Buying links - Google's perspective
Following on from yesterday's post on link buying and how it's a legitimate practice in many circumstances...
I found a blog comment posted just a few days ago by Google engineer Matt Cutts (yes, I've been blogging a lot about him lately... honestly, I'm not a groupie!). Matt chimed in on a lively debate happening on Tim O'Reilly's blog about the controversy surrounding the selling of link ads on the O'Reilly Network. Matt had this to say:
As others have noted, if you're going to sell text links that pass reputation/PageRank, the way to do it is to add rel=nofollow to those links.
Tim points out that these these links have been sold for over two years. That's true. I've known about these O'Reilly links since at least 9/3/2003, and parts of perl.com, xml.com, etc. have not been trusted in terms of linkage for months and months. Remember that just because a site shows up for a "link:" command on Google does not mean that it passes PageRank, reputation, or anchortext.
Google's view on this is quite close to Phil Ringnalda's. Selling links muddies the quality of the web and makes it harder for many search engines (not just Google) to return relevant results. The rel=nofollow attribute is the correct answer: any site can sell links, but a search engine will be able to tell that the source site is not vouching for the destination page.
So here's Google coming out and admitting that they decreased the voting power of O'Reilly sites like perl.com and xml.com and downgraded the reputation value of some of their outbound links. And if you don't want your site to suffer the same fate, you'd better tag your link ads with rel=nofollow so they don't gain any PageRank. How do you like them eggs!
To me, that doesn't seem quite fair to website owners. They work hard to build a content-rich destination site with good PageRank score. Google is diminishing their earning ability by insisting they cut off the flow of PageRank with a nofollow, thus decreasing the value of the link ads to the advertiser and ultimately the revenue likely to realized from that advertiser. Granted, you don't buy links merely for PageRank, but of course it figures into the equation.
The problem lies in which link ads to vouch for. If I were the advertising manager for DailyItem.com, I certainly would not vouch for the advertiser of "Discount Vacations", as the link points to a "doorway page" operated by Orbitz that links to a whole pile of other doorway pages (tsk tsk! Google warns against using doorway pages); on the other hand, I would vouch for the "Dancewear" advertiser, since that's the company's name and the link points to the home page of their ecommerce site.
Google, please give the website owner the option of vouching for some of their advertisers without demoting their site. A black-or-white approach just isn't practical here. Signed, a devoted Google fan.
2 comments, 2 pingbacks
-
[...] Linking the ad text to a landing page that is built for search engines and not for people. e.g. the “Discount Vacations” example in my last post. [...]
Pingback by » Buying link ads - the ethical debate rages @ Stephan Spencer’s Scatterings [Visitor] — 08/29/05 @ 06:35
-
From my recent days as an affiliate, trying my best to get good backlinks, I can tell you that people buy text links mostly for the PR that is passed on. Very few buy them for any other reason. There are exceptions of course, but in general, they are buying PR in their eyes.
Comment by Steve [Visitor]
· http://todaysblogger.com —
09/07/05 @ 16:06
-
No matter what a company on the web comes up with, for instance Google's Page Rank, there's always going to be people out there who try to "beat the system". Google is wise to this, they see it every day and they know what sites are trying to "hack PR".
It's not Google who is diminishing website owners earning ability, it's the ones who are mudding' up the web and making it harder for search engines.Comment by lowster11 [Visitor]
· http://www.lowster11.com —
10/22/05 @ 09:13
-
[...] I’ve said before that I don’t agree with Google’s tough stance on link buying and use of “nofollow” to mark it as a financially influenced link (here and here). One of my favorite white-hat SEO bloggers, Rand Fishkin, is also on Google’s case for it. A key argument that Rand makes: Nofollow means “I do not editorially vouch for the quality of this link.” It does NOT mean “financial interest may have influenced my decision to link.” If that were the case, fully a quarter of all links on the web would require nofollow (that’s a rough guess, but probably close to the mark). Certainly any website that earns money via its operation, directly or indirectly is guilty of linking to their own material and that of others in the hopes that it will benefit them financially. It is not only unreasonable but illogical to ask that webmasters around the world change their code to ensure that once the chance of financial benefit reaches a certain level (say, you’re about 90% sure a link will make you some money), you add a “nofollow” onto the link. [...]
Pingback by Hey Google: Nofollow is for when I don’t vouch for the link’s quality : Natural Search B [Visitor] — 12/29/06 @ 21:05
Comment feed for this post