Google have put up a new guideline in regard to Link Schemes

Here is the link

The guideline basically tries to ban any type of "link building" that is made in an attempt to boost PR

It states that the definition of a link scheme can be:

• Links intended to manipulate PageRank
• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
• Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
• Buying or selling links

I see this as a problem for so many different reasons. Does anyone else think that this is perhaps going too far, that perhaps this is a little unfair?

Any views on this would be appreciated

I think this is going too far. Google can now punish perfectly respectful sites because of reciprocal links - thats really not fair. For several of my first sites which were entirely at a local level, I depended (and still do) on reciprocal links - these were not manipulative, but would benefit both of our sites (of course someone had to break the ice and inform the other person that the site did actually exist e.g. me).

I don't know how Google plan to implement this - if they are very zealous about it, then they will definitely end up punishing legitimate sites

We use reciprocal links for our doctors. Most of our doctors are affiliated with 1 or more hospitals. We link to the hospitals from the Dr's site, then on the hospital side, in their physician profiles, they link directly to the dr's practice site. Now this is going to get us punished ?? WTF ???

Once again, this is a case of people misinterpreting what Google is really trying to accomplish.

Google doesn't care about link exchanges in and of themselves. They occur naturally and organically all of the time. What they're after is links designed to game search engines (e.g. anyone selling/trading/buying links for PageRank, link exchanges for SEO purposes, etc.) These are usually pretty apparent by the context of the link exchange/bought/traded link, etc.

If anything, the policy doesn't go far enough. You'll know it does when all the SEOs start complaining.

This is kind of unclear. Don't buy or sell links, but put your site in Yahoo's directory for $300? Are directories about anything other than PR? None of them send noticeable traffic streams. People don't go to directories to find web sites. Even Yahoo users use their search, not their directory.

But then the same page says "Before making any single decision, you should ask yourself the question: Is this going to be beneficial for my page’s visitors?" It sounds like Google is trying to clamp down on spam, not turn into darth vader.

This was probably a bad choice of words more than anything else. I doubt a small number of recips will be punished; reading between the lines I'd bet it takes a lot.

This is the first time I've heard Google mention "relevant" as a measure of, well, anything.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Google doesn't care about link exchanges in and of themselves. They occur naturally and organically all of the time. What they're after is links designed to game search engines (e.g. anyone selling/trading/buying links for PageRank, link exchanges for SEO purposes, etc.) These are usually pretty apparent by the context of the link exchange/bought/traded link, etc.

I see where you're coming from, but surely there can be a lot of mistakes made here? I mean you don't have any control over who links to your site, so if people link to you and it appears to Google to be a link that was bought/traded, then your site will be "punished" (for want of a better word) and you won't be able to do anything about it

It's Google search engine. They are Googles guidelines

You can choose to follow them or not

Nothing fair or unfair about it, they are free to include or remove sites as they wish. They owe YOU nothing. Not even an explanation. Just as you are free to NOT rely on Google's free natural results.
If you want to continue with the free traffic, then it is up to you to make sure that YOUR actions do not jeapordise that traffic.

Nothing has changed at all, there is nothing new about what Google mean.

Buy links by all means. Just don't expect them to count for natural results

Reciprocal link away to your hearts content. Just don't expect them to count for natural results

Google's objective is the same as it has always been. That is, to not allow manipulation of their index and SERPs by third parties.

I see where you're coming from, but surely there can be a lot of mistakes made here? I mean you don't have any control over who links to your site, so if people link to you and it appears to Google to be a link that was bought/traded, then your site will be "punished" (for want of a better word) and you won't be able to do anything about it.

This doesn't worry or bother me in the slightest. If anyone reported me for buying/selling/trading links, it's apparent from looking at the links I have to my sites that I don't...at all. I don't believe in buying a link for any reason other than traffic (i.e. advertising), and 99.9% of links present a negative ROI option in that regard for anything I'm doing. So I have no reason to.

As far as whether other people are worried...quite frankly, I have no sympathy for them. The ones that don't have a reason to worry can generally establish why they don't, and the ones that do have a reason to worry...well, they're the RLE crowd anyway and I don't have the time of day for them.

Any guideline Google wants to establish is fair. They invented Google, it's theirs to do with as they please. Nobody is forcing you to obey them. Like Chris said, that's a choice you make. If you choose not to link every which way to Sunday because the guideline advises against it, you can't complain. And if I choose to drink bleach because I heard it improves PageRank, that's my choice and I can't blame Google, either.

In fact Google gave the best advice you can get: build web sites with good content and other sites will want to link to you. They even suggested the blogging community is a great place to get your site noticed.

Along with the already well stated fact that Google can do anything they like with their search engine, I find their attitude positive and helpful...

Now watch - one of my sites will be the first one banned under these guidelines

As far as i am concerned this is how i think about it and it works for me. I have stopped looking at the guidelines and stopped adjusting constantly to suit Google. I exchange links and occasionally buy links. I buy links for advertising purposes which in my opinion totally fine. Many of us buy links for advertisng directly from Google it is called adwords and adsense. I ask what is the difference buying a link from Google or someone else? I look to gain treaffic from the links I exchange or aquire otherwise and I am still,listed fairly well in all search engines.. My advice is to look at getting traffic from other sites and stop BUYING into Googles wording and guidelines. Google is not GOD and cannot run our lives..Overoptimizing and stopping getting links is the wrong road to follow. Remember Google has clearly said that links are what improve your ranking so get get em just don't use schemes.

No such thing as "overoptimising". call it what it really is.

keyword stuffing spam.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

No such thing as "overoptimising". call it what it really is.

keyword stuffing spam.

Does that come in a dark blue can with a key and a mouse attached?

The only thing i would disagree with on that list is that selling links isn't allowed. Surely selling links is the most basic form of online advertising.
If google want to factor out links that have been purchased when it comes to ranking sites then that is something they need to fix on their end.

Google sell links, But theirs are in JS so are invisible to bots. But if we took that approach we would be in violation of another webmaster guidelines which says we shouldn't do anything to deliberately hide a page element from spiders, Which is what we would be doing if we put adverts in JS with the intention of making it invisible to bots.

My advice would be, Do what you want. Just because google suggest something in their guidelines it doesn't mean we are duty bound to follow it.

Originally Posted by stOx

If google want to factor out links that have been purchased when it comes to ranking sites then that is something they need to fix on their end.

By discounting the PR (and any other link juice) that paid links would pass on, they are fixing their end. Discounting that PR doesn't destroy the online advertising that the purchaser has bought through those links.

Google believe that links can indicate a page's quality and popularity, but being able to buy those links distorts that measure. It's like buying votes.

Google believe that links can indicate a page's quality and popularity, but being able to buy those links distorts that measure. It's like buying votes.

That's the fault of googles own algo. The fact that links can be bought and sold shows that links aren't really a good indicator of quality and popularity.

I would have no problem if google said "we aren't going to count links that have been purchased", That's perfectly acceptable. But it's not acceptable to ask us to stop doing something because it messes with googles algo.

It's a bit like having an option to vote twice in an election, And instead of fixing it they just ask people to kindly only vote once.

Originally Posted by stOx

But it's not acceptable to ask us to stop doing something because it messes with googles algo.

As far as I'm aware Google aren't asking us to stop buying/selling links. They are simply developing their algo so that bought links don't increase rankings - and warning us of that.

In the article google say "This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results."

Technically they aren't asking us to stop doing it, But they are threatening us with penalties if we do do it. I don't think they should do that. If they can be certain enough that a link has been purchased to impose penalties then they should just not give that link any weight. Not all links are purchased for SEO benefits, But google assumes they are.

Originally Posted by stOx

That's the fault of googles own algo. The fact that links can be bought and sold shows that links aren't really a good indicator of quality and popularity.

Wow, that's an even better point than the one about hiding links with java script is complying with one guideline and violating another. This one is even juicier.

Originally Posted by stOx

In the article google say "This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results."

Technically they aren't asking us to stop doing it, But they are threatening us with penalties if we do do it. I don't think they should do that. If they can be certain enough that a link has been purchased to impose penalties then they should just not give that link any weight. Not allan links are purchased for SEO benefits, But google assumes they are.

This is exactly what most people are missing in this whole equation...they're not assuming anything. They're merely pointing out that a purchased link is not the same as an actual vote for a website in the form of an organic link. And that's 100% correct.

They're not threatening to penalize anyone for links...they're threatening to penalize people for paid link schemes. There's a big difference between the two.

Big G isn't anywhere near stupid enough to suggest that webmasters will be punished or penalized for participating in the Internet advertising marketplace. They're just looking for the scams (e.g. RLE, "Buy my PR5 Link for $5", etc.)