Link Buying Smackdown
Well we all know how Google and Matt Cutts feel about link buying (Text links and PageRank and SEO Mistakes: Hosted doorway pages) but Todd (aka Stuntdubl) steps up to the plate and takes one yard with I am Not a Link Communist
Sometimes the solutions to these problems were valid ones, and sometimes they have changed the entire face of the web (*cough* nofollow). I’ll leave those for you to decide. It’s much easier to blame the people that exploit the system, than it is to blame those that design it, but the naivete in design can’t be ignored.
Buying links is ADVERTISING. Wasn’t it the commercial nature of the web and the monetary value of the marketplace involved what gave that little idealistic search engine startup so much power in the first place? Why should link communism now be promoted for the sake of preserving the “non-biased editorial standards of algorithmic search results”?
It's a long post but well worth the read. Now if I were running a search engine conference, I'd be trying to put together a 'link buying smackdown session' to get the engines and the advocates of link buying going toe to toe ...
added for those of you across the pond who may not be familiar with the expression 'going yard'
buying ads - killed for link spam
We recently brought into a banner ad share scheme to run banner ads across a range of websites.
Unfortuanalty, thanks to the way the banners were served - Google seems to have treated them as paid for links, and rather naturally decided that 40,000 odd links just appearing all over the place was "link spam".
As soon as we noticed, we killed the banner ad campaign and grovelled to Google.
All I can say, is beware when buying advertising - as that can actually kill a website ranking in Google !
I wish I had had just a
I wish I had had just a little of that eloquence in 2002!
I don't see how anyone can read something like that and then argue it's logic but I'm pretty sure someone will.
Bravo!
I'm nofollowing
I'm nofollowing, in more than one sense.
First, I have just bought sitewide link advertising on a site and asked for a nofollow. I hate to admit it, but yes I did that. Because, I should add, the site I'm advertising doesn't need any help in ranking, it only needs more visitors outside those searching for related words. So, I had nothing to gain by not doing the nofollow anyway.
Second, I think Google should consider to find something else to trust, if they can't trust links. As an advertiser it's just not my problem how they run a business not related to the thing I advertise at all. It should not be my problem eiter. They are (becoming) the MS of the web, now doing the Netscape thing to other advertiser plans - somebody should really start considering some serious monopoly sanctions.
Third, I think what I just said (or what Todd wrote) will not ring any bells in GOOG HQ. It's like asking them to kill their business, so they'll just laugh and think we're ridiculous.
That said:
One thing I do understand is that Google wants to protect their own text link advertising business against competition. The best (cheapest) way to do that (if you have high visibility and/or share-of voice) is to make advertisers trust other plans less, by doing the FUD routine.
CellerNews: Thing is, you
CellerNews:
Thing is, you weren't doing anything wrong. You shouldn't have had to remove the buy OR grovel to google. (I understand why you did, but you shouldnt' have had to)