Paid Links - Good or bad - a UK SEO perspective part III
September 3rd, 2007
It was only a matter of time before part three came along….
I would have thought by now, my thoughts on paid linkage would probably be fairly clear, if not heres a recap
Paid Links - Good or Bad - a UK SEO perspective
Paid Links - Good or Bad - a UK SEO perspective Part II
I was however reading Matt Cutts presentation to SES San Jose, regarding paid links - which I have to say was highly informative, however one slide in particular got me thinking, in particular Slide 2
Are paid links evil?
That’s the wrong question.
The right question: Do paid links that pass PageRank violate search engines quality guidelines?
The answer to that question is yes.
This has lead me to evaluate Googles quality guidelines in order to evaluate just which aspects Matt Cutts refers to. The quality guidelines are taken from here, and we will refer in particular to the quality guidelines only
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
The analysis
Guideline 1: Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don’t deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as “cloaking.”
I would suggest this would not apply to the issue of paid links. The development of pages for increased visibility in the search engines would not apply in this instance
Guideline 2: Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you’d feel comfortable explaining what you’ve done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”
Now this may be the guideline in question. My feelings on this have been previously outlined in the posts above - I as the competitor do not have a problem with competitors buying links (if they wish to buy links on the basis that Google may change the algorithm -as they have - let them - i will have to find more creative ways - and anyway - if buying links for SEO purposes only is bad - why isn’t getting links by any other means for SEO purposes only bad ie directories). Surely this needs further explanation.
Secondly where do you draw the line here. Using a real life example, I noticed a number of ads down the right hand side of a well known marketing/consultancy portal in the UK. The site itself fairly enough offers advertising, paid advertising to clients, and some of these clients have contextual linkage to their site included in the ads to a number of well known SEO companies based in Scotland and England. These links are neither no follow, nor is the page nofollow, nor is the link 302′d, nor is the page protected by robots.txt.
Does this therefore constitute paid linkage - and if so have these links been waited down? Looking at the performance of both sites, I don’t think so. So therefore it brings into question - just what is ok and what is not.
Finally, and this leads on from point 2. Intent. How is Google going to determine intent. Yes, there will be tell tail signs on some link patterns but using the self same portal above. I will give these seo companies the benefit of the doubt, and say that these adverts were brought purely on a brand awareness basis, and any link juice gained is purely co-incidental. However how can I be 100% sure this is the case - the point is I can’t and the same applies to many of these paid links. How can Google be 100% sure that the link has been purchased for SEO purposes only or is this to be selective - and if so this needs to be very definitively explained.
However according to Matt Cutts presentation ‘Buying paid links that pass PageRank violates our quality guidelines’. Surely that doesn’t even bring intent into it. Again the presentation goes on to say - Google is willing to take strong action against PPP links, and is an area Google is focussing on.
If this is the case - I would suggest further advise is required by Google to webmasters and SEO specialists in order to educate as to what is good and what is bad.
Guideline 3: Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or “bad neighborhoods” on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
Now again this could be one of the points in question. However this is still quite a grey area, as Google are yet to say submitting to directories is bad - and lets face it - I would suggest many SEO specialists merely submit to directories for SEO purposes only. Whilst I agree with people such as Andrew Girdwood and John Andrews when they say that content development is the best way forward, there is no way of getting round the fact that people do ‘acquire’ linkage for SEO purposes only, and thus if paid is bad, surely any other form of link acquisition in order to facilitate increased visibility in the search engines is bad - and the line can not be merely drawn at just paid links.
Guideline 4: Don’t use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold™ that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.
Again - would suggest this wouldn’t apply here.
Finally the specific guidelines - going to do these in one as I don’t think any apply
- Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
- Don’t use cloaking or sneaky redirects.
- Don’t send automated queries to Google.
- Don’t load pages with irrelevant keywords.
- Don’t create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
- Don’t create pages that install viruses, trojans, or other badware.
- Avoid “doorway” pages created just for search engines, or other “cookie cutter” approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.
- If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value. Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first
To conclude - maybe I along with many other search marketing professionals would be more open to the nofollow campaign if it didn’t appear to have as many gaping holes in the guidelines as it does. I personally, do not want to go against any guidelines, and thus see any clients online visibility therefore impacted, hence why any queries/objections are therefore highlighted via a medium such as this.
However I would suggest the policy of nofollow does need to be significantly further though through in order to be fully implemented (correctly) by the search marketing community as a whole.
Entry Filed under: News and Views, SEO
13 Comments Add your own
1. Andrew Girdwood | September 3rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hiya,
Good series of posts.
“Evil” is a strange word. Can a link be evil?
My point is that Google have now made it pretty clear that they don’t want to see paid links. With that in mind, are you comfortable still recommending paid links to people? If Google rolls out the big penalties (rightly or wrongly) will you really tell clients “I think they’re wrong to do this and I’ll continue to get paid links for you”?
2. Peter Young | September 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Thanks Andrew for the response. Appreciation of the posts from you is high praise indeed.
As regards the issues raised in this series of posts, I am really stating my own opinion, rather than the recommendations I provide directly to my clients - where I ere strictly on the side of caution - as I imagine/know you do at BigMouth.
However I do feel strongly that the implementation of such a ‘rule’ really needs further thinking, before it will be fully accepted as in my opinion there are a number of very major and particularly ambiguous statements that govern its usage. Added to that I don’t see the issue of well planned relevant paid link development - where the use is not merely SEO related as surely this adds value and should be encouraged whether paid or not.
3. Chris Paston | September 4th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I’ve argued that paid links are ‘bad’ excessively of late on Sphinn and SEOMOZ, so I’ll not repeat myself too much.
Having said that, is not better to take the money that is spent on paid links (which I do think skew search), and instead invest it inwardly on great content that,
a) benefits the end user,
and
b) benefits the website due to acting as natural linkbait?
Although I’m very much in the nofollow camp, I also think that Google contributes to its own problems by so heavily weighting links from dmoz and edu/gov sites etc as it forces sites who find it difficult to get such links into paying for a similar service elsewhere, i.e. paid links.
As SEM continues to grow so quickly as its own industry, it’s difficult to force SEOs to not use tactics that gain success when their livelihoods depend on it.
4. Peter Young | September 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Cheers Chris
I only have one question regarding the above post and its one I keep coming back to as the bggest sticking point in the debate
In your comment you said
“Having said that, is not better to take the money that is spent on paid links (which I do think skew search),”
Now, how do Paid links skew search in a way that paid blog submmissions (for link purposes), paid directory submissions and unpaid directory submissions do not.
Surely all these skew natural search visibility also?
I do take on your points relating to content - and it is something we do recommend to clients (as I said these are my thoughts), but I would add I still would ideally see a combination of all factors rather than focussing merely on generating good content on its own (as surely a dearth of content is only going to result in a dilution of the message and therefore its effectiveness)
5. Chris Paston | September 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I personally see paid directory submissions (when links are followed) exactly the same as I see any paid links, whether there is human review or not prior to listing.
And as I say, I’d like to see links be weighted less than they currently are - this covering unpaid directories etc too.
It’s a rather grey area though as there is undoubtedly a need for links to be an important metric in any search engine algo, but at the moment, it’s impossible to tell whether a link on a website is an indicator of quality/authority.
I’d love to know what percentage of listings are there for SEO purposes in any given paid or unpaid directory.
6. Will | September 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
One thing that has annoyed me since the paid link debate seems to have elevated to the top of the agenda on virtually every SEO site I visit is the lack of clarity of what a “paid link” actually is?
Matt Cutts had the perfect opportunity to give at least Google’s definition of this in his recent SES presentation on the subject in San Jose. However, after downloading and reading his slides it seems even he has skipped any clear definition, making the area even more blurred and discussion even futile in places.
Matt did however indicate that a “paid link” which passes PageRank violates search engine guidelines. I deduce from this that the violation occurs either because:
a) the link was not a natural citation or recommendation earned naturally; or
b) money was being used to influence “organic” results and therefore potentially distorting the playing field and relevancy of the results
If (a) is the main issue, then using the term “paid links” as a definition is inadequate as there are millions of links placed on the internet where money isn’t involved that are not earned organically but Google still seem happy for them to pass PageRank.
Therefore if the violation occurs due to (b) I really don’t understand why any link that is being published online primarily due to money exchanging hands is not violating this definition and therefore encouraged to be no-followed?
Paid directory submissions certainly fall under this banner. And anyone that has used a company such as PR Web to distribute an online press and paid the extra 40 or 50 dollars to have live contextual links strategically placed in there “just for the extra traffic” these should also be no-followed, as money is quite clearly the sole reason they are being placed there.
However, I expect the main supporters of no-follow will class these links as not paid for - which comes back to my original point, will someone please define once and for all what they are talking about when referencing a paid link please?
Maybe you will address this in part IV, Peter?
7. Chris Paston | September 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Well, as a big supporter of no-follow (for this purpose), I would define a paid link as:
“Any link which is placed on a website as a direct result of money changing hands.”
That’s all. Simplistic maybe, but I think it’s impossible to discern motive without the use of a psychic. I’d never add a caveat such as:
“Any link which is placed on a website as a direct result of money changing hands for the purposes of influencing organic results.”
There’s no doubt that Google adds to its own downfall by encouraging listings on Yahoo Dir etc, I also have no solution and admit that my view of relevant 100% natural search results is Utopian to the extreme.
So, ultimately, this is a somewhat pointless post.
Anyone want to ’sponsor’ a link?
8. Will | September 4th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
So are you a supporter of no-follow for this purpose due to money exchanging hands, or that paid links are a way to influence the SERPs? Do you offer link building services to your clients for free i.e. without money exchanging hands, whether those links are “free” or “paid”?
9. Peter Young | September 4th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Chris, I think you have hit on the big problem. Just where is the line drawn, what constitutes a Paid Pagerank Passing (PPP) link to the extent where it will have become applicable to intervention from Google.
That line is ambiguous. We mentioned a number of adverts on a prominent Internet Consultancy website which included contextual linkage to advertisers. Why would these ads be OK and ads from a motor portal to a car insurance company (paid for for pagerank purposes) not be. After all how does Google tell that the car insurance one is paid for for page rank purposes only and the Internet consultancy one isnt. After all both could have (and to a degree would have taken into account), the effects a link from a prominent portal would have on their sites. After all thats what these companies do - market online
Thats part of the problem - like I said I am more than happy to comply with any guidelines and from a client perspective we always will. However this does need more long term thought and planning rather than just banning Page rank passing linkage (Matt Cutts term)
PS. Wouldn’t it be interesting to get the views of some of the other big UK search engine optimisation companies, such as Search Latitude, Spannerworks, Greenlight search and Neutralize, seeing that Andrew Girdwood from Bigmouthmedia has already sounded out their thoughts
10. Rincewind | September 4th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I pay a content writer to compose “Quality content” for my website purely for SEO purposes.
I pay to syndicate articles and press releases
I pay for directory inclusion.
I pay subscription fees to keep me part of niche communities where membership carries good link weight.
I guess my goose is cooked next Google update
11. Chris Paston | September 5th, 2007 at 9:31 am
“So are you a supporter of no-follow for this purpose due to money exchanging hands, or that paid links are a way to influence the SERPs? Do you offer link building services to your clients for free i.e. without money exchanging hands, whether those links are “free” or “paid”?”
In terms of the last question, of course we use link building as part of our overall SEO offering - we even pay for links. This doesn’t mean that I don’t think they should be nofollowed. While certain sites carry so much weight, we’d be stupid not to utilise the tactic while it is legit.
And I’m a supporter of nofollow, simply because it would mean we get that little bit closer to a level playing field, i.e. quality of content > quality of links.
I also think we can get too precious about ‘paid links’ and the wide definition of these. I think that despite Google not properly defining them, we generally know what they mean.
A strong link which passes pagerank as a byproduct of paying for said link is fine. If the link offers nothing (i.e. no traffic, no PR etc) but the passing of pagerank, then it’s a no no.
But yes, I’ll still use the latter on certain sites on which I don’t have to worry about any future penalties.
12. Will | September 5th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I agree that building quality links from relevant sites for traffic purposes is a good strategy. This has always been good practice and, I suggest, was the main source of traffic for most sites before the search engines became their primary source of traffic.
I’d have to disagree though with the following statements though:
“we’d be stupid not to utlilise the tactic while it is legit”
and
“I’ll still use the latter (paid links solely for the purpose of passing PageRank) on certain sites on which I don’t have to worry about any future penalties”
Matt Cutts has clearly stated in his recent presentation (SES San Jose Aug 21) that “Google is willing to take strong action against Paid PageRank Passing links”.
Isn’t this a clear signal that paid links are now deemed as violating search engine quality guidelines and therefore should be used carefully (or not at all) on clients sites from now on?
13. Peter Young | September 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“A strong link which passes pagerank as a byproduct of paying for said link is fine. If the link offers nothing (i.e. no traffic, no PR etc) but the passing of pagerank, then it’s a no no.”
I think all of us would agree with that, however from what I can see this isnt the case, and is one of the points argued above. I don’t agree with willy nilly paid linkage for pagerank sake, but what harm is there in buying a relevant on topic link (that passes PR) rather than acquiring a non-relevant link free that you have no control over.
From a marketing perspective it doesn’t make any sense, let alone from an SEO perspective.
At the end of the day, like I said in Part I of these posts - Google made links a commoditised service by making them a fundamental part of their algorithm. Surely differentiating paid for from nonpaid for is not the best solution to solving the problem of accumulating links for SEO purposes only
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed