Google plexed over link buying
by Randall McCarley
August 23rd, 2007
SES San Jose included a session on link purchasing Tuesday that included Matt Cutts of Google. The panel covered the pros and cons of link purchasing and Google’s policy of blocking paid links. This issue is hot and Google’s motives are clearly selfish.
Cutts started by pointing out that paid links violate Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. This is odd because the guidelines do not say anything about buying or selling links. The closest reference to link buying is this part near the bottom:
Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or “bad neighborhoods” on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
The emphasis here is on your outbound links and to avoid linking to sites that may be offensive. There is nothing about link sales. If you stretch the meaning of the first sentence you might say that selling links could make you part of a “link scheme” but even that would increase the PR of the site you link to - not your own.
Cutts went on to explain that not disclosing paid advertisements offline is against the policies of the FCC. Maybe Google has been working with China too long but here in America we don’t take kindly to the government approving our content. This is an obvious scare tactic - reveal your paid links or we’ll sick the government on you! Can you imagine the Department of Homeland Security digging through websites to discover the very real and dangerous threat of paid links?!
It makes me wonder if Google is lobbying for legislation on this issue. They have the cash for it. But most websites are good about letting users know how the site works by including a disclosure or advertising policy of some sort.
Google would like to see a label for paid links like “sponsored links” or “advertising links” along with technology to block the bots from following those links like using the robots.txt file, 302 redirects, JavaScript or the infamous “nofollow” attribute.
The use of robots.txt, 302 redirects and JavaScript do the job for Google. Their bots don’t read that information so there is no problem. The use of a nofollow is a bit more sinister and shows the weakness of Google’s algorithm: Google can’t tell what the purposes of links are without help.
As Michael Gray pointed out at the conference, the use of nofollows was to control links on public sites like forums or blogs. The whole site could be penalized if the search engines found a bad link. My impression was that the nofollow attribute was a temporary solution but not the ultimate fix because the first Basic Principle of Google’s Quality Guidelines is:
Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don’t deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as “cloaking.”
The nofollow attribute does present different information to users than it does to search engines. When search engines find nofollowed links they move on effectively ignoring them. Users don’t see the attribute and can’t see a distinction between regular and nofollowed links (unless you get a plug-in for your browser). I see this as a mini-cloak to manipulate search engines that does the user no good at all.
Cutts compared paid links to littering or using the carpool lane with just one person - acts that have a negative impact on society. How about the impact of a bully threatening kids for their lunch money? I think that’s a much better analogy of Google’s anti-link buying tactics… Scare webmasters with smaller sites into thinking that selling links is evil and punishable by Google.
Cutts then went on to say that link-sellers are scumbags and that Google was very good at detecting paid links. More fear tactics I guess because if Google was so good at detecting paid links why would they bother fighting with them so much? Why would they ask people to report paid links? Why all the drama leading up to this announcement?
As of this writing Google’s stock is priced at $512.75 per share. Google makes it’s money by selling links. Let’s rock the hypocrisy, shall we?
Adwords is Google’s primary money-maker. Adwords works by bidding for key words and when those words appear on a site displaying Adsense (the publisher side of Adwords) your ad appears. The viewer may click the ad which then charges your account. The more you bid the more your ad appears the more clicks you get and more money Google makes. The ads are links to your site.
One of the issues is defining what a “punishable paid link” is. If someone offers cash for a link on your site then that link is paid for and presumably punishable. But what about paid directories like the Yahoo Directory? Google’s Webmaster Guidelines show that this is acceptable:
Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
Here Google is encouraging paid links. They claim that because Yahoo’s directory is human-edited with quality guidelines it is ok. It seems the rest of us are not able to create or enforce such guidelines for our own sites. I’m shocked Google has such a low opinion of us!
Google is missing the fact that every link, paid for or not, is edited for quality and content. Even on automated sites there are people behind the systems that decide what will best serve their viewers. Google is in effect saying that most webmasters are not able to do what is best for their users.
Is a paid review a paid link? Paid reviews are a standard advertising practice and oddly, Google is fine with paid reviews even though a link to the product being reviewed is a given.
Maybe linkbait or SEO efforts are paid links? After all, the links wouldn’t exist if someone didn’t work and get paid for that work to get them. What about PR companies? Their work usually returns links from prestigious news sites.
What if you want to buy something and a link is thrown in? Google has been caught selling high-profile links several times. I guess their rules for link-selling only apply to the rest of us. Or the rules are too hard for them to understand themselves. Or maybe, the money in link-sales is just too good to pass up. Now every time I buy something online I need to see if some bastard is going to link to my site and get me in trouble. In fact, I should ask my web host to remove this testimonial I wrote about their great service. I’d hate for them to get in trouble for my kind words.
All of this confusion comes down to Google having an unstable product, and insatiable apatite for profit and the mentality of an overgrown 10-year-old trying to bully the rest of us into submission. The “don’t sell links” policy is a bad call. Link selling has been around long before Google. Trying to close the door for this legitimate source of revenue for website owners builds dependence on Adwords.
If I purchase a link I deserve the full value of that link including any side-effects a third-party site (like a search engine) may throw my way. If I ever paid for links they would be on sites that have viewers that I want to attract so that I get the best ROI. That should fit nicely within Google’s “quality guidelines”. Or if I want to just throw money out there for attention that would be creating a cultural phenomenon just like in the offline world and there is nothing wrong with that! It’s the American way.
If I put the time, money and energy into building a site that other people want to purchase links from I should have the right to sell those links. I should not have to do extra work to appease a third-party site that says I should build my site like they don’t exist. And I should be smart enough to know that any links on my site will have an effect on the quality of my site (read: editorial control). And that if I link to sites that are no good my site will suffer for it in the form of fewer site visitors, fewer people willing to link to my site and a drop in search rankings naturally all without special controls from Google’s “we want your money task force”.
This policy is alienating Google from its market of suppliers (website owners). Google’s attempt to dictate policy to the rest of the internet is a bad move especially when they clearly have so much to gain if the rest of us fall in line. This policy is highlighting Google’s greed.
If another company made such a claim they would be ignored. If Microsoft tried something similar the backlash would be huge. As it is, Google is playing off of what is left of their small start-up done good/do no evil image but there isn’t much left of that image left now that the company is 10 years old and worth billions.
If Google put their resources into removing the need for a nofollow tag when it was first released instead of finding new ways to use it the internet would be a better place with all spammers having a more difficult time getting bad links through.
If Google wants to provide a better product they need to come up with the solutions on their end and stick with telling webmasters to “Make pages for users, not for search engines.”
If Google focused on new product development and improving their existing ones instead of telling the rest of us how to not make money everyone would be happier including the users and shareholders.
The best way I can think of to combat this bad policy is to do exactly what you’d do if someone else suggested it: ignore it. After all, that is exactly what Google has been telling us to do all along and they certainly can’t punish a website for working within their guidelines, right?
PS. Thanks to Rand at SEOmoz for his great coverage of SES and the inspiration behind this post.
Next Article: Wrap-up on Google’s anticompetitive link-buying scheme Previous Article: Are forums dead?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Rand, you’re dead-on on this one.
Google says “Make pages for users, not search engines.” Well, if that’s the case, then why should I go out of my way to put a condom on a link just so it won’t be penalized? The user isn’t going to know the difference (at least 99.9% of users who don’t have the SEO Firefox plugin); it’s only the search engines.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Dead on? I think he is dead wrong. Isn’t it Google’s website just like this is “your” website? I think so. You could delete my post in here if you wish and I couldn’t do anything about it, right? Why is it that webmasters and site owners “and” seo types seem to think that Google does not have the right to say and do as they wish?
You all can go ahead and buy and sell all the links you wish. Google does not care about that at all. But please understand that Google can penalize you in “their” index if you do go ahead and do that. Afterall; it’s their website. You cannot have things both ways. On the one hand, you want to be able to buy links on other sites, but on the other hand you do not want Google to protect it’s SERPS. As we all know, and you all are not naive, buying links in this way is “not” a vote from one site to the other site. It’s not a natural link because one site sees the other site as quality and valuable. There is a conflict of interest in there somewhere, right? How can Google take care of it’s own business and also take care of all webmaster’s and site owner’s businesses as well? It can’t happen and don’t expect you all to take care of other’s businesses either, right?
This whole link thang business has got to stop. You all should be thinking about how to make your own site’s “better” for your visitor and stop worrying about how Google does it’s own business. Can’t you simply stick in a robots.txt file that disallows Googlebot from accessing your sites? Sure you can.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
David - thanks for the kind words.
Doug I’m not going to delete your post. Discussions would be no fun without a contrarian point of view and you make some good points. I realize in hindsight that my post comes off like Google is doing something illegal where my real concern is as a consumer. The point is Google should not be telling me to avoid doing something they do. Google also doesn’t get to pick and choose which sites it applies rules to and which one they don’t (although they do). These things aren’t going to make me remove my sites from Google but they will certainly lower my opinion of them.
More and more I’m hearing people move to Yahoo or even MS Live because they aren’t Google. When people are promoting Microsoft because they treat their customers better you better watch out.
Google provides a service that wouldn’t exist without people like me. Bad policies like this are just to get more people to spend on “authorized” link methods - Adwords.
If Google was really altruistic and thought paid links were evil, I’d understand. But their tactics show this is a move based on only greed without regard for the user and I’m not ok with that.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Doug, no offense but as usual you are off base. Google is not some little mom and pop private company, they are a publicly traded entity which engages in interstate trade, and as such are governed by laws pertaining to how they conduct themselves. If they were to privately penalize sites without ever saying anything it would of course be something we could do very little about, since we would be hard pressed to prove it (proprietary algorithm and all that good stuff). However, publicly threatening webmasters with dire consequences should they not conduct business as Google bids them to do falls under the classification of conspiracy to restrain trade. That happens to be illegal.
Saying don’t link to bad neighborhoods or we’ll penalize is only sensible. Saying do not accept money for linking to good ones? Well, that’s a bit ignorant, to say the least.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I didn’t even consider the possibility of legal issues. Maybe you shpoud play a lawyer on tv…
Some great points. Thanks Michael.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Why do some people always side with Google? I think it’s fear that if they say something against the big G then it’ll come back to haunt them. They might be right too…. Google did just fine for years without bringing up this discussion and making every webmaster wary of the next guy. Yahoo seems to do just fine getting quality serps, and they haven’t gone out making a stupid statement like this.
Personally I’ve switched to Yahoo because their search results are less spammy. I don’t know if it’s because Google makes so much money off spammers and their automated adsense sites, but they seem to love letting the spammers in. Now that is hypocritical; we all know that spammers make their money off adsense and it must be good money too for them to keep at it. The bottom line is that Google pays spammers to spam their serps; nice. And then let’s make a big deal about sites that don’t add a nofollow tag to a link…. bunch of hypocrites!
Matt is also yet to name one big site that actually saw this come back to bite them for any length of time. The site he mentioned at SES when asked this question was caught for cloaking, yes CLOAKING… huh?!?
August 24th, 2007 at 6:54 am
RM; Google “does” pick and choose who it wants to penalize or ban. Google also cannot wave a magic wand and make all the link spam and other spam go away. They wish they could. To imply that Google cannot run their site the way they wish, or even “try” to help and teach webmasters like you how to do well in Google, is simply not seeing things correctly.
Michael; Not sure how you equate a corporate company who is trying to help you do well with a legality type thang.
It seems to me that webmasters…. in OUR industry want Google to give them LOTS and lots and lots of cake for free, but those same webmasters do not want to use all the free help and tools that Google is offering that can only serve to help each site. You all want tools like stats and “SiteMaps” that Google offers you for “free”, along with tools like the nofollow tag that Google is offering to you “for free”, but then you all complain when one of your sites is deemed a bad neighborhood when you did not use that very same “free” nofollow tag in the first place.
When put in that way, it kind of makes no sense, Huh?
And sam I am; People who know me know I state my direct and honest opinions. I’ll take against Google any o’l day of the week and do so often. I HATE they take money from the very sites they just banned or penalized for Adwords. I want Google to STOP that practice immediately.
But I will also use good common sense in dealing with the people in our industry who seem to be only out to better their own sites at the expense of other sites, and could not care less about the actual “teaching” of all sites on the internet. This link debate thang is just too much fun as it exploits all those people in our industry with little knowledge in our industry, and those who think it’s always someone else’s fault, or some other company’s fault for their own failures.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Um, yeah… I can equate your words with not making sense, especially in light of what they were in reply to.
Thing is Doug I know I could help you to understand the actual issues, but I happen to know from past experience it’s probably going to just wind up frustrating the hell out of me in the process of trying. You have this blind spot once you form an opinion, and it seems to persist even in the face of facts.
Obviously you can research this more if you like, but here is an analogy:
Let’s say you own the best winery in town, one that sets the standards for wine itself. Say I owned a bar, and got the majority of my wine from you. One day you up and decide that you no longer wish to do business with me. Nothing I can do to prevent that really, it is in fact your business.
But if instead you were to say Michael, I will from now own only sell wine to you if you also buy your napkins from my cousin Vinny, or if you lower your prices on pasta, or if you only hire family members of mine to work for you… then all of that is conspiracy to restrain trade. You are using your position in the winery community to dictate how I perform business.
Again, telling someone not to link to certain sites or it can harm them, fine. Telling them not to accept money in doing so, or only to do so using specific codes, not so fine.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:39 am
My goodness;
I think the “majority” of SEO folks are out of their minds.
Natural link = vote = site owner “vouching” for linked to site.
Unnatural link = anything else
What part of “natural” and “vote” and “vouch” do some of you not understand?
What some of you seem to be saying is this:
Mr. Google: Please allow me and all of my business associates and friends to buy and sell links freely. In turn, I promise that my friends and associates will never buy or sell a link with Google in mind, or any other search engines that gives all of us free traffic.
Let’s see now; I’m talking about the actual seo industry; the industry that has consistently did their very best to exploit any holes in “any” search engine algo since 1996… waaaaay before Google was Google.
You want Google to believe all of this, and you want Google to sit idly by and watch all of you destroy their very own SERPS. While you all want this to happen, you also want Google to continue to supply you with all the free tools and help and the teaching that they can supply you with, .. …. and destroy themselves in the process.
Yeah Mike and all; Gee; where do I sign up for this? :)
August 24th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I’m not sure I understand this but I’ll do my best to reply. Yes Google chooses sites to favor and that is unethical IMO. To treat some sites with a different set of rules confuses issues like this one. And the reason Google does that is because of… PR. The last thing the stock holders want to see is GOOG taking on another one of their prize stocks. I understand the issue I just disagree with how Google is handling it. From a customer service POV they should treat all users with the same respect and rules. Otherwise Google is for sale and is now telling others not to be because that is wrong. Kinda silly.
As pointed out, I don’t think Google wants to abolish spam. If they did, they’d start with the main source of the problem: Adsense. By banning Adsense-using spammers they’d improve their Adwords product for the customers (people bidding on words currently getting a raw deal), eliminate 60+% of the spammers out there by eliminating their primary source of income and clean up the SERPs a lot. Google won’t do this of course - there is too much money in it.
Finally, you imply I don’t appreciate the good things Google has done for and with the community and that just isn’t true. I use Google as my primary SE, I use Sitemaps (which is a brilliant program) and some of their other Webmaster Central tools. I appreciate people like Cutts stepping forward to deliver the company line, even if I disagree with it. Google claims they want to “do no evil” and that we should “build sites for users” and I agree with those concepts but when Google starts telling us to build for the SEs and how to manage our sites/business that is evil. Or at least arrogant.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
You and I are not that far apart then RM.
I totally agree about adsense and adwords. TOTALLY agree with that. The way Google handles both of them is atrocious and that is putting it mildly.
The thing is; both of those departments at the Plex and the department that houses Matt Cutts and co. are “totally” separate places. I don’t even think the departments know each other by name actually. They certainly do not know what each other’s left hands are doing at any one time. For the most part and from I have gathered, adsense/adwords know almost zero about the organic side of the SERPS. Nada, zilch, nothing at all.
But I do agree with you about that part.
What I disagree with is the part that Google does not want to abolish spam. They certainly do want to in the organic SERPS. If there is one thing in the world that can bring down a popular search engine like Google, it’s called “search engine spam”. If the organic results are left to the seo community to manipulate as they please, the “current” Google visitors will flock elsewhere where the results are better for them. Google would cease to be this “giant” out there if that would happen.
Further; Google would not have an entire “sub” department dedicated to fighting search engine spam if it were indeed true that Google does not want to abolish spam. They would not be paying “intelligent” engineers the BIG o’l bucks to do nothing all day long but fight the spammers.
Why do you actually think that Matt Cutts and others keep the self-proclaimed blackhats so close to their vests?
So yes Rm; we aren’t far apart. You just needed a few little truths is all. :)
August 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Nice thorough analysis. I really think the cartoon hammers the point home nicely.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Doug, don’t fall for the “we don’t know because we’re separate” scheme. Go up the chain of command high enough and you have someone that makes decisions for both divisions and knows how they influence each other. Stock buyers get stock for GOOG which includes both organic and paid listings.
And if I were a smart business guy that wanted some good PR I’d know my product didn’t have to be perfect, just “good enough” and that a lot of peace of mind would occur if I formed a special “task force” to deal with the devil… in this case spam. If Google really wanted to be the best SE possible would they keep acquiring properties or devote that money to cleaning up the SERPs?
Careful, I just baited you. ;-)
Thanks Darren. I was having fun!
August 24th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
RM; I don’t fall for anything. I have my very own thoughts and mind. Much unlike much of the SEO industry who follow the “popular” with whatever they may do or say. Not me.
I’ve been to the Plex. A few times now and will go again and again. I know how things are supposedly working and don’t have to read about things from anyone else. I can tell you for a fact that Google takes spam “very” seriously. They have to. It’s the ONE thing that can bring them down.
You stated that “if” Google wanted to be the best se possible they would keep acquiring properties?
It seems to me they are constantly trying to improve things and they have bought quite a few things over the last few years.
It also seems to me they are the best se out there now. Only if they would allow the SEO community to start dictating how they run their very own website will they start going down the tubes and another search engine will take Google’s place as the best.
This is not hard to understand. :)
August 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
No I’m saying that Google could put put the money from acquisitions into building a better spamless product. Spam is not what will bring Google down - bad PR will. A low stock price will. Bad policies will. Hypocrisy will.
I agree Google should not let SEOs dictate policy. On the other hand, Google should not dictate policy to website owners either.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
naw; I guess you and I are far apart. Sorry. I cannot disagree with you any more on your latest post. Sorry. You are following the sentiments of “most” in this industry. Those sentiments are very much misguided, and frankly; they are very wrong.
Have a good one anyway.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
No problem Doug - we don’t have to agree on everything. How boring would that be? I’m sure we’ll come together on other issues.
But really do you think the mainstream SEO community is against Google on this? I haven’t really measured that. I look at this issue more from a website owner’s point of view than an SEO. As an SEO I never buy links but as a website owner I’m ok with selling them.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:05 am
1. Google is trying to ensure that links intended to manipulate search engine results to be discounted. To be more specific they are against the following:
- Links intended to manipulate PageRank;
- Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web;
- Buying or selling links (If you use the nofollow attribute, that is fine.
- - Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging (”Link to me and I’ll link to you.”).
More about: http://www.google.com/support/.....&type=
If we are not intending to manipulate the search engine results, what is so wrong with all that?
About their policy against buying or selling links:
They advise us that the best way to get other sites to create relevant links to yours is to create unique, relevant content that can quickly gain popularity in the Internet community. The more useful content you have, the greater the chances someone else will find that content valuable to their readers and link to it.
More about: http://www.google.com/support/.....&type=
What is wrong about that? What should we expect them to do, to clean up their index to provide us users with quality results?
And at last: As SE are getting more intelligent, they can catch a lot of on-page black hat techniques. But how can they catch off-site black hat techniques? Which is the most powerful spamindexing method today?
I am still trying to figure out what the whole debate is about.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:08 am
The problem is that 3rd point. Who is Google to tell webmasters to stop doing something that makes them money and has been going on since before Google existed? As a website owner I expect Google to provide a service and provide that service evenly across the internet. But because Google has decided to use links for something other than they were intended they expect all the webmasters to change their policies to be in line with what they say to do. That is total hypocrisy because Google has always said to build for users, not SEs and changing our link practices is for SEs. It’s also a marketing move to put more people on their paid search platform to have “legal” links… not because paid links are “evil” or wrong or anything like that.
I understand penalties for linking to bad sites and for blatant recip linking just intended to boost SERPs but paid links have many benefits, Google’s rankings being just one of them. Smart marketers will place ads on related sites anyway and Google can detect a random link that doesn’t match the content of the originating site so I really don;t see what their (legit) problem is.
This is about money and Google using its size and influence to scare webmasters into submission and that is not ok. Google claims to have paid links figured out anyway so why would they care?
Money. Money. Money.
Always follow the money. And fight back against bullies.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Do ahead and do as you please. Google “truly” does not care on bit if you buy links “anywhere”, or you sell links “anywhere”. They DO NOT CARE. Period. Do it. Forget about it. Just do it. They don’t care. I don’t care.
Google also does not care how you build your website. They “truly” do NOT care. I don’t care either. NO one cares but each website owner how they build their own sites.
Please do NOT come back crying to me about how Google is evil and bad and out to get you if Google decides they simply do not like how you bought that link or how you sold that link, or how you built your website. Whatever Google can do to protect the integrity of the search results for THEIR USERS, they will do. If that means “your” site gets penalized, or your links de-valued for whatever the heck you decide to do because it is your website, then so be it, right?
Just do it. No need to talk or discuss it. Just do it.
I’m with webnauts; what’s the point anyway? Websites have always been able to do as they please…. as still can. Google has ZERO to do with that and never has cared at all about it. Why the hell should they?
August 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am
gawd; typo mistakes. Too early yet with NO coffee.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:16 am
rmccarley you asked:
“Who is Google to tell webmasters to stop doing something that makes them money and has been going on since before Google existed?”
I would ask you a question, before I would answer your question:
Who said that Google tell webmasters to stop doing something that makes them money which has been going on since before Google existed?
I honestly never heard that before.
So what is next?
Google is not a non-profit organization. They are a business platform!
And they sure have the rights to decide if someone’s site qualifies to use their free service or not. I repeat: Free service.
It is exactly the same thing like with many web directories. They have their guidelines too. If you do not qualify, you cannot be included. And many of them are paid directories, and you still need to qualify.
So what is so strange about the whole thing? I still don’t get it.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
which has been going on since before Google
February 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Link building has become such a big deal it is having a lot of us sweating. Wouldn’t it be nice that it would no longer be a requirement for high search engine ranking?!
February 8th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Well, it’s not required. I’ve never purchased a link and my sites do well. ;)