WebProNews

If publishres or webmasters still want to monetize their websites, why not to build around a new parameter across the webmaster globe

I think google has a clear stance on this.You can get paid links or you can even sell it but the link has to be 'nofollow' so that the paid links doesn't manipulates the search results in any way.

I am ok, I don't like paying for anything

I predicted there would be carnage on DP, due to directory owners openly networking with their peers to gain a false PR. I had no idea if this prediction would come true, it was just a feeling I had at the time. If you are going to embark on tactics that could be construed as slight iffy, keep below the radar screen.

We have run a reasonably successful directory http://www.ourweddingmemories.co.uk for a number of years now with traffic and advertising building up year on year with many advertisers telling us that they receive more traffic from us than any other search engine or directory.

During November we noticed that the PageRank on all pages had gone from 4 to 0, due I imagine to the Google paid links issue.

The directory does have different categories of listings, both paid and free in return for reciprocal links.

I do understand the reasons for Google penalising sites who sell PageRank as a way of generating more revenue, as Google has invested heavily in this system and sites are simply jumping on the Google bandwagon.

However, we have never gone out and purchased links on any site to improve our own PR and we are very strict on the type of businesses who do advertise with us. Also with the free listings in return for reciprocal links, we have only ever allowed these where the link back is quality and relevant. We have also never gone looking for links. Any links added are as a result of site owners contacting us.

As most of our advertisers do renew annually due to the traffic we deleiver, the loss in PR alone is not of major concern to us. However, there does seem to be a problem in the alogrithms when pages containing free links are penalised the same as the paid pages. They doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the two.

What would concern us more is if the loss of PR directly affected the amount of traffic we receive. At this stage it doesn't look like this is the case. We have seen the usual seasonal drop and will know more come the new year when the traffic builds up once again.

The rel="nofollow" tage has now been added to all advertisments and listings on regional pages and I wonder now whether the PR will once again increase as no PR would be passed to our advertisers?

It really gripes me the way the search engines base verything they do in favor of "the big guys." Us "little guys," the entrepreneurs, don't all have big bucks to spend on PPC and paid links. It seems to me paid links is closer to bribery than it is to actually being of benefit to us small business people. I hate it that I have to compete with stores like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc., who can afford to outbid me on almost every popular keyword. There ought to be a separate internet branch for the mega-stores, and another for us entrepreneurs, who are just trying to supplement our income.

Goo gle pr is a joke.

Because of this pr thing, public believe that it is a quality thing...

Then the public also believe that G ogle's stocks are not overvalued...

PR = Overvalued Stocks = a Joke

What a joke!

While it is true that paid links do increase traffic to commercial sites, I as a commercial webmaster, do not favor their use. HOWEVER, For Google to begin to eliminate those sites that do pay to have their links put on other web sites without increasing the acknowledgement of content over the links a person does have on his site creates a rather difficult catch-22. Google's policy seems to be: have links or don't get to the front of the list. Solve this one Google then eliminate the paid link sites.

Google started the Page Rank Race without much realising the ingenuity of the webmasters. When the race is on, it devises new rules. Paid linking is bad because you cannot buy merit. All said and done, the real issues should be content usefulness, content value, content truthfulness and content completeness. Unless search engines work on these aspects, there is no end to this mania.

Ranking a page based on links is perhaps the worst way to measure search relevancy. Bad sites can get tons of links, awesome sites often go unnoticed. Consider:

1) A horrendous review of a product or site could significantly help a site if the review comes from a reputable site and includes links. I've personally witnessed this for software that received bad reviews from several notable software sites, which were then syndicated to more sites. One even found it's way onto a major news site.

2) You need links to get ranked to get noticed to get more links. Ranking by organic links simply keeps the rich sites rich and the poor sites hidden

The BEST search results will be returned ONLY if the results are based on content, not on a stupid popularity vote. Of course the problem is that it is not currently possible to automate content based ranking that can't be spammed, so the only real answer is a human managed ranking system where every site is ranked and classified when first listed and after major change is noticed.

Well, the truth is Google is an independent business and has every right to take the action it deems.

for real publishers (and I mean the people who produce real content - not scraped) the issue still comes down to relevant results and how they get ranked.

While I will grant Google the right to play the game they want to, the bigger issue to many publishers is how Google Skirts real laws (not Google laws) and makes a massive amount of money on stolen content.

There are hundreds of thousands of sites online that contain nothing more than stolen content from legitimate sites. On the vast majority you can find Google ads being displayed. So you as the publisher email Google, and you get back a form letter requiring you to jump through hoops to have them take action.
Instead of protecting the legitimate owners - Google awards the thieves. Why? most main stream publishers don't run Google ad placements (they pay too cheap). So Google makes it almost impossible to stop the content thieves.

Now the next step and how it relates to page rank etc. Why is it in Googles interest to give real ranking to real publishers with Germaine content that surfers are looking for - when Google can't make money?

There is your answer - Google wants to ensure that it's supposed real rankings always direct to web pages with Google ads on them.

So yes Matt, you are right you can do as you choose, it is a private business. But is Google all about relevant results - obviously not

People that support Google in any way just further the scam. Every link on any Google site is there because Google was paid to place the link there. They just like to make every site conform to their heavy handed rules. They want to own the entire internet and will crush any website they don't agree with.
Google uses threats and intimidation to control an internet that belongs to everyone. We are working on a real search engine not a giant advertising site like Google is. We don't really care what is on a page as long as it is legal.
Google is just a bully and only about greed. We at Ad-Scams pray for the day this scam company tries to sue us. We state openly that GOOGLE STEALS on our site. The only reason they don't sue us is they know we can prove they are thieves.
Why don't you tell your readers the truth that Google Page Rank no longer means anything. You can purchase the number one result for any search term directly from Google if you have the money.
I am very surprised that Web Pro News supports Google's heavy handed tactics. You do not need Google for anything, you have a large group of readers and could continue making as much money supporting a real search engine instead of the paid link system that is Google.
Kevin Hillman
Ad Scams Admin

I think if people want to use paid links to get more traffic from other sites that is just fine. It's their money. But Google should just ignore paid links in their formula of who gets placed where. I can't see being penalized for having paid links and I SURE can't see being rewarded by any search engine for having them either. That's my 2 cents worth.

As a small business web-site owner, AND as an in-house SEO writer for a large company, I frankly am happy that Google is downgrading paid-link sites that pass on link juice. When wearing my small biz hat, I can't afford to buy paid links and it gives bigger companies an advantage I can't yet afford. I think Google is indeed living up to their 'do no evil' company motto by doing this. When wearing my in-house big-biz hat, it's not like you can't have paid links, you just have to designate paid links (advertisements) as such, can't pass on the link juice, and have to actually provide (horror of all horrors) relevant TRAFFIC to the sites that pay. Again, a good thing for the bigger guys. The only people who should be upset are people who are selling links but not providing traffic. When it comes right down to it, traffic is far more important than link juice, even when selling paid links.

That said, I do see the hypocrisy of Google charging people themselves for paid links and yet downgrading their directory members who do the same thing, but even on Google's SERPs, users can tell which links are 'sponsored' and which are not.