Nedifekonsapf
New Member
Have the large companies gone mad? Who is in charge of there SEO/link building?
Check out this recent news.
Quote: Forbes has been caught and penalized by Google for selling links. And it didn't take the New York Times to uncover this violation of Google's quality guidelines. This past weekend Google was tipped off that JCPenny was buying links after a New York Times investigation.
According to Techcrunch there are several other prominent sites that may also be selling links. Techcrunch listed as examples eWeek and CIO Magazine.
Barry Schwartz of the Search Engine Rountable blog noticed a Google Webmaster Help posting by Denis Pinsky who is the Digital Marketing Manager at Forbes.com containing this notification warning by Google:
Continued at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...inks-by-google
I can see more large companies getting caught in the future. I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. I don't think that there is a way to change this unless you take back links out all together. It just goes to show how big a business selling links as become, and the lengths the sellers and the buyers will go to. With a company this size, the short term affect removing the pages has really does nothing to penalize them. Give them some time and they will be doing it again. Great find as always. there are hundreds of companies doing this kind of business. Google requires a huge amount of time to find out them. Anyway google did a great job. hahah funny.
But as someone else has said on the article page...
Google should stop trying to be the LAW on how sites can be run and linked to.
Maybe google need to change the way the "rank" as link farming is just the tip of the iceberg Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair Have the large companies gone mad? Who is in charge of there SEO/link building?
Check out this recent news.
Continued at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...inks-by-google
I can see more large companies getting caught in the future. I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. I agree, but in the past, they just burned entire sites. What irks me is if it wasn't a big company, that's what they'd do, they'd burn it, and that is just one of their double talk standards that totally drives me insane.
In my own opinion as well, the only reason they're even starting to crack down on this is because way too many outed their dirty little secrets, Google's that is, of how they do things. Although they deny things, it seems if you're a bit company, or some huge sites running adsense, you can get away with it until too many complain about it, then they'll do something.
Just my
***EDIT***
Smaller sites have been burned for less, and allot of times it was just listening to bad advice to help them get rankings to begin with. We're talking about big companies profiting and doing things on purpose, yet they get slaps and adjustments. Yeah, sure Google, keep up with your double talk. I no longer believe you. Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. Until those big companies start paying Google off to do whatever they want. This goes on all day long and it should be no surprised that large sites are doing it. To me, it seems even more likely that large sites do it because they can charge a ton of money, they know their brand name can hide it, and they're going to receive traffic to their site regardless.
The problem is that smaller sites have everything to lose. They rely on Google and unfortunately no one will know if Google black lists them.
I completely agree, instead of google being the LAW they need to suck it up and admit this isn't the sites faults, it's their fault for creating a algorithm that has so many holes in it. If a bank left their doors and safes open with no security to stop robbers, then when all the money is stolen who is to blame? The robbers or the bank? Here’s the thing. If you think about this from a logical process, you’ll understand the true meaning of the paid link thing. Are they trying to tell us how we can or cannot manage our screen real-estate? Are they telling us we can’t sell add space? No, and what most miss is the between the lines on this. Allow me to explain.
We need a brief quick context before I post the rest of this. At present, most buy such links because of the link juice they pass. It’s done as a means to manipulate search engine rankings instead of the purely advertisement value like most other print or video media. If we buy an add in the paper, or on TV, it’s an ad spot to get our name out, sell our product, whatever. It’s PURELY advertisement, no hidden agenda, no trying to manipulate anything, but convincing potential customers to drop by our place and buy from us.
Online, this is different. It’s NOT purely advertisement like they’d have us believe, and I can see that being their argument. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are plenty that would buy links just for that purpose, higher visibility to be seen, not to manipulate the rankings, but ranking manipulation is the issue. So how do we remove that and still sell ad links? We do it the proper way that we aren’t nailed for doing it.
It’s simple, it’s called nofollow. Nofollow does not pass link juice and it still allows us to sell advertisement space. The rub with this, most buy links with the ideal of getting link juice from them. It’s purely against Google policy, not that we sell links or that we can’t, it’s the link buying industry’s issue of expectations.
Does following such suggestions present a possible danger to anyone already selling links? Sure it does. However, the choice is simple, either the link selling industry adapts to the restrictions, or it tries to fight a loosing battle. The industry has no leg to stand on. Google isn’t trying to say we can’t do it, they’re telling us there’s only one way, within their guidelines, that allows it. The industry, as a whole, can either wake up or keep going the greedy route it goes.
Any adspace I sell is sold under the understanding that such space follows google guidelines. They’ll benefit from X number of visitors to my site, but they won’t get page boosts as the result. The choice is simple like any other choice in life, we either follow the rules or suffer the consequences. Although I have no real love for Google with some of the crap they’ve done, on this one, I will back them. They have the right to decide what violates or does not violate their guidelines.
In reality, whether we wish to admit it or not, many sites selling such links tend to be very spammy with little value, they’re just out to make cash off affiliate links and adspace. I completely understand Google’s policies as a means to ensure valuable results for us when we search. Now, if they could just fix the holes in their algorithms and give them to us, it would be nice. First JC Penney, BMW?, and now Forbes. Glad Google is acting on this, but it makes sense that they would as they are protecting their own interests, there is a huge difference between selling "links" for exposure and for influencing SERPs. One good thing that will come out of this is that the smaller companies in these niche's should see a increase in traffic from google. (Meaning there rankings improve) i doubt google penalty will have any affect on forbes magazine website. Google is God of Search Engines so they can find and penalize no matter how big the company is. uh oh! I am too afraid of what will happen to Forbes. I hope this will be a sign for big companies to stop violating the rules of Google. This is great news.
If google finds a better way to make sure that ads are nofollow that would be great for the search results and open the field for smaller companies (with smaller budgets) as well. Quote: Originally Posted by Martha1 This is great news.
If google finds a better way to make sure that ads are nofollow that would be great for the search results and open the field for smaller companies (with smaller budgets) as well. Exactly, and for all I don't like Google for certain things, this is DEFINITELY one thing they're doing that WILL level the playing field more for all. Instead of content views based on deep pockets, they're striving for content views based on good content, and to me, that's how it SHOULD be.
If anyone can get page one because of deep pockets and link buying, then those without capital never have a chance. I've seen plenty of deep pocket content showing up on page one that was crap compared to others pages behind. I think overall, at least for this one, it's a good move on Google's part, and I too hope they continue to curb dofollow link selling. I get happier every time a big high profile company get's nailed by google because now the smaller sites may have a chance of getting high search results. The people who get links the old fashioned way as in not spending large sums of money will get maybe more traffic.
There is always a good thing out of this penalty mess. Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair One good thing that will come out of this is that the smaller companies in these niche's should see a increase in traffic from google. (Meaning there rankings improve) I agree, these big companies and all their millions of $$ have made it so easy for them to take over too many top spots.
smaller companies should now see some postive benefits/traffic/sales, assuming that google will follow and enforce more of this kind of thing across the board - kind of like the irs taking a closer look at the big boyz before it focuses on the smaller fry, and why not..... Quote: Originally Posted by lynxus hahah funny.
But as someone else has said on the article page...
Google should stop trying to be the LAW on how sites can be run and linked to.
Maybe google need to change the way the "rank" as link farming is just the tip of the iceberg
Google is not being the LAW. But they certainly can have rules within their domain right?
Check out this recent news.
Quote: Forbes has been caught and penalized by Google for selling links. And it didn't take the New York Times to uncover this violation of Google's quality guidelines. This past weekend Google was tipped off that JCPenny was buying links after a New York Times investigation.
According to Techcrunch there are several other prominent sites that may also be selling links. Techcrunch listed as examples eWeek and CIO Magazine.
Barry Schwartz of the Search Engine Rountable blog noticed a Google Webmaster Help posting by Denis Pinsky who is the Digital Marketing Manager at Forbes.com containing this notification warning by Google:
Continued at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...inks-by-google
I can see more large companies getting caught in the future. I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. I don't think that there is a way to change this unless you take back links out all together. It just goes to show how big a business selling links as become, and the lengths the sellers and the buyers will go to. With a company this size, the short term affect removing the pages has really does nothing to penalize them. Give them some time and they will be doing it again. Great find as always. there are hundreds of companies doing this kind of business. Google requires a huge amount of time to find out them. Anyway google did a great job. hahah funny.
But as someone else has said on the article page...
Google should stop trying to be the LAW on how sites can be run and linked to.
Maybe google need to change the way the "rank" as link farming is just the tip of the iceberg Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair Have the large companies gone mad? Who is in charge of there SEO/link building?
Check out this recent news.
Continued at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...inks-by-google
I can see more large companies getting caught in the future. I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. I agree, but in the past, they just burned entire sites. What irks me is if it wasn't a big company, that's what they'd do, they'd burn it, and that is just one of their double talk standards that totally drives me insane.
In my own opinion as well, the only reason they're even starting to crack down on this is because way too many outed their dirty little secrets, Google's that is, of how they do things. Although they deny things, it seems if you're a bit company, or some huge sites running adsense, you can get away with it until too many complain about it, then they'll do something.
Just my
***EDIT***
Smaller sites have been burned for less, and allot of times it was just listening to bad advice to help them get rankings to begin with. We're talking about big companies profiting and doing things on purpose, yet they get slaps and adjustments. Yeah, sure Google, keep up with your double talk. I no longer believe you. Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair I'm glad Google is not afraid to do this to the big well known companies. Until those big companies start paying Google off to do whatever they want. This goes on all day long and it should be no surprised that large sites are doing it. To me, it seems even more likely that large sites do it because they can charge a ton of money, they know their brand name can hide it, and they're going to receive traffic to their site regardless.
The problem is that smaller sites have everything to lose. They rely on Google and unfortunately no one will know if Google black lists them.
I completely agree, instead of google being the LAW they need to suck it up and admit this isn't the sites faults, it's their fault for creating a algorithm that has so many holes in it. If a bank left their doors and safes open with no security to stop robbers, then when all the money is stolen who is to blame? The robbers or the bank? Here’s the thing. If you think about this from a logical process, you’ll understand the true meaning of the paid link thing. Are they trying to tell us how we can or cannot manage our screen real-estate? Are they telling us we can’t sell add space? No, and what most miss is the between the lines on this. Allow me to explain.
We need a brief quick context before I post the rest of this. At present, most buy such links because of the link juice they pass. It’s done as a means to manipulate search engine rankings instead of the purely advertisement value like most other print or video media. If we buy an add in the paper, or on TV, it’s an ad spot to get our name out, sell our product, whatever. It’s PURELY advertisement, no hidden agenda, no trying to manipulate anything, but convincing potential customers to drop by our place and buy from us.
Online, this is different. It’s NOT purely advertisement like they’d have us believe, and I can see that being their argument. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are plenty that would buy links just for that purpose, higher visibility to be seen, not to manipulate the rankings, but ranking manipulation is the issue. So how do we remove that and still sell ad links? We do it the proper way that we aren’t nailed for doing it.
It’s simple, it’s called nofollow. Nofollow does not pass link juice and it still allows us to sell advertisement space. The rub with this, most buy links with the ideal of getting link juice from them. It’s purely against Google policy, not that we sell links or that we can’t, it’s the link buying industry’s issue of expectations.
Does following such suggestions present a possible danger to anyone already selling links? Sure it does. However, the choice is simple, either the link selling industry adapts to the restrictions, or it tries to fight a loosing battle. The industry has no leg to stand on. Google isn’t trying to say we can’t do it, they’re telling us there’s only one way, within their guidelines, that allows it. The industry, as a whole, can either wake up or keep going the greedy route it goes.
Any adspace I sell is sold under the understanding that such space follows google guidelines. They’ll benefit from X number of visitors to my site, but they won’t get page boosts as the result. The choice is simple like any other choice in life, we either follow the rules or suffer the consequences. Although I have no real love for Google with some of the crap they’ve done, on this one, I will back them. They have the right to decide what violates or does not violate their guidelines.
In reality, whether we wish to admit it or not, many sites selling such links tend to be very spammy with little value, they’re just out to make cash off affiliate links and adspace. I completely understand Google’s policies as a means to ensure valuable results for us when we search. Now, if they could just fix the holes in their algorithms and give them to us, it would be nice. First JC Penney, BMW?, and now Forbes. Glad Google is acting on this, but it makes sense that they would as they are protecting their own interests, there is a huge difference between selling "links" for exposure and for influencing SERPs. One good thing that will come out of this is that the smaller companies in these niche's should see a increase in traffic from google. (Meaning there rankings improve) i doubt google penalty will have any affect on forbes magazine website. Google is God of Search Engines so they can find and penalize no matter how big the company is. uh oh! I am too afraid of what will happen to Forbes. I hope this will be a sign for big companies to stop violating the rules of Google. This is great news.
If google finds a better way to make sure that ads are nofollow that would be great for the search results and open the field for smaller companies (with smaller budgets) as well. Quote: Originally Posted by Martha1 This is great news.
If google finds a better way to make sure that ads are nofollow that would be great for the search results and open the field for smaller companies (with smaller budgets) as well. Exactly, and for all I don't like Google for certain things, this is DEFINITELY one thing they're doing that WILL level the playing field more for all. Instead of content views based on deep pockets, they're striving for content views based on good content, and to me, that's how it SHOULD be.
If anyone can get page one because of deep pockets and link buying, then those without capital never have a chance. I've seen plenty of deep pocket content showing up on page one that was crap compared to others pages behind. I think overall, at least for this one, it's a good move on Google's part, and I too hope they continue to curb dofollow link selling. I get happier every time a big high profile company get's nailed by google because now the smaller sites may have a chance of getting high search results. The people who get links the old fashioned way as in not spending large sums of money will get maybe more traffic.
There is always a good thing out of this penalty mess. Quote: Originally Posted by snakeair One good thing that will come out of this is that the smaller companies in these niche's should see a increase in traffic from google. (Meaning there rankings improve) I agree, these big companies and all their millions of $$ have made it so easy for them to take over too many top spots.
smaller companies should now see some postive benefits/traffic/sales, assuming that google will follow and enforce more of this kind of thing across the board - kind of like the irs taking a closer look at the big boyz before it focuses on the smaller fry, and why not..... Quote: Originally Posted by lynxus hahah funny.
But as someone else has said on the article page...
Google should stop trying to be the LAW on how sites can be run and linked to.
Maybe google need to change the way the "rank" as link farming is just the tip of the iceberg
Google is not being the LAW. But they certainly can have rules within their domain right?