR,I’m always puzzle about Google!