Old Link Buys Come Back To Haunt You?
Posted 01 February 2010 - 10:35 PM
Has anyone had any experience with this coming back to bite?
Posted 01 February 2010 - 11:01 PM
Posted 01 February 2010 - 11:42 PM
Since most of these transactions are initiated by the buyer - and the seller is often ignorant - I am surprised that the seller is the one who gets slapped.
Posted 02 February 2010 - 09:09 AM
I've always believed that Google should merely ignore any links it believes are paid. And by "ignore" I mean that Google should treat them as if they didn't exist, or had nofollows on them. By ignoring them, they pass no juice, so they don't affect Google's algo. If they don't affect Google's algo, then Google should have no issue with whether or not someone has paid for them.
But for whatever reason, Google has chosen to take the stance of seller-slapping as a way to discourage the existence of the market. Personally, I can't see how this will ever be a good solution, but it is what it is.
Posted 02 February 2010 - 09:42 AM
Of course to defend the integrity of the logic of the PageRank system they must have such a rule in place. However treating them as you suggest, Donna, i.e. ignoring them, would be a much more effective way of handling them.
Posted 02 February 2010 - 11:00 AM
(donna considers leaving this post with just that question and then waiting for someone to say, "yes, yes I do", but then decides that's just mean, so she answers here and now instead)
I think Google doesn't just ignore them because they are completely unable to determine which ones to ignore. i.e. They have no clue which are paid links and which are not. ALGORITHMICALLY, that is.
So instead, they rely on people narc'ing on sites that sell ads, and human "beans" manually slap a pr penalty on the seller. Why? Because it's easy to slap a seller. That's just one click on a "Slap 'Em Silly" button.
But to manually find all the links on all the pages of all the sites that a buyer might have purchased links on would be nigh impossible.
That's right folks. The bot isn't always the brightest bot-bulb in the bunch. (bad metaphor? so? you come up with a better one).
Posted 02 February 2010 - 11:54 AM
LOL! I like that Donna. Mind if I use it?
Edited by goodnewscowboy, 02 February 2010 - 11:54 AM.
Posted 03 February 2010 - 09:31 AM
From this interview: http://www.stuntdubl...01/28/ted-ulle/
Google’s war on paid links that began as far back as 2005 raised quite a ruckus. At first Google’s negative actions were taken manually and then algorithmically. Algorithmic false positives began to confuse things even more, and I wish they would have just stopped with showing false PageRank on the toolbar.
So, according to him, they've gone algorithmic, but I've just not seen the evidence of it. Doesn't mean I'm right, however. Tedster looks at a lot of stuff with a fine-tooth comb, so I always give what he says some credence. In other words, there's at least a definite chance of it, if he says it's so. Worth considering.
Posted 03 February 2010 - 11:11 AM
Whether there is any effect on the true PageRank as taken into account in the Google search algorithms is an entirely different question. In my opinion there is no effect.
Posted 03 February 2010 - 12:54 PM
But that still doesn't address these questions:
1) Are the paid links being noticed algorithmically or manually?
2) In either case, are buyers being affected?
I say manually to the first and no to the second.
Tedster believes it's algorithmically to the first. If so, then my argument that Google can't easily penalize buyers becomes less of a good argument (though it could still hold some water). However, they would still have the problem of not knowing if a competitor bought the links for them or not.
So...I think I can stand fairly firm on saying No to the second question, but the first question is iffy.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users