Quantcast

Are You Surprised That Google Doesn’t Like Paid Blog Networks?

Maybe it's time to stop obsessing over meaningless links

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Search]

Google has been cracking down on lesser quality content littering its search results a great deal over the past year – probably more than any other time in the search engine’s history. Obviously, to those who follow the search industry, the Panda update has been leading the charge in this area.

Google has been de-indexing blog networks that webmasters have essentially been paying to get links. Do you think this will improve Google’s results? Share your thoughts in the comments.

One way that content, including some lesser-quality content, has been able to manipulate Google’s algorithm is through paid links, and linking “schemes”. Google has long had policies against these things, and has not hesitated to penalize sites it busted. See JC Penney and Overstock.com incidents from last year, for a couple of examples (not necessarily the best examples of low quality, but of getting busted). Google even penalized its own Chrome landing page, after paid links set up by a marketing firm were discovered.

Penalties like these can greatly hurt sites. There was talk that Chrome’s share of the browser market was impacted by that penalty, and that’s Google’s own property. Overstock blamed Google for its ugly financials when it reported its earnings earlier this month.

If such penalties can have such an impact on brands like these, think what they could do to lesser-known brands.

Google is now cracking down on blog networks, which have added sites to their networks in exchange for fees. BuildMyRank, in particular has received a lot of attention.

Build My Rank

The site posted a message about it recently:

On a daily basis, we monitor our domain network to check metrics like page rank, indexed pages, etc. As with any link-building network, some de-indexing activity is expected and ours has been within a permissible range for the past two years. Unfortunately, this morning, our scripts and manual checks have determined that the overwhelming majority of our network has been de-indexed (by Google), as of March 19, 2012. In our wildest dreams, there’s no way we could have imagined this happening.

It had always been BMR’s philosophy that if we did things a bit different from other networks, we would not only have a better quality service to offer our users, but a longer life in this fickle industry. Sadly, it appears this was not the case.

In case you’re not familiar with how BMR actually works, it essentially sells link juice. In the “how it works” section, it explains that the backlinks it helps you build “help add extra link juice and added indexing speed”. This comes at prices up to $400/month. Here’s their video overview:

Word throughout the SEO community is that other blog networks have been getting de-indexed as well. Meanwhile, webmasters with links from these networks, have been getting messages from Google’s Webmaster Tools. SEOmoz shares a message from Google Webmaster Tools that some webmasters have received:

Dear site owner or webmaster of http://example.com/,

We’ve detected that some of your site’s pages may be using techniques that are outside Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.

Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.

We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you’ve made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google’s search results.

If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.

If you have any questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.

Sincerely,

Google Search Quality Team

Is any of this really a surprise? If you’re paying a blog network, is this not basically paying for links? The most surprising thing is that sites have been getting away with it for so long, without facing the wrath of Google. That’s damn amazing, really.

“Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank,” Google says in its Webmaster Guidelines. “In particular, avoid links to web spammers or ‘bad neighborhoods’ on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.”

It’s pretty clear.

Internet marketer Jennifer Ledbetter (otherwise known as PotPieGirl) wrote a fantastic article on this whole ordeal. “Let’s face it and be real,” she writes. “We’ve used any of these services, we know exactly WHY we use them, don’t we? We use them to get the in-content links to help our web pages rank better. Yes, we use them to manipulate Google rankings. We all know what we’re doing – we know Google frowns on that (ok, totally HATES that), but we do it anyway. So, please – no whining about how this isn’t ‘fair’, ok?”

SEOmoz CEO Rand Fishkin had some helpful advice on Twitter:

If you’ve been affected by Google’s recent link penalties, disclosing the details of how you acquired the links can speed up reconsideration 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

Perhaps this is how webspam intends to fight the more underground/private link manipulation schemes 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

@LukeyG28 Google’s shockingly good at knowing when spam’s been built by you vs. others; I wouldn’t sweat it. 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

@randfish getting a reply from the main man awesome! – although I have to disagree, if it’s a authority website yes, new website no dm me 1 day ago via Twitter for iPad ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

@LukeyG28 I tried recently to “bowl” a few small sites out of Google (using some black hat friends’ advice/networks) but they stayed fine 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

@randfish those friends wernt blackhat enough lol. Ive been trialing it on some of my old sites and there dropping like flys.msg me for info 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

@LukeyG28 Like I said, I suspect there’s some footprints of those sites that make G more apt to allow for link penalties 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

There has been a lot of discussion from webmasters worried that competitors will be able to hurt their sites by posting bad links to their content, and the general consensus, as it has been for years, is that if you get good links, it should counter the bad. Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable points to a quote from Google saying, “Our algorithms are pretty complex, it takes more than a handful of bad links to sway their opinion of a website. Even if Webmaster Tools shows a million links, then that’s not going to change things if those links are all ignored for ranking purposes.”

According to Google, you really shouldn’t be focusing on the number of links you have anyway. Matt Cutts put out a video last week talking about how Google doesn’t count a lot of your links.

“I think a lot of people sometimes focus on the low-quality links that a competitor has, and they don’t realize that the vast majority of times, those links aren’t counting,” Cutts said. “So, for example, the New York Times sent us a sample of literally thousands of links that they were wondering how many of these count because they’d gotten it from some third party or other source of links, and the answer was that basically none of those links had counted. And so it’s a little easy for people to get obsessed by looking at the backlinks of their competitors and saying, ‘oh, they’re doing this bad thing or that bad thing.’ And they might not know the good links. And they might not know that a lot of those links aren’t counted at all.”

It’s getting to be about time for Google to announce its monthly list of algorithm changes, but in last month’s list, one of the changes was “Link Evaluation”.

“We often use characteristics of links to help us figure out the topic of a linked page,” the company said. “We have changed the way in which we evaluate links; in particular, we are turning off a method of link analysis that we used for several years. We often rearchitect or turn off parts of our scoring in order to keep our system maintainable, clean and understandable.”

While links are the foundation of PageRank, it seems to me that links have become less and less important in search visibility altogether. Don’t get me wrong. Links matter. Good links are great. Links from sources Google thinks are great are still great, but just having a bunch of inbound links won’t get you very far if they’re not significant links.

Search visibility these days is much more about who’s sharing/discussing your content (especially on Google+), who you are as an author, how fresh your content is, and how in-depth it is compared to your competition. This is of course simplifying things a great deal (Google has over 200 signals), but if you consider these things more than just chasing meaningless links, not only will you likely do better in search, you will avoid getting a destructive penalty from Google.

All of that said, you may be spending too much time obsessing over search in general, and would do better to consider other means’ of traffic. How dependent do you really want to be on an ever-changing algorithm? Expanding upon your social strategy is likely to pay off much better, and thankfully, the better you do in social channels, the better you’re likely to do in search.

Should Google be penalizing blog/link networks? Are links as important as they once were? Tell us what you think.

Are You Surprised That Google Doesn’t Like Paid Blog Networks?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • BB

    Good article, very interesting.

  • http://www.wedgeim.com calgary web design

    Well I do agree that blog network links are spammy i find that a lot of people are frequently self righteous whenever something like this happens. The told you so mentality is very childish ….much like this article. You act as though all you do is for good of the internet and that you would never think of doing anything outside Google guidelines. BS i say you just never got caught at whatever you did. Yeah very realistic to think we can run our businesses without having to play the GAME! Social media is not the answer , the answer would be clear non vague set of rules that EVERYONE has to follow to succeed on SERPS. If google is going to be heavy handed with changes and penalties it need to be more clear with all parties as how to rectify the problem. NICE article SELF RIGHTEOUS LIAR

    • http://www.webpronews.com/author/chris-crum Chris Crum

      I guess I can see where you would view this as an “I told you so” kind of article. I didn’t really write it with that intention, but I mean, Google has been pretty clear about the kinds of practices it accepts. I just don’t think anyone should find it surprising that they would do this. It’s like PotPie girl said, as I referenced in the article, people doing this knew what they were doing.

  • Peter G

    Proof that google algorithms have failed and they are depending more and more on by hand ranking by $10 per hour manual reviewers.

    Remember manual ranking on whims and fancies of manual reviewers is what lead to yahoo directory spectacular failure.

  • http://talooma.com mashilo

    It is been long overdue,for me I believe in natural backlinks and I think Google got it right this time around.

  • http://exceltotal.com Data

    I totally agree about this. Sometimes we spend too much time obsessing over search even when we can hardly keep up with this ever-changing Google’s search algorithm. We must seriously consider expanding upon our social strategy instead.

  • http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/ ChrisCD

    It isn’t a surprise and the fact that they de-indexed an entire network shows that links are still important. Others on other forums have also pointed this out.

    Google still needs links for their ranking. They have said all along they want them natural.

    It isn’t about being self-righteous. If you want the traffic that Google can send you, play by their rules. If you don’t want to play by their rules, don’t be shocked when your rankings drop.

  • http://www.completewebsites.biz JaneJake

    It will create better quality content as in a previous job I used to write ‘build my rank’ snippets of 150 words with a link or two, and write 10 to 15 in an hour. They would be placed on all different page ranked sites, and push a site higher on the Google Organic Search Results. However, I always felt that it was achieving ‘pointless rubbish’ being published on the web and can understand Google trying to clean up.

    However, it is big business. And what is the alternative? The affluent companies can afford to pay the charges for SEO, the not so affluent cannot. So the bigger companies get to the top of the Organic results, is that good? I think so. They employ more people, create jobs, reduce prices using economy of scale.

    All companies need a paid vehicle to get them to the top of Google Search Results. One often wonders if Google wants a ‘monopoly’ on this, and is gradually tapering search so that companies pay Google for advertising.

    But the loser may be Google, they may well lose the ‘goodwill’ and if the search results are not correct, people will quickly fly over to Bing.

    So if the big companies can’t get results, Google will show an odd bunch of results, and maybe the paid ads will be more clicked on than they are now? who knows?

  • Dave

    Google says poor quality links don’t count, but I’ve got empirical evidence to the contrary. One of my competitors got into paid blog links in a big way for 5 or 6 keywords. These are industrial computer products. It was very humorous reading some of the blogs and how people incorporated totally inappropriate keywords into a paragraph. We’re talking thousands of blogs so thousands of links.

    Shortly after this blog effort started, this competitor’s site rocketed up in the rankings. Too coincidental.

    I dutifully reported these links as I found them but there was no apparent impact on this competitor’s ranking.

    The blogs weren’t ranked anyway so they didn’t suffer any punishment by selling links. Google should have hung a few coyotes in the barbed wire fences and gone after the companies buying these links. Kind of like busting the Johns instead of the prostitutes. Make it well known – you buy links, you get dropped.

  • http://many J.T.

    So if Google sends me the little note and tells me to check my incoming links…. how do I do that these days? everyone seems to have turned off any way to check them.

  • http://www.Artisian-Workshops.com eggerist

    I get some much garbage in the emails on my site that I have to pay a company to weed out my emails…I get several hundered a week for viagra, buy this, vote here, do this, do that, make money…etc…
    If I had the time, I could check out if some are ligit, so probably some that got dumped were, but my time is more valuable than one good email out of hundreds of advertising that I get in a day. I have my name and site out on the web search engines and that is how others should do it, as well…less crap out there, that way.

  • http://www.absolutewebworks.com/ Absolute Webworks

    My clients do not participate in paid blog links however traffic has gone down non the less.

  • http://wbpersonalsecurityproducts.com william

    Google tries…..but just because a business operation is big and well financed and employs countless personnel doesn’t mean they will succeed in every considered endeavor. Were such true, the US military would never have suffered setbacks or failures….but the best laid plans of mice and men do go awry. Google is reaching that point where it is said, “The bigger the chicken the smaller the egg”. They should long ago have broken the internet world into a gridwork system, and licensed SEO, traffic, banners, blog, promo businesses to operate according to set grid regions, and even sold google ads according to specified grid regions….all their invisible algorythmic activity and robot crawlers need to upgrade….just my opinion….not attempting to change or suggest anything…thanks n best wishes!

  • http://netmedia-uk.com Alan Johnston

    Too many men in the gutter trying to make a fast buck. My clients always ask me about back linking and I tell them to concentrate on making their site full of interesting content and comment on other great blogs and add your self to directories, hey it’s not easy, but nothing in life worth having ever is is it?

  • http://www.gifthunters.co.uk Are We Here Again?

    Jeez… this paid links/links generally topic seems to have been going around for years and year now.

    Years ago, we were told “Don’t buy links!” – people bought links, people saw their sites go top of the SERPS, people got rich.

    The people who took the advice, shied away from buying links, saw their sites drop down the SERPS and didn’t get rich.

    I just wish Google would just leave this stuff the hell alone and let people buy as many links as they like – if they think it will help with their SERPS.

    It is up to Google whether or not they consider all or even any of those links when compiling the SERPS. Surely this is an easier way of doing things for all concerned? It also means that sites cannot be penalised for selling or buying links which helps no one.

    What this, in effect, is saying is that Google actually thinks that the content of the link seller is really great but has penalised their site because it has sold links – how does that help a searcher (Google’s customer at the end of the day)?

    By penalising you for buying links, they are again, saying that they think your content is great but they are going to knock you down five pages in the SERPS because you bought some links – again, who does this serve?

    If links, bought in abundance, can “game” the SERPS to the point where really crappy content can get to the top of Google then surely the weighting is all screwed up on Google’s side but that, at least, is something within their control and can be rectified without penalising anybody unnecessarily.

    People love buying links and people certainly love selling links. The prospect of selling links is what encourages a lot of Bloggers and such to actually create the fantastic content which Google is then able to pass on to their “customers”.

    But I have said it before and I will say it again – Google not only wants to control the internet, it wants to control the flow of money on the web to the point where barely a dollar is spent without at least a cent going into their own coffers.

  • http://netmedia-uk.com Alan Johnston

    Concentrate on writing a good website, comment on other great blogs and add your self to directories is what I tell my clients. Nothing in life worth having is ever easy is it?

  • Bill

    I tend to be critical of Google, because they’re too big to be concerned with the little people they crush whenever they make the changes they do. To try to work with them, when there is a problem is absolutely impossible. That said, it appears my little sites may be benefitting from the changes. I have always tried to provide good content and have never attempted to short-cut my way to ranking on the first page. As a result, my sites are rarely discovered and any income generated is pretty much on the hobby scale. Yet, recently, I seem to be getting a bit more traffic and sales are up. So, go figure…?

  • http://www.wheretobuystuff.com Where to Buy Stuff

    Google is clearly pretty smart but there are still tons of sites outranking more legitimate ones based on buying links. The question is how many of them will continue to hold those spots? It is still kind of murky on what’s acceptable or not but maybe it will become more clear over the coming months. Thanks for a good piece.

  • Jeff M

    I used BMR for about a year…it was awesome. Not sure you can qualify their blogs as spammy. I spent a lot of time writing good relevent posts. I often got rejected for poor writing, bad grammar, etc. However, it is now gone and I will be joining another paid blog service that has not been taken down and continue on.

  • http://www.getsocialservice.com Get Social Service

    Many people complain about the way Google do things but never consider if it were your business what would you do??? I would do the exact same thing to people littering all over the internet just to beat my system to “rank higher”. I mean realistically think about it. Google want real not fake. Lets look at the situation on hand…

    1. Google do not want any one building their own links to their sites.
    2. They do not want you throwing trash (spam) around just to rank.
    3. They have to constantly change their algorithms because everyone is constantly finding a way to beat the system ;)
    4. If you honestly look at the facts of the situation we are all using unapproved methods for ranking. “We all build our own backlinks because we all know if we didn’t it could take a life time to get ranked on the first page.” Therefore we don’t have much of a choice now do we :|
    5. One of the problem comes in when everyone is using the same boring methods to rank themselves and expect Google not to slap the piss out of them.
    6. It is a vicious cycle. Why would anyone want to use a method that is not producing them great results?
    7. This is where creativity comes in and really makes a difference. It separates the kids from the adults. Unique quality content is what they want, viral spreading (people sharing) of your content etc. Google knows no one is going to share trash (spam) content. I am sure they will also go so far as to hack down sites that use social media improperly and… (There is a lot more I could say about this topic but I will hold my tongue on this)
    8. They are trying to deliver the best content to their users and most people are just hindering them from the results they are looking for. This is why I believe they are looking more & more toward social media to help them filter out a large % of the spam out of their search results.
    9. They understand you cannot control everything that goes on with your site as far as others promoting, backlinking to your site, copying your content etc. this is where I believe reconsideration comes into play etc when you think you are penalized wrongly. Most of you understand they have to police the entire world with one resource “The Google Bot”. So there is going to be a lot of collateral damage unfortunately.

    Sorry so long I could go on and give a complete lesson on this topic but I will not. Have a great day guys and gals and good luck ranking :)

    • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

      When you talk about ‘we all’, which ‘we all’ are you talking about?

      The ‘we all’ you hope everyone else is also or the ‘we all’ being you and thinking that the excuse of ‘everyone else is doing it’ was ever valid.

      Especially when not everyone else, obviously, is doing it. Were that the case, Google wouldn’t be able to discount any links because they would all be corrupt.

      While it may be true that there are those who have made a killing by effectively cheating the system, it never lasts forever and when it does come crashing down around their ears, they take not only themselves but everyone else they have suckered into following along down in their quest to ignore responsible management at the expense of short term gains.

      More often than not, they do not go down themselves, only the poor souls who have bought into the ‘Interweb get rich scheme’ which seems there are only too many desperate enough or willing to suspend logic long enough to sign on the digital dotted line. The people who set up the schemes usually just walk off with the money they’ve made looking for the next internet-ponzi scheme they can set up.

      Meanwhile, those who have followed the guidelines, see improvements as the riff-raff gets weeded out.

      Beyond all that, where does it exist in real life that buying influence in a business situation is ever legal or ethical? Sure, it’s done all the time but when caught, most end up in jail.

      • PeteBKay

        No offense, but this is just nonesense. I have personally bought a ton of blog links for all of my clients and I have seen nothing but success. My clients have high quality sites and deserve to rank for their relevant keywords just like anyone else. It’s Google’s fault if people “exploit” the system…they are the ones getting rich off PageRank so they need to take the good with the bad. Google’s results are good enough for searchers. You try to make it an ethical situation. It isn’t. It’s called ADVERTISING.

  • http://www.mortgage-investments.com Norman

    For many years our web site has held the number one spot in a Google search for “mortgage investments”. We are also on the first page in a search for “sell mortgage”.

    How have we done this? The way Google wants us to by providing hundreds of pages of free information on the mortgage investment business.

    • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

      Oh no! Say it isn’t so!!!

      You followed Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and actually succeeded?

      Strange how that works. ;-)

  • http://www.johnbeagle.com John Beagle

    “We have changed the way in which we evaluate links; in particular, we are turning off a method of link analysis that we used for several years.” – Matt Cutts

    I wish he could be more specific about what is being turned off.

  • http://www.mabuzi.com Kevin

    Not at all, in an industry that is not regulated nor has any charters. SEO is the wild west with Google been the self appointed sheriff. Thats an entirely different discussion.

    It seems to me that those who are penalised are crying. We all have different strategies and techniques to promote our websites and when one of our ways are found out, we cry.

    I think paid blogs are bad, just like paying for FB likes, Google + etc…now to sort out paid bloggers with multiple fake profiles.

  • http://apennyandchange.pennyleisch.com Penny J. Leisch

    I’m still trying to figure out where the blog hops and mommy bloggers and unpaid blog networks get placed in the rankings. Most of the hops and review sites that take ads have low level content. Many offer little content and are poorly done. I’ve seen a couple that actually write real content.

    Hops do nothing but put links on a bunch of blogs in some cases, even though no one pays for them. In other cases, they try to encourage people to visit others and provide a venue for people to find interesting blogs to follow.

    However, the large blog networks seem to prey on the bloggers by encouraging them to post content on their site–often duplicating what’s on the author’s site. I’ve tried it and got lots of play from being on their site, but my article couldn’t be found at all when it was only on my site. Of course, I don’t have an entire staff and advertisers (sigh).

  • http://www.dotponto.com/ Steve Masters

    If Buildmyrank really think that this is a “fickle” industry, they don’t deserve to still be going. Good riddance to them.

  • http://www.appleiphoneapps.net/ Erva Dumser

    I think that we must use only good articles and if that is good rest of the readers will spread the word,and google likes that.

  • http://www.webix.com Mark

    I think google would rather just not have organic results at ALL. They would be happy if EVERY SERP of theirs was paid links. Funny how we’re calling the kettle black. Wait, isn’t that Hypocrisy? LOL.

  • http://www.stockspaywell.com King Ralph

    No one links because of content anymore. Webmasters are going around setting up their own links. The whole concept has become a farce.

    • Wesley

      It was said: “You try to make it an ethical situation. It isn’t. It’s called ADVERTISING.” It is an ethical situation. “Advertising” in the sense you mean is ADWORDS, etc.. The concept behind a link is that they come naturally, as a result of popularity so to speak. Paying for them with the express purpose of gaming the organic search results is ethically questionable. No doubt about that. I do understand though with so many “competitors” who cheat, that it seems like a losing battle, almost as if you feel you must ‘play the game’ to stand a chance. Creativity is a must in a competitive niche. I do appreciate an effort by Google to clean up the mess.

  • http://withwindows.com Ricky

    Finally, Google did something which it should have done long back. Anyway better late than never. There are so many link farm networks around the industry. I would love to see all of ‘em going down to hell.

  • chase

    It’s funny, most try so hard to get Google rankings, I don’t do squat, never did, as I was too busy building kick butt sites and blogs, and I get top rankings.

    Perhaps that is what Google is trying to say, quit trying so hard to get the rankings worry about the site and it’s content and your high rankings will be based on real rank values and content rather than bs trickery/methods.

    If they figured out a way to pave a way for those that worry more about the site and it’s content than methods to fool Google to get a ranking that really is meaningless in the end when you think about it, then more power to them.

    A million bs click throughs is just that, a million bs click throughs. So what good does a high ranking do if that is what you get? Too many put the emphasis on rankings first and site or blog content last. You get what you reap imo. Id rather 10k of quality click throughs come by naturally than the later. But that’s me…

  • http://www.seonorthamerica.com Tom Aikins

    King Ralph is right of course. Another farce is telling people to just write good content and the world will beat a path to your site. What BS. Google is basically telling people that they can not only tell good content from bad but also that they can rate content so that the best content will be at the top of the SERPs. More BS. Their results are getting worse and worse and there is nothing they can do about it until they teach their bots to read and evaluate what they read. That ain’t happening any time soon.

  • Jon

    Most of it is ok but the dangerous bit here is that the letter Google send busted sites clearly assumes that it is their fault that paid for links (to their site) appear on the discredited blog.

    This opens up the opportunity for industrial sabotage. Simply allocate a million dollars or a few hundred thousand and set up paid links for your competitor.

    Google have previously not blamed the website that benefits from links but instead lowered the ranking of the site supplying the dubious links. In a court of law innoncence is assumed – it should be the same here – if a site is clearly selling links then penalise the site – its much harder to actually prove someone is buying links for the above stated reason, we cannot assume the absence of malicious sabotage. Sounds unlikely? Get a Grip – corporations spend millions on advertising – whats a few hundred thousand to stitch up a competitor?

  • http://www.iphoneipadandroidapplicationdevelopment.com/ kaitherine

    Yes King Ralph you are right, we should avoid paid links because such type links full of spam. Google can penalize to site if any have taken unnatural links. Before some days i have faced same link problem.

  • http://www.fundaiphone4.es Fundas iphone 4

    Seos work is very hard…. in the future…. it wi ll impossible

  • chase

    Exactly!

    Now that wasn’t to hard to figure out now was it?

    Guess every one will have to make those sites worth a shout from now on. Heh.. who’ d a thought yesterday you have to actually do that…?

    Content actually might go back to being king…
    Well happy day…

  • http://www.themarketinganalysts.com/ Susan Thomas

    If they are going to de-index these types of links, wouldn’t it also make sense de-index directory listings? What about sponsor pages that are listed on various websites? How long will it be before Twitter is useless? Will commenting and having any type of link on another website also be discouraged? What;s next?

  • http://www.theresammoore.com Theresa

    It doesn’t do me any good to comment when I get replies like “you’re posting comments too often. Slow down” when I only had one comment to make. If you don’t want my business keep putting up stupid stuff like that.

  • http://ephedrinewheretobuy.com Mike Budd

    Quality my friend, quality!

    I think it’s a very good thing Google is doing right now. When you look at the poor content of some top ranking sites, it’s a pity.
    Of course it’s not fun for people paying SEO companies and for SEO companies themselves, but come on, who thought that would be a sustainable model to provide poor content supported by black hat methods?

    Be smart and respect the intelligence of people: they want quality, what do you have to offer, outside of backlinks?

    Cheers,
    Mike

  • http://how2keepwell.com Trevor

    Re Google regrouping the search section.

    In my opinion Google have been the flag holders on the Internet.
    Almost alone in the Internet action they have spent a great deal of ‘unpaid’ time’ to battle against a massive army of those who spend thousands of hours seeking to ‘Cheat’.
    Compare others of power such as M.S. who charge so much for all they touch.
    They have made for themselves a free access to our PC and hold fast to a monopoly .
    Take Corel charging an enormous sum of money for a product that Google give away freely. Corel then has the audacity to charge for an upgrade a few weeks after selling the product.
    Why dont the media attack these villains of the Internet.
    Our small Natural Health Research Charity is very grateful to Google. Free Blogger for 7 years. A photograph programme free docs. apps maps.Now they have put together a well organised group FREE (for biz-people to use) social networking. When are you journalists going to write-up Google in way that tells us all who benefit from Google just how grateful we are. Tell the majority of IT biz.How to do it.

    To give freely similar marvelous FREE products.
    Trevor Twine CEO Health-Watch

  • http://sepatu-ku.com Lia

    I think all these matters has been lined in Google Site Owner Guide but so far fake linked site still prior. That’s what stressed me lately.

  • http://damescribe.hubpages.com/ Gin

    Some people may view this move as ‘knocking out’, ‘removing’ or ‘cornering the market’ at expense of the competition. I think links should be valued upon the ‘quality’ of traffic that arrives to such site for the available information. Where one hangs their link should be measured for quality.

  • James

    It’s completely unfair that business owners get taken for a ride by so called seo companies who do whatever they want to make money. Then the business gets punished for having bad links which they never created. I imagine G sees it similarly to how the Tax office wont buy the “my accountant told me” rationale. But at least make it possible for web owners to ignore backlinks that they eventually discover as being dodgy. We had the most ethically sounding seo firm ‘work for us’ who created all these blog network links without our knowledge, and we just got one of these WMT letters and now the seo company has vanished. Years of business down the drain. We will never trust anyone who uses the word ‘seo’ again.

  • http://www.insuranceclaimhelp.org Ron

    My daily visitors dropped from 1400 per day to 200 per day during the month of March 2012 and is still in the 200 range. I’m wondering if my website got lumped in with the paid blog network penalized sites?

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom