I've been having an off the record chat with a few people, and one of them has made some interesting points. The first good point is one Google themselves admit, even state - that is that the guidelines are only guidelines, not mandates. First paragraph of the page

Even if you choose not to implement any of these suggestions, we strongly encourage you to pay very close attention to the "Quality Guidelines," which outline some of the illicit practices that may lead to a site being removed entirely from the Google index or otherwise penalized. If a site has been penalized, it may no longer show up in results on Google.com or on any of Google's partner sites.

Other objections that have been raised

• Have other relevant sites link to yours. You shouldn't have any link schemes, right?
• Make pages for users, not for search engines. [Also] Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. [snip] Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
  • Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images. Fonts are prettier in graphics than in text. The main reason people use text links is for SEO, right?
  • If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few. This seems 100 % for search engines and ranking benefit?
  • Allow search bots to crawl your sites without session IDs or arguments that track their path through the site. These techniques are useful for tracking individual user behavior, but the access pattern of bots is entirely different. Using these techniques may result in incomplete indexing of your site, as bots may not be able to eliminate URLs that look different but actually point to the same page. Not only is this something you'd only do for the search engines, but it could even be seen as cloaking?
  • Make use of the robots.txt file on your web server. No one does this for human visitors.
  • 301 redirects & cannonilization. Again I don't much care whether someone uses my site with www or without. It should really be whatever they feel most comfortable with. This one isn't explicit in the guideline, but we all do it only for SEO purposes, and it avoid the duplicate content they mention.

Now personally I see all this as mostly cat and mouse, reacting to new tricks as they spring up. But a lot of other people see things differently. I wonder what everyone thinks about these points, and then in a larger sense about Google itself?

Google is a vast improvement to how search engines worked in the past with meta tags, keywords, and various unrelated search results. I think Google requiring that sites appeal to the visitor and not the search engines is how it works so well. But of course, they need to show what works and what doesn't for SEO, because having your site crawled by Google is important. But users care about useful sites, and Google cares about keeping its users happy. The trick is making your site appeal to both visitor and search engine. Which is why there are SEO people now, and there wasn't 7 years ago before Google was big.

nikinicole, one thing I want to comment on that you mentioned is "Google requiring" I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it this way, but I don't see where Google has to right to require any of us to do anything the same way we don't have any right to require Google to do anything for us.

John my take on the guidelines is they are guidelines and nothing more. It's important to keep in mind that Google is a business and their guidelines are what they would like you to do and not necessarily what you should do.

You should read the guidelines and know that if you go against any of them Google probably won't like that, but still it's your decision. How you run your business is up to you and not Google.

For example the recent discussion about selling links. In many cases those links are just ads and not in any way sold for the manipulation of PR. Google is making it clear they don't want people selling links, but if you make a living selling advertising that also includes links should you stop because Google wants you to?

Read the guidelines and understand them as best you can, but in the end make the decision that works best for you and your business. Sometimes that might be to go against the guidelines. For some reason people have begin to believe that Google's guidelines are the laws of the internet. They're not. They're just some guidelines to let you know what Google wants you to do.

Originally Posted by vangogh

For example the recent discussion about selling links. In many cases those links are just ads and not in any way sold for the manipulation of PR. Google is making it clear they don't want people selling links, but if you make a living selling advertising that also includes links should you stop because Google wants you to?

Ack!!

1. Google doesn't want you to stop selling links. They'd like it no doubt to be the middleman for all advertising on the net, but they have no place to even suggest that. It's kind of like I would love to see Bush impeached, but it'll never happen and I can't even pretend to have authority to suggest it.
2. What Google does want, and "demand" or suggest as a condition of being indexed, is that you rel=nofollow the links, or use script to generate them.
   1. If the links are just legitimate ads and not for manipulation of PR, there's no reason this is objectionable.

I actually agree that parts of the guidelines are vague and ambiguous, especially the "don't do anything only for search engine benefit". That's actually a good overriding goal, but it's true no one would use headings and redirects if it wasn't for search engine ranking power. But it's not true at all that Google is telling people not to sell links.

What should anyone have to add rel=nofollow just for Google's sake? There's certainly no added benefit for for your users.

True the Google stance is they don't want you selling links that pass PR and not necessarily links in general. My bad for not making that clear, but adding a nofollow does go against there own guidelines in the sense that it would be done only for search engines.

And while it's one thing to do better if you follow a guideline this one does require you to follow it or you could end up in the penalty box. However lets not get into a discussion specifically about buying and selling links since the thread is more about the guidelines in general.

I chose that as an example simply because it was the first one I thought of where your own business interest could conceivably conflict with how Google wants you to operate.

Instead how about the idea that many things that Google would advise you not to do will still work in the other search engines. It's possible for example that ignoring Google means good rankings and traffic in Yahoo and MSN. It's also possible that more of your target audience could use Yahoo or MSN so that going against Google could lead to more targeted traffic to your site.

Steve, I know you're one of the more mature people here, and I don't mean in terms of your years. So I'm sure you can tell that disagreeing with a person's ideas doesn't necessarily reflect at all on your opinion of them. Hopefully you'll keep that in mind and not feel like you're being attacked, because I do have to disagree with the reasoning here.

Originally Posted by vangogh

What should anyone have to add rel=nofollow just for Google's sake? There's certainly no added benefit for for your users.

I've seen this on DP a few times. The argument goes that there's no good reason site owners should be forced in slave-like conditions to add a rel attribute to the link they're selling, only to help Google improve the quality of their (free) search engine. There's some truth to this, but it's so minor that I would compare it to my dissatisfaction at not having a flying car like The Jetsons.

CDB. It's a cost of doing business. The same argument could be made that a car dealer shouldn't have to pay tax on the cars they sell, even if those taxes go in part to maintaining the roads their clients use the cars on. Or, one could ask why are webmasters forced into creating an href attribute for their links? This is potentially more labor intensive than setting rel=nofollow, for with href you need to look up, copy and then paste the URL.

Nobody has used the notion that the labor of typing <a href=""> is what they're taking the money for when selling (servicing?) links. For that reason I can't take the 3 seconds coerced labor of nofollow argument seriously.

Finally, that Google sends valuable but free traffic in exchange for compliance with it's guidelines to me seems like implicit payment for that 3 seconds of labor marking the link sales.

Now that I've gone off the rails with capitalism and social contract theory on why it's reasonable to expect full disclosure from people who, to the general public, might have some conflict of interest in broadcasting information and also selling links (which could be construed as endorsements), I'm interested to know if there's an argument as to why web sites shouldn't use nofollow?

Originally Posted by vangogh

adding a nofollow does go against there own guidelines in the sense that it would be done only for search engines.

Generally this is true. I'm running a plugin that makes nofollow links strikethrough font, so for me, it's interesting to see which ones the site owner intends to pass juice through and which they don't. It doesn't cross out javascript generated links, though, so when I'm reading news and politics blogs, it only goes so far. But I saw a Fred Thompson ad on a liberal blog, and then stopped reading to look at whether this was ironically bad advertising, or if I should change my opinion of the author and the validity of the facts presented.

But in agreement, I'll do you one better. Meta descriptions are of zero use to people users, but everyone seems to love them in SEO. I bet the same is mostly true of <p> instead of <br> tags following the end of a clump of text? Text links instead of graphics we make the user suffer Times New Roman when they could have groovy shadows and tye die styling in a gif file.

Originally Posted by vangogh

And while it's one thing to do better if you follow a guideline this one does require you to follow it or you could end up in the penalty box.

Again I'm going to have to disagree, this time on semantic reasons.

You can't get into the penalty box unless you strap on the skates and play hockey.

There are hundreds of people on this very site who I don't give any free traffic to. No one would say I'm punishing them. Maybe that isn't a fair comparison in that I don't run a web service that has the side effect of sending massive traffic to web sites, like Google does. But if we follow that line of reasoning, it leads to Google traffic is an entitlement. Which means they're really like a public utility in a lot of ways, and need to be subject to government regulation, ideally with an elected (by the general public) overseer. Perhaps we even need to set up a system to mirror unemployment insurance, so that when sites find themselves in that penalty box unfairly, they have a stream of traffic to get them back on their feet?

Personally I think there's a certain "at will" thing going on. Google has the right to list or not list me for any reason, including they feel like it, or they don't like my name. I have the right to follow their guidelines or not to. I even have the right to ban their spiders from my site so they won't even know what my content is or have access to it with their search. Further, I have the right to use Google or to use Yahoo and Lycos instead if I choose to. I even have the right to click on the #2 search result instead of #1.

All of this is why I don't think Google having guidelines for inclusion doesn't amount to either abuse of monopoly power or coercion.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Instead how about the idea that many things that Google would advise you not to do will still work in the other search engines. It's possible for example that ignoring Google means good rankings and traffic in Yahoo and MSN. It's also possible that more of your target audience could use Yahoo or MSN so that going against Google could lead to more targeted traffic to your site.

This is an interesting idea, but one I've never heard before. Could you elaborate? What are some of the things that would hurt your Yahoo ranking by following Google's guidelines? I'm not trying to imply they don't exist, but I can't consider this point until I understand it.

I'm getting really sick and tired of the "Google doesn't want you to sell links" prevailing SEO wisdom, and the whole argument that rel="nofollow" doesn't benefit users in any way. It's silly, and it's wrong.

rel="nofollow" can benefit users, if implemented correctly. Let's use advertising as an example, since it's the largest example and the one most conveniently ignored by those who should know better. An advertiser is still a user, in the sense that the advertiser is using the site to draw traffic to his/her site. Makes sense? Absolutely. Let's move on.

What is one of the most important statistics an advertiser should consider? The amount of traffic that an ad generates; traffic which, in turn, leads to sales. If rel="nofollow" isn't used (or any other nofollow directive), then obedient bots (not just Google) will happily crawl the link and the advertiser will show one more referral in his/her site stats.

But will that advertiser actually draw benefit from that referral? Not from a measurable profit standpoint. All the advertiser saw was a bot sucking traffic without knowing it. Since site stats aren't all created equal, and since some (AWStats) tend to be better at bot detection than others (LiveStats), then the advertiser sees falsely inflated traffic levels, and the user experience for the advertiser is lessened.

Not only that, if the publisher has any form of ad tracking/stats of his/her own enabled (CGI redirect script, for example), then these can be falsely inflated again.

So there's where nofollow can be useful. Personally, I'd like to see another attribute as well for advertisers and have long been an advocate of such, but in the absence of such, nofollow "will do for now". It won't get all the bots (some are just a-hole bots no matter what) but it will get some.

Not only that, there are cases where rel="nofollow" can be useful to the webmaster as a user. Say, for example, a webmaster wants to link to something unethical to make a point about how unethical it is. The webmaster should have some attribute to indicate to search engines that such a link is unethical and that it's being provided for academic purposes only. Again, in the absence of anything else, nofollow "will do for now."

As far as the argument about "mom and pop selling ads on a site not caring about Google", any so-called mom and pop with any level of traffic that would benefit an advertiser in the first place will generally have at least some level of traffic from Google (and/or other search engines). At some point, they'll likely have stumbled upon an SEO site in some form or fashion, and will be able to gain at least low-level knowledge of how search engines operate. So the "poor mom and pop getting penalized by Google for not knowing any better" argument doesn't hold water. That Scottish graphic designer from about a month ago found that out in a big hurry.

The bigger issue isn't whether Google is being fair to webmasters, but how much webmasters can reasonably expect from Google since webmasters aren't the primary users.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Not only that, there are cases where rel="nofollow" can be useful to the webmaster as a user. Say, for example, a webmaster wants to link to something unethical to make a point about how unethical it is. The webmaster should have some attribute to indicate to search engines that such a link is unethical and that it's being provided for academic purposes only. Again, in the absence of anything else, nofollow "will do for now."

Sites that link with anyone thinking it will bring up their ranking deserve to be slapped by Google. A "Link Type" attribute would be an excellent protection for sites with seemingly irrelevant links. Stupid example: car dealership in Germany sells duty free cars to foreign visitors driving the cars out of the EU. To help travelers to his dealership he has links to travel agencies, hotels, night-clubs, airlines etc.. To the casual observer it may appear he is linking up with anyone whereas he has legitimate reason for linking to all these sites. Having the "Link Type" attribute would clear up which links he wants Google to follow.

Sorry, but there's a complete shift in paradigm going on with how Google is handling this.

Google has every right not to count a link they believe is there to manipulate their algorithm. The way the guidelines should work is if you understand them and apply them your pages will rank better in Google. Not necessarily #1, but better than they would if you didn't follow the guidelines.

That benefits people who take the time to learn how Google wants you to do things, but it doesn't punish someone who doesn't know.

The majority of sites online have no clue that any Google guidelines exist.

Requiring a nofollow punishes those people.

John not everyone types out the code. Most people don't. Many people use a content management system that inserts all the code for them. I doubt the average blogger would even know where to look to add a nofollow.

nofollow was also meant as an indication that you don't trust the site on the other side of the link. You can accept payment for a link and still trust the site.

Most of you like to say how useless PR is. If it's so useless why does Google care if a site sells links based on PR? Why doesn't Google just remove the toolbar PR completely. That would stop the problem pretty fast wouldn't it? You can't buy a link based on PR if you have no idea what the PR is.

Many of the sites that Google applied the PR drop already have it back because Google mistakenly decided they sell links when they didn't. Nothing that went on recently was an algorithm change. It was Google manually changing the visible PR through the toolbar.

John you were talking in the capitalism thread about monopolies abusing their power. That's pretty much what Google just did. They're using strong arm tactics to tell people what they can and can't do. If Google can detect links like they say they can then discount the links.

The problem is Google can't discover most paid links. They created a problem for themselves and are now bullying webmasters into fixing their problem.

You can't ever detect if two people call each other on the phone and brokers a deal for a link. That's where link buying and selling will move. It won't go away.

There's a big difference in saying if someone actively does something they should suffer a penalty. It's another to say the default is the penalty and you need to actively do something to avoid that penalty.

If you're hiding links and text or keyword stuffing your pages then you actively did something to manipulate the ranking. Give that person a penalty. If you don't add a nofollow to a link you're not actively doing anything. You don't deserve a penalty for leaving the default.

Dave why should a site that builds links be slapped by Google? Building links into your pages will help your pages rank better.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Dave why should a site that builds links be slapped by Google? Building links into your pages will help your pages rank better.

JUST BECAUSE VAN GOGH... THAT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH!!!

Sorry... I meant indiscriminate backlinking - finding hundreds or even thousands of links, whether relevant or not, assuming it will somehow bring your site up in the rankings...the kind of thing that goes on all day long in the deep dark depths of irrelevancy...

Certainly adding appropriate links would be appropriate...under appropriate circumstances. I hope my remarks are appropriate.

They sound appropriate, if it's appropriate for me to say so

Google's guidelines do seem a bit contradictory when you show them as just just have LN. I guess Google is simply trying to say the general rule is design for users, not search engines, but you can also optimize for search engines as long as this doesn't damage the user experience. They then just mention a few basic SEO rules for newbies.

Originally Posted by vangogh

That benefits people who take the time to learn how Google wants you to do things, but it doesn't punish someone who doesn't know.

I still don't think punishment is a fair way to describe the situation. I know "Indian Giver" isn't a very PC term, but I don't think giving somebody something for free and then not doing that anymore because you don't like something they did, it's cause and effect, but I don't think it's punishment. For example, I gave Barak Obama $50 months ago. Then he started talking about how he'll invade Pakistan and Iran and basically any country but Iraq, and I could afford to again, but I won't. Am I punishing Obama? I don't think so, but I'm definitely not supporting him anymore, either.

Originally Posted by vangogh

The majority of sites online have no clue that any Google guidelines exist.

Requiring a nofollow punishes those people.

There's a big difference in saying if someone actively does something they should suffer a penalty. It's another to say the default is the penalty and you need to actively do something to avoid that penalty.

If you're hiding links and text or keyword stuffing your pages then you actively did something to manipulate the ranking. Give that person a penalty. If you don't add a nofollow to a link you're not actively doing anything. You don't deserve a penalty for leaving the default.

In law, there are crimes of commission, and crimes of omission. If a doctor drives by a crash and doesn't stop, they're guilty of a crime. (Assuming circumstances.) If a parent sees their child drowning at the beach and doesn't try to help, they've broken the law, even though they've done nothing. Because they've done nothing.

There are times when morality and law requires action. This may or may not be one of them, that's open to debate. But the model that allows for situations where a person can be punished for not actively doing anything has served us well as a social contract since the Magna Carta. In Mideavil England, a popular way to punish people (after the rack) was to pour boiling wax into a hat fastened to the person's head. I'm personally of the opinion that not giving a person they feel entitled to just because they got it free before isn't punishment, and in a broader sense isn't unreasonable.

Still this line of reasoning has more credibility than the free labor of adding nofollow. I absolutely believe that most web sites aren't run by a person who has ever heard of the Guidelines. But are these the ones selling links? Gut hunch tells me these people mostly don't know that's an option, and don't have the traffic for a visitor to bring that up with them.

I don't wanna sound cold or mean, but selling links is a business decision, like selling anything else. And that means due diligence is required. Everyone thinks it's fair game to let companies be punished by market forces or circumstance for not doing due diligence. If I accept a low salary because I didn't check all my options, I can't say my employer is punishing me. If I buy the first iPhone on my block and then they lower the price after a couple months, that's not Apple punishing me. That's me taking a risk, being pleased at the outcome for a while, and then not liking it.

Originally Posted by vangogh

John you were talking in the capitalism thread about monopolies abusing their power. That's pretty much what Google just did. They're using strong arm tactics to tell people what they can and can't do. If Google can detect links like they say they can then discount the links.

I do still think capitalism naturally leads to an end point of monopolies and a consolidation of virtually all the power in a small number of hands. I'll give you that Google has more market share than all other search engines combined. That may technically be a monopoly, it may not, I'm not sure the legal definition?

But to me there's a clear distinction. I just don't see the detriment to society. I don't even see them acting in bad faith. Now I know less about SEO than anybody else in the room, and I'm open to being proved wrong. But applying general life to this particular situation, whether Google has started doing evil, I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by whym

Google's guidelines do seem a bit contradictory when you show them as just just have LN.

To be fair, this was Steven's point. In another thread, he pointed out that Google's guidelines are contradictory and gave an example or two. He is right, I don't know exactly what that means or where it leaves things, but luckily through debate my friends are helping me figure it out.

John I understand what you're saying about omission. I'll always hold to the idea that Google is a business and they have every right to do with their business just as I have every right to do with mine as I see fit.

Given the above I have to fight my way out of my own argument since I've just granted Google the right to do what I'm saying they shouldn't

I have a view about search results where if you take the time to understand how search engines work and build a friendly site and optimize things reasonably your pages should rank better. Better not because you manipulate things, but because you took the time to follow Google's advice about how they say your pages will rank better.

I also take the view that Google (or any search engine) should make some of it's decisions with the non seo savvy person in mind. Granted they don't have to, but I think if they want me to behave they should too. So I think when some actively tries to manipulate search results Google can and should prevent them from doing so. But I don't think Google should toss the baby out with the bathwater so to speak by requiring the average site owner to do something to avoid the same fate.

It's one thing to make someone responsible for not stepping in to help prevent a crime when they could easily do so. But here there is no crime being committed. I hope we can all agree that Google's guidelines are not laws of any kind so not following them isn't committing a crime.

But there are reasons why someone might not get involved in preventing a crime. It's hard to hold it against someone who doesn't rush to fight an armed robber to prevent a hold up. I think we'd all agree you shouldn't be required to risk your life to prevent a mugging.

In the case of Google and nofollow not knowing is a valid reason. There's no reason why most people should know there is such a thing as rel="nofollow" Should they be punished for not wanting to learn all they can about webmastering or seo. For many businesses the smart thing is to buy a content management system and let it take care of the code.

The idea behind nofollow was to prevent spam on blogs. Quite honestly it wasn't a well thought out idea because comment spammers weren't in it for the link juice. If anything that was secondary. Comment spammers know that people will click on the links in their comments as spammy as they are. They automate submission to thousands or millions of blogs and guest books and are aware that most of the comments will never make it through. Enough will to justify the time it took to send the comments, which is minimal.

nofollow was meant to say 'Hey, I didn't add this link and won't vouch for it. It may not be trustworthy so please don't penalize me for that link.'

Little by little Google started to change that. They decided it should instead be used to tell them when you were linking to something because you were paid to link to it.

Let's say I sell links on my site. I have them all in the sidebar with a heading saying sponsored links. I don't just link to anyone. I hand pick the people who want a link and only accept payment from sites I trust and think my audience will like. Why should I add a nofollow saying I don't trust the link? Isn't that link still a vote for another site on my part?

I agree that people sell links as a business decision. Part of that business decision is to sell what the market wants and like it or not there are some markets that want links that pass PR. Now I grant Google is within its rights to prevent those links from manipulating their results. But not all people selling links are catering to the PR market. Google has shown in the past they are willing to hurt a dozen businesses to prevent on case of spam. I disagree with that philosophy. I think it's better to let one spammer through to protect the innocent.

However Google can really do both. The easiest way to stop link sales base on PR is to stop showing PR. If you couldn't tell what the PR of a site was it kills the market for buying PR based links pretty quickly.

Another idea is for Google to discount links they determine are being bought and sold for PR. Of course the problem is they can't detect them as well as they want you to believe.

If you look at what Google did last week they chose a handful of sites that are very visible in the marketing community as well as some other high profile sites and manually reduced their visible PR in the toolbar. From all reports nothing changed behind the scenes. No one lost traffic or rank.

The move by Google was designed to scare people into thinking they would lose both and to then add the nofollow to the links. Consider too that Google dropped the PR of sites that have never sold links and later reinstated that PR. Isn't that more likely to scare you than if they only punished sites that were clearly engaging in link selling?

What's ultimately going on is Google created a system for ranking based very much on links. But they can't really figure out which links they should and shouldn't trust. That's their problem not the problem of webmasters. If Google wants not to trust some links that's up to them, but they shouldn't be asking us to tell them which links not to trust. It's not our responsibility to fix the problem in their algorithm.

I don't appreciate the FUD campaign and I think Google is using bullying tactics of late. I'm not sure what the definition of a monopoly is either, but I do think Google is well aware of their marketshare and knows many people rely on Google traffic for their business.

Now relying that much on Google's traffic is a stupid. If your business model is based on the actions of single business that isn't yours, you don't have a solid business model. But Google knows that's the case with many people and they spread the fear of do what I say or we'll take your traffic away.

That bothers me, particularly when there are other solutions to the problem. In the end Google won't stop people from buying and selling links. People did it years before Google and they will do it years after Google. Those that are doing it for manipulative reasons will simply move under ground making it harder for Google to detect. No one wins. except the people Google claims to be trying to stop.

Now I realize Google isn't telling anyone they can't sell links, but in part that's what will happen if they punish sites that do sell them. Ask yourself who is the biggest seller of links on the web. The answer is Google. They sell more links than anyone else and all those other sites selling links aren't sharing the profits from those sales with Google. If people can't buy advertising as readily form average sites where might they turn to buy their advertising?

Is any of that above paragraph true? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don't have any proof of that conspiracy theory I just launched, but think about it in regards to this situation a little. I don't have proof for the above, but none of it is so out of the realm of possibility.

What happens if Google removes toolbar PR? They end link buying for PR. But most people still buy and sell advertising like they always have. What happens if Google spreads fear about selling any kind of link including advertising? There's a lot less competition for Google to sell their advertising.

Is this real the rules are nuts and bonkers when does anyone make a page just for search engines content is amed at your visitors!

The reason people use text links is for seo? nuts! thats how people link to your site.

This must be a joke on googles part right?

Barry...dude...you haven't been doing web design very long, have you?

There are millions, and I mean millions of cases of pages built specifically for search engines. Remember back in the mid-90s when people built keyword-stuffed doorway/landing pages? Or when people started setting up link pages so that they could find link exchange partners for ranking purposes? Or...(insert silly trick here)?

And people also use text links to describe something that they're linking to, for reasons that have nothing to do with SEO whatsoever, because the link happens to be topically relevant to the page.

(By the way, that's somewhat contradictory, Barry. In order to use a text link for SEO, you have to build your page at least partly with SEO in mind.)

I'm not sure whose Kool-Aid you've been drinking there, but you might want to stop sipping from the glass. Wherever you got your information, it's messed up.

Steven, as far as your points are concerned...dude, you're way smarter than that. Come on, seriously.

Let's say I sell links on my site. I have them all in the sidebar with a heading saying sponsored links. I don't just link to anyone. I hand pick the people who want a link and only accept payment from sites I trust and think my audience will like. Why should I add a nofollow saying I don't trust the link? Isn't that link still a vote for another site on my part?

No, it's not, and it never was. Does anyone here remember the original argument that floated around about paid links being factored in? Hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of comments along the lines of "Google will sell its results to the highest bidder". Do you remember that? I know I do. Hell, I might have even made the remark a time or two myself (and if I did, I would stand by it.)

Think of this from a different angle. It's 1:00 in the morning. FOX is about to air a program-length advertisement for a Ronco product. What's the first thing that appears on the screen? A disclaimer to the effect that "this station does not endorse the use of its product and assumes no responsibility for anyone..." blah blah blah yadda yadda. In other words, the payment for airtime does not represent an endorsement of the content on FOX's behalf.

Paid links operate under the same logic. If a link were worth giving, then it would be worth giving for free.

Another idea is for Google to discount links they determine are being bought and sold for PR. Of course the problem is they can't detect them as well as they want you to believe.

The problem with this logic is that there's a level that is assumed that they want us to believe they're at. I figure it's like spam: their goal has never been to completely eliminate it, since that would be impossible. Their goal is simply to minimize it as much as they can, and they're intelligent enough to realize they can't do it on their own.

If you look at what Google did last week they chose a handful of sites that are very visible in the marketing community as well as some other high profile sites and manually reduced their visible PR in the toolbar. From all reports nothing changed behind the scenes. No one lost traffic or rank.

The move by Google was designed to scare people into thinking they would lose both and to then add the nofollow to the links. Consider too that Google dropped the PR of sites that have never sold links and later reinstated that PR. Isn't that more likely to scare you than if they only punished sites that were clearly engaging in link selling?

No...if you look at the interpretation of what Google did last week, based on absolutely nothing other than raw speculation and "official" comments that may or may not have ever been made to exactly two people, one of whom has encouraged spammy tactics in the past, Google's fudging around with the PageRank.

There is actually a perfectly reasonable explanation for this that almost no one has considered as of yet that may well be taking place. But you **** sure won't hear it from the industry leaders because it disturbs the SEO political climate.

I don't appreciate the FUD campaign and I think Google is using bullying tactics of late. I'm not sure what the definition of a monopoly is either, but I do think Google is well aware of their marketshare and knows many people rely on Google traffic for their business.

I don't appreciate it either, but the FUD campaign isn't actually coming directly from Google. If you look really closely, one of the last things, if not the last thing, that was said on the matter was this post on April 14, 2007...six months ago. What have we really heard since then? Next to nothing.

Not only that, they were firiing warning shots about this as early as two years ago for anyone who bothered to pay attention. Now, all of a sudden the SEO community at large wakes up and says "oh my GOD, what a bunch of a-holes Google is!"

What happens if Google removes toolbar PR? They end link buying for PR. But most people still buy and sell advertising like they always have.

I would bet you any amount of money that people would still sell links based on PR and SEO, even if Google removed external PR, and that's why they won't. Why? Because the theory is already out there: "SEO is all about links, and links are about SEO". We might not see as many posts about "buy links and increase your PR", but the TLAs, the Text Link Brokers, the TNXs, the other brokers will STILL be plugging the SEO and PageRank benefits.

Why do I say that? Because there is no real tangible way to measure the SEO impact of a purchased link, and people still do it now. With an indicator that isn't updated and is largely believed to be useless, people still do it. The only difference would be that we wouldn't see any more of "links on a PR(x) site for sale", because people wouldn't know the value of x. Instead, we'd see "links on a site with many backlinks for sale", because people would be able to log into Webmaster Tools and see their backlink counts (artificial as they may be.)

I still believe they should remove PageRank from the toolbar because it is useless, but I don't believe link selling for PR/SEO purposes will be stopped because of it for a second. SEOs as a whole are too stupid and rely on old information.

Perhaps we should start a thread on advanced debate over link sales? This has already become that thread, but if John is asking larger questions about whether or not Google be evil, we're only talking about one aspect of the question.

That said, when people read my reply, please keep in mind I'm on drugs right now. No, seriously, I have a bad sinus infection, and my doctor prescribed cough syrup with codeine. So if I don't make sense, I have a preemptive excuse.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Read the guidelines and understand them as best you can, but in the end make the decision that works best for you and your business. Sometimes that might be to go against the guidelines. For some reason people have begin to believe that Google's guidelines are the laws of the internet. They're not. They're just some guidelines to let you know what Google wants you to do.

I was going to reply and say that the guidelines we're talking about here sound very reasonable to me. Google may or may not be a monopoly, it may or may not be spreading fud, and so on, but I don't find anything to object to. I don't have the "rules" memorized, or even close to it, but when I check them - and that's not often but generally in the course of giving advice - I see a lot of things that I would generally be doing whether I'd ever heard of Google or not.

When it comes to link sales and/or advertising, I don't do either. Last weekend I got an email from somebody offering me $35 a month for a link on a page I forgot I had! I recommended some places he might find what he's looking for, and also some places he can build some links for free. I don't carry ads for mostly the same reasons Consumer Reports doesn't. When I say a particular lens was hand crafted by God himself, I don't want even the appearance that my opinion is based on anything but the way the 135 mm f/2L has performed over the 15 months or so I've owned it. Truth is I paid $900 for one, and it exceeded not just my expectations, but what physics says should be possible. I hope people take my advice seriously, remember the quality of my photos, and are impressed by my obsessive thoroughness. Even though I'm not directly monetizing that, adverts would run against my interests.

But while I was thinking that Google's published guidelines don't affect me in any way, and of what VanGogh said ( "but in the end make the decision that works best for you and your business. Sometimes that might be to go against the guidelines." ) I realize I'm wrong.

I wrote a desktop application a long time ago that takes a keyword or phrase, runs a Google search as many pages deep as you'd like, and lets you know where you and your competition lands. I'm sure I could sell a lot of copies at $25 each, but that's explicitly listed as something not to do in the guidelines. And so I haven't shared the app, or even used it in six months. And yes, I realize rank checking is mostly useless, unless you're working a campaign and trying to measure its progress over time. Knowing you're #63 doesn't tell you much of anything, but knowing you've moved from #63 to #50 does combined with what you've been doing.

It hadn't occurred to me that Google might object. Now that I think about it, it seems pretty obvious; people running and scraping queries all over the world must consume a tremendous amount of computing power. Enough to take my site down, like a ddos attack. Looking at it from that perspective, I can't release the app in good conscience.

Adam are you saying that as soon as you take money for something you can't be honest? So a teacher that gets paid must be giving out less honest advice than one who doesn't get paid? Why are you even charging for your services then? Shouldn't you be giving them away for free?

If 10 people approach me to advertise on my site I can still pick and choose and only display the ads I think will be of interest to my visitors. I read a number of blogs that I great enjoy and learn from and think my visitors would like too. I link to them all the time because I think they're valuable sources of good information. If one of them approached me tomorrow and wanted to advertise on my site does my accepting now mean I now longer like them and am only linking to them for the money.

If I trust the content on the other side why should I add a nofollow which was designed to indicate you don't trust what's on the other side of the link.

You have to have a very pessimistic view of human beings to think that they can't be still be honest while getting paid.

Now I would agree with you that there are many people who will take money to promote something they don't believe in at all. I'm not arguing that all humanity is perfect. But I don't think it's fair to say that when money is involved it automatically means all people are corrupt.

What is one of the most important statistics an advertiser should consider? The amount of traffic that an ad generates; traffic which, in turn, leads to sales. If rel="nofollow" isn't used (or any other nofollow directive), then obedient bots (not just Google) will happily crawl the link and the advertiser will show one more referral in his/her site stats.

I missed the above quote before. Obviously that would only filter out bots that honor nofollow. Google is the only major search engine that says they don't follow a link with a nofollow. Here's how the search engines replied when asked how they treat nofollow.

You do also know it's easy to remove bots from a tracking script by using Javascript to track visitors, etc.

There is actually a perfectly reasonable explanation for this that almost no one has considered as of yet that may well be taking place.

Care to elaborate?

If you look really closely, one of the last things, if not the last thing, that was said on the matter was this post on April 14, 2007...six months ago.

FUD is about not saying anything. The less Google says the more uncertainty and doubt there is. When people are uncertain they tend to imagine worst case scenarios which is where the fear comes in.

Last week Google dropped the visible PR of some popular sites. That's not just what some are saying. It was pretty evident if you have something installed that shows visible PR. It's hard to think that Google wouldn't know would talk about the drop and that the drop would also be noticed by many people. Most have reported no change in ranking and traffic. Maybe they did also drop in rank and traffic, but none are saying they did.

Not everyone was affected. This wasn't any kind of algorithm change. It was clearly a manual change to some specific sites. Many of those sites saw their PR returned a couple of days later.

You don't think that scares a lot of smaller sites to see some of the A-listers getting hit like this? There are people all over the web now questioning whether they should sell ads on their sites. Yes people are scared and they're uncertain and there's a doubt about many things.

[quote]I would bet you any amount of money that people would still sell links based on PR and SEO, even if Google removed external PR, and that's why they won't.[quote]

Umm...did you read what you wrote. I have no doubt people would still buy and sell links. They were doing it before Google and they'll do it after Google. But you can't buy and sell based on PR if you have no way of knowing what PR is. The market would buy and sell, but it would based more on things like how much targeted traffic a site could deliver.

Would people still buy and sell based on search engines? Sure. But that's only because links are important to ranking in a search engine. But SEO is not PR. Unless you have some indication of what PR is (not seo value, but PR) you can't sell based on PR.

Part of the problem with Google's current approach is the market will simply move underground where it will be nearly impossible to detect. That will also drive prices up making link selling more lucrative. It will also make link buying more effective since only a few will know where to get it and be able to afford it. People buy links because they work to increase ranking.

By the way I came across this article about Google's guideline's today and it seemed appropriate to the original discussion

4 Search Engine Optimization Rules That Were Supposed to Actually Matter


Wendy Piersall looked at some basic concepts in the Google guidelines and compared what Google says you should do to what she saw in the search results.

Adam are you saying that as soon as you take money for something you can't be honest? So a teacher that gets paid must be giving out less honest advice than one who doesn't get paid? Why are you even charging for your services then? Shouldn't you be giving them away for free?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. An advertisement is not the equivalent of an endorsement, and should be put in a separate classification. There's no difference between an ad and a thinly-veiled affiliate marketing hyperlink in that regard. They're paid endorsements.

If you would willingly link to them for free, then do so. If you wouldn't, then indicate as such. There isn't any other logical way to look at it.

Care to elaborate?

In due time (read: when I have time to fully blow out the explanation.) Maybe tomorrow, maybe Tuesday. Not sure yet.

FUD is about not saying anything. The less Google says the more uncertainty and doubt there is. When people are uncertain they tend to imagine worst case scenarios which is where the fear comes in.

So because a bunch of tinfoil-hat wearers and those who would feed their conspiracy theories come up with a bunch of things based on exactly no evidence that suggests anything, that's somehow Google's fault?

You're right. There is an FUD campaign going on. But it's not coming out of the camp everyone seems to think it is. It comes from the Aaron Walls and Michael Grays of the world. And they do it to try and land support from the disenfranchised (which is a large percentage, if not the majority, of the SEO community.)

For example, I haven't said anything about what I know about 10-ton nuclear warheads in South Korea. Does that mean I'm starting an FUD campaign about it? No, because there's nothing to say about what I know about 10-ton nuclear warheads in South Korea. I know nothing about it.

This is the problem with FUD campaigns. Anyone can start one and claim someone else did.

Lat week Google dropped the visible PR of some popular sites that they knew would talk about the drop and also be noticed by many people. Most have reported no change in ranking and traffic. Maybe they did also drop in rank and traffic, but none are saying they did.

Not everyone was affected. This wasn't any kind of algorithm change. It was clearly a manual change to some specific sites. Many of those sites saw their PR returned a couple of days later.

Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to support this. It's what we heard from Danny Sullivan, the same Danny Sullivan who made a move to screw over Search Engine Watch by learning about what goes into organizing a conference, only to set up a direct competitor. Funny how no one ever seems to mention that.

Danny Sullivan only cares about one person, Danny Sullivan, and will do say or do anything to keep his loyal fan base, most of which he knows will eat up anything he says that pertains to PageRank, Google, or conspiracy theories. Would he stop short of making up a story, or presenting distorted information? Do any of us really know? It's a pretty strong possibility that he would.

Again, perfectly logical, sane and reasonable explanation...but it's not prepped yet.

Umm...did you read what you wrote. I have no doubt people would still buy and sell links. They were doing it before Google and they'll do it after Google. But you can't buy and sell based on PR if you have no way of knowing what PR is. The market would buy and sell, but it would based more on things like how much targeted traffic a site could deliver.

I read exactly what I wrote, and I stand by it. Remember, Google let the cat out of the bag by even announcing PageRank, although to be fair to Google there's no way they could have anticipated the escalating PageRank-related stupidity to follow.

Let's say Google removed external PageRank and any references to it. You're telling me that no one would sell links with PageRank in mind? If you believe that, you're dreaming. If anything, PageRank-related selling of links might get worse.

How so? Here's an example of what we would see:

hi there, i have site at somepieceofcrap.com. it has 9,204 backlink from yahoo! if you search, which means that PageRank would be about 4. look for link exchange with similar sites. pm only, pls.

Or maybe we'd get this:

Advertise on site with 50,000 backlinks (PR5 under Google's system)

We'd still see it, and there would be no way to even confirm the external PageRank value being factored in, never mind the secret sauce factor known as internal PageRank. This would, in some ways, be even more confusing for the great unwashed.

Like I said, if Google ever killed PageRank, I would bet any amount of money that we would still see posts referencing it as a selling point for advertising and link exchange purposes. Would we see as many? I don't know. I think we'd see the same or perhaps more. But there's no question whatsoever we'd still see some.

Part of the problem with Google's current approach is the market will simply move underground where it will be nearly impossible to detect.

Assuming it's their current approach, that would work to their advantage, not pose a problem. By moving underground, it would limit the ability of SEO link sellers to operate, as they wouldn't want to get found out. So there would be fewer of these links, and SEO link selling would become largely ineffective as a result.

Besides, it wouldn't go fully underground. You're assuming that most SEOs would be intelligent enough to figure this out, assuming of course that it's true in the first place, News flash for you: most SEOs aren't smart enough to cover their asses that well, and probably wouldn't bother. And most SEOs playing the "buy links game" that would go underground are probably already there.

Quite frankly, I think Wendy Piersall makes a great point without intending to...try to gather the referral links, and don't worry about search engines.

I had the most eloquent argument for you that I know was going to instantly change your mind completely the moment you read it, but my stupid anti-virus program decided it was a good time to become active and it determined my typing was indication that yes I did want to restart my computer ($#%^%$$#) and now my pearls of wisdom will have to wait till tomorrow. I'm too tired now to try and rewrite.

By the way I was editing this

Lat week Google dropped the visible PR of some popular sites that they knew would talk about the drop and also be noticed by many people. Most have reported no change in ranking and traffic. Maybe they did also drop in rank and traffic, but none are saying they did.

Not everyone was affected. This wasn't any kind of algorithm change. It was clearly a manual change to some specific sites. Many of those sites saw their PR returned a couple of days later.

while you were grabbing it and changed it to this

Last week Google dropped the visible PR of some popular sites. That's not just what some are saying. It was pretty evident if you have something installed that shows visible PR. It's hard to think that Google wouldn't know would talk about the drop and that the drop would also be noticed by many people. Most have reported no change in ranking and traffic. Maybe they did also drop in rank and traffic, but none are saying they did.

Not everyone was affected. This wasn't any kind of algorithm change. It was clearly a manual change to some specific sites. Many of those sites saw their PR returned a couple of days later.

I'm sure you still disagree with it, but I think my edit changed the meaning at the beginning of the quote a little and thought I'd let you know.