Matt Cutts blogged that Google would like you, the average search engine user, to report on sites you feel are displaying links for cash. This created a firestorm of negative responses from the SEO, webmaster, and free speech crowd. Below, I put together what I feel are the top 7 reasons Google's paid link snitch plan sucks. I linked to my inspirations (No payment requested!).
 |
| Worried About Google's Link Snitch Program? |
 |
1. Links are valuable because of the Page Rank display in the Google Toolbar. Matt, if Google doesn't like the way paid links influence search results, then eliminate the scoreboard. It's hard to take your call-to-action seriously when you have the power to grind serious link buying to a halt all by yourself.
If people had to guess a page rank, most of their motivation for buying links would go away. Of course, Google won't eliminate the green bar because that is the number one reason the Google search engine is at the top of most web browsers.
2. Most people that post on Digg, or add articles to Wikipedia, or work as editors at DMOZ also send paid link reports to Google to benefit themselves in some way. My point: Anyone taking the time to send complaints to Google about a paid link that hurts no one and may even be relevant, probably has unseen motivations.
One of the problems is that there is no other motivation I can see to report a paid link than to help Google out. It's not like paid links irritate the end user like poor search results do. Therefore, the detection these reports offer will be of no value to Google.
3. It's impossible to define a paid link exactly. Paying cash is obviously what you meant, but is that any different than a link to a client or to a buddy who helped you submit your site to 1,000 free web directories?
If I'm right with that assumption, then it's really about determining motivation. Humans cannot determine motivations any better than the Google algorithm. It's a virtual coin toss!
4. Payment can be proven only by following the money trail. Otherwise, it is simply a case of 'he said, she said.' This creates a heavy burden on Google to be correct in their assumptions.
5. Marketing Pilgrim's Andy Beal asks: "What business does Google have in dictating the disclosure of any business relationships on others?"
Google, you are just a search engine. You should be reacting to the internet world, not trying to recreate it in your own image. Links are not evil and payment for links is not evil. The Web is based on links, link-trading and advertising, which of course is payment for links.
6. The hypocrisy of being in the business of selling links and then asking others not to sell them is a bit much for many webmasters.
7. Is this just a way to create more spending for Google AdWords? Stopping the selling of links will make AdWords one of the last ways to generate traffic from Google. If the link police can slow this to a crawl, then what will businesses do?
They'll buy AdWords!
What Do You Think About Paid Links?Will Personal Search Turn SEO On Its Ear?Retailers Panic Over Google Site SearchYahoo Patent Filing Sheds Light On PageRank The SEO Playbook (Welcome to the Rabbit Hole)Cutts, Sullivan Weigh In On Paid LinksIs Google Hitting Directory Links? Google Answers Some Tricky QuestionsSEO Step Five of Ten: Link BuildingWhat Google’s Matt Cutts Sees In 2009
     |
RSS
Home
Newsletter
Advertising
Comments
Paid links
Hi,
For the most part, I don't think a visitor can normally tell a paid link from a nonpaid one. Which does raise a moral problem - we expect political office holders to disclose, don't we? Same thing, vested interest and all that, that goes with that.
Don't believe me?
Ever been to hair loss website, or a hemorrhoid treatment review website, that claims to do a review and come up with the best product? The best product in many cases seems to be the one that pays the highest kickback, and these type of websites are all about product talk rather than information talk: They may tell you what a hemorrhoid is, or define hair loss, but then they say buy this to fix the problem.
So that's issue 1, the vested interests of the webmaster over the visitor.
But, lets get real, if Google wants the PR not interfered with by paid links, they have just as much right as anyone else to ask for help in detecting them.
Like anyone asking for help, there is no law that states you have to help, but if you like the guy - the search engine in this case - then you are more likely to help I think.
I don't think there is a wrong or right in someone deciding to help google out, that's an individual decision. So that's issue 2, freedom to request help, freedom to give help.
Most people who get mad at this sort of thing, I think, are the ones into black hat SEO, and want their or their customer sites high in Google without getting them there the Google way.
See the point - they want to rank high in Google serps, but they don't want to follow the rules of the club. What happens when a club member doesn't follow club rules - they get kicked out or severely cautioned. So that's issue 3, If you want to join in the club activities regularly, join the club, follow the rules.
For those 3 issues, well, I come down on the side of Google in this case.
Consideration
SEO and paid links are about connections in alot of ways. The guys who have money and can afford paid links and have access to the kinds of paid links that are going to matter and evaluate as trusted are doing well. The paid snitch program is a way to keep other businesses happy.
Asking Yahoo to Help
Half of the issue is the siteexplorer in Yahoo.com. If Yahoo removed the ability to check backmining in their search engine, backlinks to websites would be transparent and there would be less link selling / buying.
thanks for your article.
thanks
thanks
Google
Google wants to be a monopoly of the internet
You said, that no one likes
You said, that no one likes this idea, were we reading the same blog?
Great list....
i would have to agree with you. But, it is not so much that they allow people to rat out other people it is that they seem to depend on that to find links that you would think they would be able to find on their own. But, you are absolutely correct when you say that people will abuse this feature for their own gain. One would think that Google is smart enough to understand this and put in safe guards against abuses such as you outline. You would think....
Quality
The algos can take care of most of this.
Do a search for any city or town in the USA, and the results are pure garbage - nothing but 5,000 page sites with virtually no information once you get there.
.....but, they have plenty of Adsense ads.
The negative part of the Adwords/Adsense ads is that it bloated the creation of garbage websites exponentially.
It's a monopoly
What can I say? Google's been letting it get to their heads in this monopoly. Stay true to our right to freedom of speech is what I say. Good post, sir. Good post.
If google wants to discard
If google wants to discard paid links, that's fine. But to eliminate and demote the website is a bit extreme
The whole buying and selling
The whole buying and selling of links is done to manipulate the search results. AdWords is powered by Javascript and has no effect on search engine results.
wow
Thats is a pretty crazy idea. Asking the same people that buy and sell links to report people buying and selling links?
Relevance
What is the relevance of this in regards to the old standbys: JoeAnt, BOTW etc. In another article here on webpro, getting a good link foundation by using these moderately priced directories is mentioned as a key implementation process before getting large quanitites of lower quality links.
Depends on the link
I think that as long as you are not selling the link based on Pagerank, but your selling the link/banner whatever because you are a content related site and need advertising money, I don't any problem with that.
Google getting too big for their boots
Agreed - things at Google seem to be going in the wrong direction if they want to maintain user trust and admiration.
I see a backlash brewing against Google. They are getting a little too big and arbitrary.
Tanzanite
Lousy program
I think the program is lousy. It pretty much forces owners to snitch on other owners, when the real issue with the mechanics of the operating algorithm of Google.com itself.
Guitarstatic.com
Thanks for the article. I hate the way one search engine controls everything.
http://www.guitarstatic.com - Free guitar lessons and videos
Thumbs up to the Program
I think the program is great actually. It forces owners to have to look at their own standards and write quality information that makes sense for their website as opposed to simply gobbling up links to get rankings and then providing crappy content. With this in place, owners know there is the chance that other webmasters could report them, so they consider more carefully what they do. It is not different than Counterattack or The Paid Snitch programs that the police use, which work.
Google is just protecting
Google is just protecting itself. Paid links could be a business model that would actually compete with Google in a big way. If they squash this possibility before a competent potential competitor is able to implement that business model successfully , they have effectively nipped the problem in the bud. This is Google squash in action.
Well Written
Great article
nice article
very good article, thanks
Scare Tactic
I agree with the "SEE THROUGH THE SMOKESCREEN" comment.
This could be just a scare tactic. I would think the manpower needed to track and penalize even a small majority of paid link sites would be monumental. Because Google cannot afford to abolish their link weight measurement completely, I think we're all pretty safe as long as we do not 'over utilize' paid links.
'The best links are the ones you need to pick up the phone to get' - ahh if only we were back to that.
The Fence Sitter
I was originally going to comment on the post - but, as it stands, the comments compel me comment.
I remember the first day someone told me to Google it. It was a person I trusted, we had been through a lot together: Macintosh II, Duke Nukem over dial up, windows 95 boot disks, the works. I was getting frustrated searching for a file for flashing my bios - i think I was using metacrawler way back in the day. Anyways, I 'Googled it." I couldnt believe what I as seeing - the site in #1 had exactly what I needed - I was instantly converted!
Fast forward. Enter spam. Enter pop ups. Enter SEO.
Let's face it, as much as Google screws things up (their intent notwithstanding), user content and manipulation has made the search engine what it is, and what is isn't. My point?
My point is that there are those who are of the opinion that Google is a SE and does not guarantee anything to anyone - and, some argue, the fact that Google has such a large market share due to their (initially) efficient engine and market savvy, then we really have no right to complain on any changes that they make, especially when we argue only because it is getting in the way of us, as SEO's, making money. Then there are those who argue that Google wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for us, the surfer, the user, the content and spirit.
Both opinions are correct - there is no right and wrong, the relationship is a perfect example of symbiosis. One problem - one side seems to have all the control. So, for the comments, while I do not particularly like the changes that Google makes (for examples, simply read through WPN archives), I still cannot cry oppression - Google is a tool, and I use that tool to make money! Google never asked me to partner with them. Google never guaranteed me anything. At best, I have manipulated Google in order to make money. If that weren't true, I would simply type up a nice website, add lots of cool flash, upload and *hope* lots of people came.
================================================
Now, I must submit - when Google starts asking people to fink out on paid linkage, this does really get my goat. I'll have to do more research to have a real opinion on this. To me, paid linkage is another way of taking advantage of the Google algorithms, and in that sense, Google has a right to change their algorothms when they see fit - but crossing the line and looking for finkers is downright 'nasty' and reeks of underhandedness and sneak tactics. If this is indeed true, I may stop posting fence sitting comments altogether and join the Force.
Great post, great comments.
Great article
Great article. Look forward to reading more from you.
intersting
interesting viewpoint on a very topical subject.
Excellent points you've
Excellent points you've mentioned. Google definitely loves money..
WSOP 2008
You raise some good points Rich will be interesting to see how this develops relations between google and paid advertising
Paid Links Sucks
Very Good articles.
Vb Interview Questions
Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds
Google needs to establish rulesets like this so that it conveys an image of having control over its own ranking system.
The fact is, it is unlikely paid link reports get very far.
Post new comment