I think paid links are just dandy! In every other advertising venue, reputation is purchased. Branding campaigns are ubiquitous. It does not take long to spot paper advertisements that have no real call to action; rather, they aim to increase a product or brand's "ranking" in the human mind. This is a what a paid link is to Google. It is the analog of a branding campaign.
I'm not saying I think link networks are cool. I'm saying I see nothing wrong with a live link on a prominently placed advertisement. Google apparently has a problem with that. Remarkably, Google has no problem with doing this as long as they get to sell it. Yes, they announce that it's an advertisement -- but that's their philosophy, not mine.
Since I believe that Google should not try to fight the way advertising has worked throughout time, their villification of paid links and creation of a new "nofollow" attribute is not entirely ideal. It doesn't have any real analog in traditional advertising. Paid links manipulate search engine rankings just as branding campaigns manipulate humans.
Clever humans may identify a paid advertisement as such. However, very few traditional advertising venues go through the rigor of identifying advertisements explicitly -- except, perhaps, where it is legally required. Conversely, some go through trouble to make the identification difficult. They want to sell ads after all! Google should not systematically degrade the value of advertising on web sites. Clever advertising should be encouraged and rewarded.
Google must do this sort of identification just as a clever human would, realistically. If it influences a clever human, it should influence Google. Google, you are clever, no?
I see the imposition of "nofollow" attribute, and threats of devaluation of outbound links a stopgap, unrealistic solution. Link equity, like any other equity, is destined to be sold. Paid links should influence rankings! But Google should try to identify them and devalue them, especially if they are irrelevant or poorly placed. That is what a human would do.
So I disagree with Matt Cutts on this one. Then again, who knows what Matt Cutts really thinks? He's definately at least somewhat tethered by Google with regard to what he says.
Google should not devalue a paid link unless it is determined that nobody actually sees it. It has behavioral data that can help in that regard. I suggest that paid advertising should work like it does in the world. If people click on it, the link should count! That is an analog of traditional advertising.
Google is fighting an uphill battle here on reality. I understand why the idea of a "nofollow" attribute turns Google on, but I don't really endorse it as a means to identify paid links. As long as their is equity in a link, people will want to pay for it. "Nofollow" may make sense as a "disclaimer" to mitigate guestbook and comment spam, but that is all.
The rest, Google, is your problem.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I'm getting your point, although I can see it from Googles purist kind of angle too. I guess their argument is that they are trying to organise the worlds 'information', as in 'content' rather than advertising. But then again advertising is a major producer of content in our modern world, so perhaps it should count...
September 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Don't get me wrong; I'm a Google fanboy through and through. Still, while Google may never admit it, text links are competition to AdWords. In a very basic way, it is money people spend online to advertise their website. If text links work, and Google allows them to work well, then people may conclude that they're better off spending money on them than in AdWords. I'm certain that's not the only motivation, but, considering it from an business angle, it's worth it for them to devalue paid links.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Hi Jaimie,
You are right on the money here. The way I see it is that Google, rather it’s founders have made a simplified assumption about human (webmaster) behavior with their algorithm. What they failed to imagine was how their measurement of website’s value perturbs the system and introduces a measurement error – an Internet equivalent of the Heisenberg Principle if you will. When Google was small in comparison to the Internet, the error was also small and the assumption was justified. With Google generating 75% (or whatever the current number is) of all the incoming traffic on the Internet, they ARE the Internet.
Needless, to say that Google has realized the problem since, but despite the very prevalent public perception about them being Innovative and Good they do not have a technological solution to the problem. Instead, they resorted to modifying human behavior by bullying the webmasters with draconian penalties. They played the Good v. Evil card (backed up by considerable muscle) very well so far and most people choose to self-sensor, so that Google’s algorithm kind of works still.
The fundamental problem is that there probably isn’t a purely algorithmic way (and may never be) to distinguish useful and not so useful websites. In essence what “one link – one vote” assumption was doing was making webmasters into Google’s free editorial stuff. Now Google just tells its free stuff to behave or else. To Google’s dismay people do not like working for free.
The fact of the matter is that with Google and, as a result, link dominance in the Internet fundability, links are the most fundamental commodity on the Internet, so a more accurate assumption now days is “one link – one dollar”. Here is an imaginative village analogy by Ian (second post) to the situation:
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?threadid=7651
On the flip site, I do not think small to medium websites would have been any better off if Google stopped fighting the inevitable link trade. I hope that Google sees their current measures as stopgap too and is going to find a better solution.
It’s time to prove your corporate innovativeness, Google.
-Paul
September 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I'm with Google on this one, imagine the effect otherwise. The sites with strong economic support would get all the visitors, just buying links, thus getting more money to buy even more, and those without economic support would'nt appear anywhere in Google.
In fact is just equivalent to being able to buy PR from Google, which is something they've always avoided. It makes 'em trustworthy, search results should be unbiased.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Incidentally, SEOblackhat has suggested two (that I could find) alternatives to the "one link - one vote" proposition.
using user traffic data as a website valuation (and a way manipulate such an algorithm too...):
http://seoblackhat.com/2006/09/21/why-prettier-sites-will-rank-higher-in-the-serps/
or hiring professional editorial stuff (and that Microsoft may already be doing it):
http://seoblackhat.com/2006/06/14/msn-hiring-people-to-hand-code-serps/
If he is right about Microsoft, way to go Microsoft! Enough of these "what I want has to be free, what I do has to be paid for" arrangements:
http://news.com.com/Google+These+books+are+free/2100-1032_3-6110950.html
I argue instead that "There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_lunch
I suggest a new mantra - Microsoft is the company that does Good, not to mention that Bill Gates IS a business genius.
-Paul
September 26th, 2006 at 3:44 am
I absolutely agree with gabo_uy that if ranking website quality by the number of incoming links was God-given and could not be changed then Google is doing all of us a favor by policing link trade. However, it is not God-given, rather completely created by Google, so they are ultimately responsible for the mess and have to police the Internet if they want even semi-decent search results. Ultimately, it is not an argument for or against Google in my view, rather if the assumption that a link still represents a reliable indicator of website quality rather than a purely monetary value.
I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen that there is monetary interest for Google’s as far as link trade is concerned, but as usual it is being dressed into this "Good v. Evil" argument to deflect the attention from them. As a marketer, I have to choose where to spend my limited resources. I can bet on AdWords (for Google), and/or SEO (white, black, green or yellow hat – ultimately against Google). If SEO (of any kind) was not about manipulating Google’s index to get ahead of the competition, then why do it? Why don’t we just write accurate metatags, including one with self-assigned Page Rank and have Google read that and live in a perfect Utopia of honest self-assessment, after all who knows our websites better then ourselves?..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
The fact is that SEO (including paid links) hits Google twice – once by diverting marketing money away from AdWords, and second time by potentially trashing their index. Unfortunately, no marketer can ignore SEO since despite it’s high risks it promises high rewards. To counteract this pull, in a skilful application of the Divide and Conquer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
Google is smart enough not to fight all of the Internet community at once. Instead they pick on what presents the greatest thereat to their market dominance, dresses it up as Evil and arranges a public punishment of a few offenders, so the remaining vast majority self-sensors.
Why then so many people credit Google with good and altruistic intentions, unlike any other company? IMHO, they are just another large company that is dominant in its market and is looking after the number one. They are, in fact, not that much different from McDonald's, Wallmart, or Microsoft that so many people love to hate. The difference is that Google has promoted itself actively and successfully as "Do no Evil" company from early on. This is their brand and their main strength as a company (not the algorithm). They do not sell PR because it would kill their brand and they know it, not out of their altruistic goodness.
-Paul
September 27th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Google doesn't discourage paid links so long as you use a nofollow tag. I know everyone here already understands this concept, which is why I don't see the point of this entry.
It is the equivalent to putting "paid advertisement" at the bottom of an "advertorial" in a newspaper or magazine. Doesn't it piss you off when you read an article and think to yourself "wow, this seems very one-sided" only to find out later that some company PAID to have that article placed in the publication?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Jaimie, everything you say does hold water, BUT Google has to discourage paid links because their algorithm depends on it and you know it. As simple as that.
If they had some super technology that would analyze the quality of the site without looking at links, then surely they'd use it. I mean why spend money and time on qualifying links?
November 21st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
[...] It means a few things. It validates that text link advertising, much to Google's chagrin, is an ethical approach to advertising. I always believed this. And I seriously doubt a "portfolio company of private equity firm Lake Capital" would purchase something that peddles unethical products. This just adds to the credibility of the link advertising model. MediaWhiz echoes this sentiment: "Adding TLA's recognized expertise in text link advertising is a perfect fit with our strategy of creating one of the broadest platforms of online marketing solutions to meet the diverse needs of our advertisers," noted MediaWhiz co-president Yannick Tessier. [...]