4/15/07
Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence
Link Development
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my feed or subscribe to me on Twitter, which is updated on a more frequent - and more meaningless - basis.
Seems that while I was away, Matt stirred up some controversy by implying the engines would start hitting sites posting paid links without machine readable disclosure of those paid links and then in a second post, asked people to report sites “selling links”.
Scoble then commented about Matt’s post and referenced a post by the pissed off at PHD’s whore calling out Google for what he feels is their hypocrisy. The ability to report sites “selling links” has also caused quite a bit of attention.
Personally, I don’t care how Google chooses to treat what they detect as paid links. It’s their engine and their decision. What I do care about is Google creating what amounts to a Salem witch hunt for “link sellers”.
The bottom line is that good paid links are un-detectable by the search engines. These deals are done via emails and personal meetings in a way that is not obvious and un-detectable by algorithms, when done well. So, Google is making up for their incompetence at detecting well done paid links by enlisting the general public to report what they guess are link buying activities. But, again, good paid links aren’t obvious, so the end result is that Google will be taking these reports and guessing too… *guessing*… whether or not those links truly are paid and possibly penalizing your site accordingly.
I’ll give you an example. The banners in my Bona Fides (latin for good faith) section on my sidebar are not, I repeat not, paid for. These are links to companies or services I believe in. We’ll go down the list as to who has links and why:
- WebmasterWorld - I’ve been a lurker longer than a member and a member for many years. I’m a moderator for the YPN forum and the link development forum. I also speak regularly at their conferences and feel I owe a portion of where I’m at today to my membership at the forum and friendships developed as a result. I believe in the community and want to promote it to other people in the industry.
- SEO Class - I’m one of the people behind this workshop series and wouldn’t be if I didn’t believe in the service being provided. I link to it to promote it as a result.
- 888.com - I am an avid gambler and I don’t think anyone who reads this blog doesn’t know that. I also have met the people behind 888 several times. I consider quite a few friends. I’ve actually been to their offices in Europe and was amazed by the sophisitcation of their systems. I also was an avid player at Pacific Poker (owned by 888) prior to the ban. When I was gambling online, 888 was one of my first stops, so I have no problem letting others who still can gamble online know what I think should be their first stop.
- Webmaster Radio - The night Webmaster Radio launched their chat room, I was one of the first people inside. I’m still a mod in their chat room, even though I don’t make it in as much as I’d like. The owners behind it are friends of mine and other friends of mine have appeared on or host shows with them. They provide a quality service to webmasters and I promote them as a result.
- Best of the Web blog directory and web directory - It is no secret that I am friends with the botwah boys. Additionally, I have all sites that I care about listed in their directory. They are one of the few directory services out there that actually bring me a bit of traffic, their prices are reasonable and they pride themselves on listing quality and not quantity. Since I list with them, I feel they’re a valuable resource for others too.
- Restaurantica - I’ve been using this service for years and well before I had a blog (anyone with some searching ability can verify that). I’ve been in restaurants in Ontario with their Restaurantica rank framed and hanging on the wall. The site is run by a close friend of mine and offers awesome value to anyone looking for a restaurant review.
- Design By Reese - This is the chick responsible for the Sugarrae design, as well as the design of several other sites I own. I wouldn’t pay her for her services if I didn’t think she was one of the best designers available. I recommend her as much in person and private emails as I do on this blog.
- MacScan - This is owned by a very close friend of mine. I’m not a Mac user, but a lot of my friends are and have raved about his product.
- Powerstorm Hosting - I’ve been using Powerstorm for almost two years now. In addition to fair pricing and good value, the customer support is awesome. Site goes down from a Digg, I simply pop into IRC and they have it fixed within moments. A mixup causes a billing issue and I make a call from a conference and they fix it within moments. If I kill my blog by doing something dumb myself, a quick beg to the support guys and they fix the issue that I myself caused for me. These guys go above and beyond with customer service and their link on my sidebar was long overdue when I finally got it up.
So now you know that I don’t accept money for my Bona Fides listings and you know why I list these companies for free. Or do you? Maybe everything I said is complete bullshit. The only way for you, or Google, to know is to guess without access to the accounting books for both sides.
I get requests several times a week asking about the ad rates for my bona fides section. There are some people out there who guess, or assume, that these links are for sale. What if those same people report me for selling links without disclosing they’re paid? Then Google has to come to my site and *guess* on whether or not they *think* those links are indeed for sale. And if they guess wrong - about my links, or yours, we’re fucked with no recourse.
My general opinions on paid links aren’t important and neither are yours. This isn’t about whether or not paid links should or shouldn’t have value. What matters is that Google is going to decide whether you’re good or evil based on a guess they know full well has a coin flip toss chance of being accurate in the case of paid links done well. What is important is that Google stands up and admits their own weakness and finds another solution to their issue that doesn’t involve penalizing me or you, based on their “best guess” to a problem they themselves created when they based their entire algorithm on links.
*Edited to add: A good round-up of opinions on the issue can be found on the SEO Class blog here.
-- Subscribe to the Sugarrae feed
Rae Hoffman
Related Posts:
I may be worng but I think that Gooogle is specifically referring to Paid-to-Post and other such activities when they use the term “paid links”
A paid link is way more than pay per post type things… but, that said, there is no way to decipher that either, without a guess. I make a ton of posts on facebook - maybe I’m on their payroll, maybe not. Only our accountants know for sure.
The best links are indeterminable by both a computer and the human eye. However, will it be good enough to catch 90% of paid links to destroy the economy?
Here’s the other side of the coin, Rae. What you have essentially pointed out is that there is no de-facto, DNA evidence type proof of a paid link, when done well. Hmmm — sounds familiar.
In fact, maybe the “crime” metaphor is a good one: you need motive, opportunity, intent and some other stuff to be reasonably proven guilty of a crime. Our legal system has realized that this is rarely black and white, and provided a whole set of hurdles to be crossed before a suspect is convicted.
Early legal systems were way more rudimentary (”She’s a witch” from Monty Python and the Holy Grail pops to mind). Such systems are based on a code … Hamurabi, U.S. Constitution, Google’s quality guidelines, etc. But what Google has said is that they are going to be a bit less progressive than the legal systems of advanced societies.
Maybe that’s where the web is now. Paid links do, in some fundamental way, change the balance of power to favor those with capital. And capitalism in its pure, Ayn Rand, ultra-libertarian sense, is now considered as regressive as some more overtly despotic governances, at least by Google. The question in my mind is, what kind of “realm” does Google want to rule?
Truth be told, it’s really their choice. All the rest of us can just complain “he’s oppressing me” when confronted with the reality of the grand decision. A truly great company would realize the power they hold and find a broad array of ways to identify crimes and make the punishment fit. It may be a little more black and white for now, I guess.
Tom
P.S. I resisted mightily the chance the paraphrase the “she’s a witch” quote to “she’s a whore”. :-)
Look, Google is telling us that they think that paid links are disturbing SERPs, and that they are trying to filter out paid links so we get better SERPs. That’s how I see things too — too many of the sites ahead of me are there on the basis of links that look very suspicious to a human eye. So Google is going to make changes to their algorithm to address this, and they are asking for us to help let them know about test cases to feed into their algorithm.
Anything you do algorithmically is going to screw some innocent people. An algorithm is a blunt instrument. You can only hope (and work to make sure) that it does more good than harm.
So what’s the problem with pointing out to Google links that stink like day-old fish? Won’t giving them good data reduce the amount of breakage their algorithm inflicts?
[...] For some more related reading check out Rae’s take and why equating paid links with spam is [...]
[...] Matt further states that Google will be looking at paid text advertising more closely and that they are now actively seeking reports from people willing to turn in other web publishers. This change in policy amounts to a virtual witch hunt where one publisher can turn in anyone whether they know the facts or not. One of the members of SEO Class Rae Hoffman writes: [...]
avecfrites your reasoning is exactly why this whole deal scares the willies out of me.
You say that a link looks ‘very suspicious’ but is it really? You may think so because you’re looking at it with the jaundiced eye of someone who can’t get ahead of a competitor but the truth might be that it’s entirely innocent.
So you trot off to Google and tell ‘em you’ve found a paid link - Google slaps the ‘offending’ website down without much, if any, of an investigation and you shoot to the top and an innocent webmaster gets trashed.
Sorry - this whole deal is just so open to rorting that Google shouldn’t touch it - but Google being Google will probably embrace it with open arms.
The fear is very real and G has been “guessing” incorrectly and punishing sites for at least 2 years .. as I know from personal experience .. had a site punished once, my blood sweat and tears effort .. it was a phenomenally popular site about museums .. when I inquired as to the cause of my punishment, I was told (by email) that G did not appreciate buying and selling links .. no matter how laudly and often I expressed my innocence, G never admited their mistake and that site continues to be punished .. it’s been over 2 years .. “do no evil”, yeah, right ..
[...] Sugarrae: Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence [...]
[...] of the FUD though, in most cases there is no way Google can tell if you have paid for a link. As Rae Hoffman writes: The only way for you, or Google, to know is to guess without access to the accounting books for [...]
[...] Sugarrae says: "My general opinions on paid links aren’t important and neither are yours. This isn’t about whether or not paid links should or shouldn’t have value. What matters is that Google is going to decide whether you’re good or evil based on a guess they know full well has a coin flip toss chance of being accurate in the case of paid links done well. What is important is that Google stands up and admits their own weakness and finds another solution to their issue that doesn’t involve penalizing me or you, based on their “best guess” to a problem they themselves created when they based their entire algorithm on links." [...]
[...] Why Google shouldn’t penalize me - SugarRae [...]
[...] and Internet users to report websites that may be selling links is akin to creating a group of Mountain View Witch hunters. Google can't always determine which links are paid and which aren't so they want you [...]
If Google chooses to enforce this with vigor, not only will they create bad blood but link buying will go underground into virtual backroom speakeasies under Prohibition. Once it goes underground it becomes a ” “I say/you say” mess — with the ensuing lawsuits that would follow…
I think this is a scare tactic. Fear can go a long way to accomplish their goals here. Heck, Google didn’t even want to hand tweak the results for Googlebombs until they came up with an algorithm. And there is no algorithm that is going to be able to ascertain a webmasters’ unpublished intentions when they make a link.
[...] I aint’ worried. Some paid links are impossible to detect. [...]
I got slammed with nervous questions when I got to the office this morning after being in NYC all last week. I feel like Kevin Bacon in Animal House…lying on the pavement after being steam-rolled…telling everyone to “remain calm….all is well..”
(anyone remember that scene? greatness…)
It’s all good!!!!
How “Best of the Web” have an affiliate program. They use the referrer data so you can’t tell by looking at the link if it is an affiliate link or not, but lets assume it is a classic affiliate link that can be identified as such by anybody who knows that stuff a little.
Now it would make sense for you to join their program and stay their friend, evangelist or whatever, there is no conflict at all.
After you joined and people use your link to BOTW and submit their site, because of your referral, you get a portion of the sale as a commission, a thank you for the referral.
Now you got yourself a paid link. Opps. Does that change your opinion about BOTW? Nope. Does BOTW was approaching you to do some shady SEO tricks to help them out? Nope. Is it an editorial link? Yes. Is it a recommendation that is honest and has nothing to do with money? Yes.
Why should you flag the link now that Google does not count it and show to visitors that look under the hood or have a browser plug in that highlights nofollow links that the link is not editorial and that you can’t vouch for BOTW? It would be a lie to your visitors, wouldn’t it?
Matt avoids to answer my question about affiliate links and if they are considered “Paid Links” by Google or not. Based on the vague definition they are. Great. “for the user and not the search engines… ” blah blah.. “do no evil…” blah blah, who cares about the past, when we were young and idealistic, right?!
[...] Why focus on penalizing the link buyers and sellers? That just opens the door for competitive sabotage, as many have pointed out. [...]
[...] Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence [...]
[...] that paid links are fine with Google… as long as Google is selling them. Sugarrae has an interesting post pointing out the vague and confusing nature of trying to sort out paid links on someone [...]
Thanks for the shout-out Rae. As a member of the executive management team at Best of the Web, I can attest firsthand that Rae is not a reseller, affiliate nor any other paid affiliation with BOTW outside of the occassional goldschloggers shot or late-night lap dance ;-) Let it be heard that some links are truly endorsements of quality and enjoyment of content and nothing further - not every act is an act of selfishness and not every person is evil, as much as we like to think the such….
Brian
-> “outside of the occassional goldschloggers shot or late-night lap dance ;-) ”
hehe some people work for feed, gadgets, treats or BOTW T-Shirts .. so if we look at this very very conservative then…;)
p.s. I am an affiliate of yours, but would have linked to you if you wouldn’t have an affiliate program too. But you have one, so do have a large number of paid services. Not joining them and not making any money to pay for the time and effort is like you not charging for the site review, tweaking of the listing and addition to the BOTW directory.
Who needs money anyway, my landlord would probably let me stay for free, if I tell him that don’t have a dime, because I refuse to accept any financial reward for my work, Trekkie style.
I love star trek, but last time I checked, was the show still categorized under science fiction :).
Carsten - for the record, I wasn’t implying there was anything wrong with paid links. But the fact is the ones under my bona fides are NOT paid links, even though they look like typical paid links and Google has no way to know the difference. I was only trying to get that out there. :-)
I agree with the Salem Witch Hunt comment. It seems like the internet is becoming one big elementary school playground, where any jealous competitor of yours with a chip on their shoulder can run to a playground attendant and cry “unfair” or “foul”.
If people would just focus on their own projects, they would be a lot better off than running around worrying about what sites you link to. The net is becoming one big hangout for petty tattletales.
[...] favorite quote on this whole issue comes from SugarRae: The bottom line is that good paid links are un-detectable by the search engines. These deals are [...]
Quote Rae: “Carsten - for the record, I wasn’t implying there was anything wrong with paid links. But the fact is the ones under my bona fides are NOT paid links, even though they look like typical paid links and Google has no way to know the difference. I was only trying to get that out there. :-)”
Hey Rae,
See! This is the whole point of the discussion and why Google is terribly wrong by even considering what Matt published at his blog.
quod erat demonstrandum ;)
[...] to pass along on this or this one because I’m too busy right now and it’s already been covered in all of the usual locations (and every one is a better dissertation on the subject than I could [...]
[...] make decisions based on assumption rather than knowing. This will increase the number of false positives[i] and hurt the wrong people. If it would not, Google would not have any reason to change its [...]
[...] Sugarrae: Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence [...]
Again a great post, actually i think penalty’s are nasty but needed.. i cant figgure out if i got penaltys or not!
[...] Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence (Sugarrae) [...]
truely a good piece of article :) nice written!
[...] I’ve already bitched in the past about how stupid it is to penalize “paid links” since there is no way for Google to even truly tell what a *good* paid link is. The propoganda [...]
[...] you’d stop trying to exploit links for your own good. Sugar Rae had a great post about the links that Google could never identify as being paid links. It’s all a giant scare tactic to help them reach their supposed goal of making life on the [...]
[...] Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence [...]
[...] (myself included) about how people would be able to use paid links to sabotage other sites, and why Google shouldn’t penalize for paid links, making this clarification is a very big deal. It does make sense, actually, that they [...]
[...] algorithm. In the case of the Disney and Make a Wish Foundation probably not, in other cases the motivation is much less clear. If Google put as much effort into solving the problem instead of working the FUD campaign [...]
one of the outcomes of this wide spread panic is that bullied and baffled webmasters now start to put no-follow tags on their text-link-ad listings. If you complain about it, they mostly don’t really know what you are talking about but tell you that they “heard” that they will get penalized otherwise. Ironically most of them have their text link adverts still in a box titled “Paid Links” with the big fat text-link-ads banner next to it. Very clever..
and by the way, why don’t your friends at 888.com get penalized, as they buy [I suppose] A LOT of links?
[...] Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Us for Their Incompetence Sugarrae | 4/15/07 [...]
Google has gone overboard with their discrimination against paid text links. Text links aren`t just used for PR purposes, they can in fact also help drive traffic to another site.
Yet aren`t Yahoo doing the same thing by asking $299 per year for a site to be checked out and if okd be listed in their Directory? Can`t see Google penalising Yahoo though.
