SEM Tycoon

**Geiger** · 10-17-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwebuser

Google knows these things. The people who work there are very smart and have programs methods of detecting purchased links .

You should be asking yourself not if Google knows these things but rather, "Why would Google do anything about this?".

As long as the links are not spammy and come from a trusted source, then why would Google hinder these? TLA just takes a premium for being the liason and "Shopping Mall" where you house your links. Personally, if there was a service where we could sell our own links directly just as easily and reliably we probably would.

Google's algorithm is such that it can detect and de-value links and websites that are spammy.

**Geiger** · 10-17-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwebuser

I have never tried TLA but im sure google weighs those links less since they are purchased ...

Why is a purchased link worth less than a free link?

I'm talking more theoretically/ethically, not what is done in practice.

**MonkeyBiz** · 10-17-2006, 03:07 PM

Um google scans the page code and when it sees the words 'sponsored links' it knows that those links were probably purchased for PR and gives less weight to them. A natural link contains no such text.

**Geiger** · 10-17-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwebuser

Um google scans the page code and when it sees the words 'sponsored links' it knows that those links were probably purchased for PR and gives less weight to them. A natural link contains no such text.

Why is an advertised link worth less than a free link? If paid advertisements where worthless than that would kind of nullify AdWords wouldn't it?

In some ways, paid links are worth more. Paid links are extremely well targetted. I would bet a HUGE amount that if Google is looking at paid links differently than free links that they are not hindering in most cases. They most likely look for a ratio of free

aid. If somebody is all "paid" and they have been around a while (ie: out of the sandboxing period) then they are pretty worthless links. However, if they have been around for a while and get a bunch of PR from other free links, then it makes sense to value these paid links.

All in all, trusted sites will only link to trusted sources. So if the site containing the link is trusted then they are trusted for a reason. If a previously trusted site links to shady sites then there is trust lost. Selling text links is then basically an exchange of trust for money. In order for the publishing site to stay well liked, it must gain trust from other sites or be de-valued.

**handsome rob** · 10-19-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geiger

Why is an advertised link worth less than a free link? If paid advertisements where worthless than that would kind of nullify AdWords wouldn't it?

In some ways, paid links are worth more. Paid links are extremely well targetted. I would bet a HUGE amount that if Google is looking at paid links differently than free links that they are not hindering in most cases. They most likely look for a ratio of free

aid.

People are getting the idea that google penalizes sites that buy or sell links in the SERPs. Not the case. Google simply nullifies the transfer of PageRank for purchased links. And although it may piss a lot of us off, it's the smart thing for their business.

1. Google wants the SERPs to be full of the best info...not gamed by the webmaster with the deepest pockets.
2. If you're going to buy traffic, I'm sure the folks at AdWords would be happy to sell you some.
3. If you are trying to buy a text link for PR boost rather than just for incoming traffic from the seller's site, you are trying to game the search engines -- don't get all indignant when they prevent you from doing so.
4. Assume any quick fix to SEO issues (such as link building via TLA) will become void before too long. Look at what happened with reciprocal linking.

**Geiger** · 10-19-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by handsome rob

People are getting the idea that google penalizes sites that buy or sell links in the SERPs. Not the case. Google simply nullifies the transfer of PageRank for purchased links. And although it may piss a lot of us off, it's the smart thing for their business.

1. Google wants the SERPs to be full of the best info...not gamed by the webmaster with the deepest pockets.
2. If you're going to buy traffic, I'm sure the folks at AdWords would be happy to sell you some.
3. If you are trying to buy a text link for PR boost rather than just for incoming traffic from the seller's site, you are trying to game the search engines -- don't get all indignant when they prevent you from doing so.
4. Assume any quick fix to SEO issues (such as link building via TLA) will become void before too long. Look at what happened with reciprocal linking.

You basically made 2 statements.
1. Google sees paid links as worthless.
2. Google has an algorithm for finding paid links.

I disagree with number 1 because Google doesn't see links as free or bought. Google looks at them as organic and artificial. If the links that you provide look artificial or as though they are trying to game the system, Google discounts them. Google does everything with an algorithm with very little human editting.

I disagree with number 2 because there is no need. An algorithm for organic vs. artificial would encompass any need for this.

Keep in mind that any text link from a normal website will need to be around for several months in order to have any effect on Google's SERPs. A one month link is seen to do very little.

**handsome rob** · 10-19-2006, 05:38 PM

I don't see where I made either of the two statements you're referring to...

**Geiger** · 10-20-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by handsome rob

I don't see where I made either of the two statements you're referring to...

Quote:

Originally Posted by handsome rob

...Google simply nullifies the transfer of PageRank for purchased links....

Why would Google nullify the transfer of PageRank from a link? It could only be because, from a search engine perspective, the link is worthless. Therefore (1. Google sees paid links as worthless).

If Google nullifies them then they must have a way of finding them. Seeing as how Google doesn't manually change their results (Do a search for the word "Search" sometime and click "I'm feelling Lucky"), they must have an algorithm for finding them. (2. Google has an algorithm for finding paid links.)

**handsome rob** · 10-23-2006, 11:18 AM

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/text-links-and-pagerank/

But for everyone else, let me talk about why we consider it outside our guidelines to get PageRank via buying links. Google (and pretty much every other major search engine) uses hyperlinks to help determine reputation. Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search. Selling links muddies the quality of link-based reputation and makes it harder for many search engines (not just Google) to return relevant results.

**Geiger** · 10-23-2006, 02:02 PM

Good find and contrary to what I would have thought. However I believe you will find that in the end, it all breaks down to trust and not profit motive.

**handsome rob** · 10-23-2006, 02:58 PM

She is a cruel mistress

**imported_WillB** · 10-23-2006, 03:34 PM

Google was originally named "Back Rub" because it was the first of it's kind to use backlinks as measure of quality. The basic premise is that the more links a site has, the more popular it is because a) more people are talking about it, and b) they obviously like it enough to link to it.

Paying for links totally kills this algorithm, since the links are not genuine referrals, but are only done for money. It's no wonder Google stopped passing on PR from large sites selling links (see thread on DP - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=156544).

Still.. that's not the only point to buying links right? What about traffic!

I've just registered my blog on TLA.. let's see how much I can get for 120+ pages and 300 uniques a day. I'd be happy with $250+ a month (for several links), but TLA takes 50% of that?! That's an enormous cut..

**Geiger** · 10-23-2006, 03:55 PM

I think most people see selling links like a politician who offers cash if you vote for them. Personally I see it like a politician who promises to cut taxes and increase my quality of life both at the same time.

**imported_WillB** · 10-25-2006, 04:18 PM

Bah. TLA rejected my site, telling me to get more backlinks. I suppose they'd offer me a good deal...

**Geiger** · 10-25-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillB

Bah. TLA rejected my site, telling me to get more backlinks. I suppose they'd offer me a good deal...

They are pretty picky about the sites that they accept. I had a site that was rejected several months ago that just got accepted yesterday after more links and higher PR. They kept an eye on it without me having to re-apply.

The only thing that is hard about TLA is the waiting part. The payout, even though I only get half, is a lot more than contextual ads. It's also is a lot more predictable line of income.