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

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?

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.

I guess my goose is cooked next Google update

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

“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?

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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”?