Comments on: PR Finally Updating AND Ad Tracker – Ethical or EVIL?

By: Bush Mackel

Bush Mackel — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:56:23 +0000

@Valentin – Good note about anchor text in sponsored reviews. I would say though that I don’t know if its fair to say that Google “started” seo since they haven’t been around forever (but now is the biggest and thus catches all the flack). Seo/m IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN webmasters trying to figure out se algo’s and use that knowledge to push sites to the top of them.

So on that note, I can’t be mad or anything else that Google is trying to make their engine better or trying to maintain its integrity (which we can all question). I can however be mad that they don’t use their webmaster tools to alert us webmaster of these kinds of issues. I mean, there IS a message center in there right!?

By: Valentin

Valentin — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:50:11 +0000

I ceased to publish “sponsored posts”.
When ? As soon as I noticed smorty (for example, or creamaid) don`t validate an post if link is not keyworded exactly as required.
Why ? Because I start to wonder if they (clients, advertisers, not smorty or TLA) are really intersted into visitors or maybe the are more interstaed in permanent linksbacks using targeted keywords – mean SEO stuff.

I think if one want a review, is reviewer option what words will use to linkback; if is a paid link (not a review, a text-link or banner), then there can be a penality on a certain level, for link buyer, but …

As I said before somewhere else, Google will to become monopoly started all the SE “Optimisation” stuff.

By: Bush Mackel

Bush Mackel — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:46:19 +0000

@mlankton – I’m with ya, and I wasn’t referring necessarily to text link ads. I definitely agree with you that the large majority of advertisers who use text link ads don’t do so because ehy need people to click, but instead want the link juice.

By: mlankton

mlankton — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:28:48 +0000

All I’m saying is that neither TLA nor their partners care if a single person clicks their ads. They want the link, plain and simple. It’s understandable that Google has a problem with that, and all you have to do is search “text link ads” on Google to see it.
I wonder how much TLA pays Google a month for that ad above the search results for that string.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:17:59 +0000

@mlankton: I’m curious about your comment. How is it that you say it’s by their nature? Isn’t that like saying magazine ads are meant to boost a magazine’s popularity? I think it’s the other way around, in that the magazine’s popularity (based on readership/subscriptions) is meant to help the advertisers. Granted, I’m not saying there’s no chance of abuse in this area, but surely it can’t be all bad.

By: mlankton

mlankton — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:34:31 +0000

It’s easy enough for advertisers to implement links in javascript, or directed to non-indexed sites ala some affiliates.
I’m guessing TLA wouldn’t be to eager to slap a nofollow on the links they’re paying you to publish, since the focus of their business is serp and pagerank manipulation. I honestly don’t think TLA or their clients give a hoot whether anybody clicks those links. They want the link for it’s intrinsic value.

By: Bush Mackel

Bush Mackel — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:29:21 +0000

@Valentin – “I`ll stil think they are only trying hard to â€œtake overâ€ the market” Aren’t they THE MARKET already?

And I hear ya on PR predictors…But I don’t believe that the official PR update has taken place yet, just scattered penalties reducing visible PR. So we’ll have to see after everything shakes out how reliable the predictors are.

@Ad Tracker – I saw that on your post a day or two ago. And I don’t think so … But I guess it depends on how you’re talking about either. M$’s online presence is definitely nubbins compared to Google so in that sense, they’re not the same. On the grounds of “taking over the world”, maybe – Since the web is basically the “the world” now when speaking about computers. When Google starts heading over to desktop and laptop OS’s…that’s when M$ is really going to be fearful.

@Mark – That’s what I’m wondering too. I mean, what if I just put all my paid links under a H2 tag that says “Blogroll”? I mean, am I going to be penalized for my “Blogroll” now? Or maybe the penalties only come when non names are used in link text (i.e. “blogging tips” vs “Bush Mackel”). Beats me. I’ve heard various theories on how Google is making these heavy handed conclusions like seeing the PPP sticker in the sidebar and so on…

I just wish (like many others) they’d be more transparent about the whole thing so we could easily follow the rules.

@mlankton – But paid links w the rel=”nofollow” should be ok right? I wish the big G would just say “yes” or “no” on this front. It seems until they do, people are removing text links in favor of image links.

By: mlankton

mlankton — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:08:15 +0000

Because by their very nature paid links have no other purpose than to manipulate serps and pagerank, which undermines Google’s business.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:49:49 +0000

I know they, Google, make the rules, but I still don’t get how they can penalize someone for selling links. I understand how that can be abused, but not sure how they’re able to differentiate between abusive use and non-abusive.

By: Ad Tracker

Ad Tracker — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:19:23 +0000

This reminds me of an article I read somewhere with this quote in it,

In an interview posted on the Google blog, the founders of Google were asked if they were trying to take over the entire internet. Sergey Brin adamantly stated, “We absolutely are not trying to take over the internet!” Co-founder Larry Page interjected, “We don’t like to use the word ‘trying’.”

Is Google the new Microsoft?