WebProNews

First time I heard of this difference. I don't understand it any better after having read the article. If Google is going to make an issue of one or the other, then there need to be some clear distinct definitions of the differences. I have always been cautious of putting a page with just links.

The Internet was built on link exchange and the http link. Without it, there would be no Internet - period.

What Google's business model did was simply to automate the collection of links with bots and algorithms
and greatly reduce the cost of acquiring links. Instead of human editors whom they would have to pay they were able to use the bots. The key to their system, then, is the integrity of the algorithms. Otherwise, if the quality is reduced, the human edited site can cost effectively compete on a quality basis (that is an old salesman's technique by the way - answer a cost objection with a answer about quality of features and vice versa for an objection about quality).

So every time someone finds a flaw in their algorithm they cry "foul" because they can't figure out how to make their bot produce the same quality of a human editor. They can only make it cheaper. Every flaw discovered, then, causes that divide to be further revealed.

Personally, I think my site fixes that issue. It seems ironic that Google seems bent on shutting down a major source of links for their bots? If they identify certain sites as "spammy" then that page would be pushed down the results page. If not, then they would move up. What Google is doing, though, goes beyond that. It seems more like anti-trust, anti-competition tactics aimed to drive their competition (human edited link directories) out of existence.