Paid Text Links Google backlink Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mac

New Member
Jun 11, 2007
209
152
0
Angels Camp
State / Prov
Ca
In case anybody is interested, there was a Google backlink update a couple of days ago and I posted my review of the situation as it relates to ftd.com 1800flowers.com and proflowers.com exploitation of a hole in Google's algorithm technology. It can be read here: Paid Text Links Part 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Great sleuthing again, Mac!

I have a bunch of feeds and alerts from G News and Blogs and let me just tell ya' that posts with glowing little stories about 1-800 have been hot and heavy the last couple weeks (timing to peak for V-Day?)

There's also a splog regularly posting about the big 3 plus TF although it may just be affiliate links. He/She seems to be posting 10-15 times a day recently.

Have you seen any action on PF's city-specific doorway pages? I'm seeing them show up on page 1 for a few towns. Here's the page title from a 'Florist in Chicago' query:

Skip Chicago florists & use ProFlowers for Chicago flower delivery.
Thanks for the report. :)
 
Hmmmm....

Never thought of using "Potty Training".... but of course Bloomz won't let me link to him anyway ;)
 
I'm sorry ... but this article isn't overly accurate. It looks like you've bought into the Google FUD campaign, but I'd suggest a little more homework on current SEO info.

In reality, those paid links are likely giving little or no value to the big three sites. The are recognized as authority sites within the niche and will rank well regardless of whether they have links from potty training sites.

What Google shows isn't what Google knows. They only show a small percentage of the links they know about, and they don't filter out in their reports the links they view to be spammy or useless. Even if they haven't filtered the potty links, they are so irrelevant and are coming from a PR 0 page. Matt Cutts has demonstrated at various conferences that the links Google uses for weighting are not what they report to the users. Beyond that, you don't know how much weight is given to each link.

Seeing as you don't know all the links, don't know the value of each link, and are discussing the largest authority sites in the industry ... to credit these links by saying "these three floral companies have bought their way to the top" is just misinformed.

Ryan
 
Thanks for your reply, Ryan. However, I too listen to Matt Cutts like he's the Jesus Christ for the search world. What I get from him is that "paid text links" artificially manipulates Google's algorithms. Since the three floral companies are actively engaged in paid text links...well as Jeff Foxworthy would say: "There's your sign."

No where in my article did I hint that these three floral are not getting some natural linkage. I acknowledge that fact in Part 1. But from where I sit, I read what you are saying as though you are suggesting paid text links really arn't a problem. My response to that is: if paid text links didn't effect ranking....then why is Matt Cutts and Google actively asking websurfers to report it?
 
First, a correction: Matt Cutts is so far from JC for SEOs, that it's not even a little bit funny. He's a very nice guy, quite lovable, likes cats - and works for Google. He delivers the company line. His word is not SEO law.

Good paid links are a problem for Google - because Google decided to heavily weigh link value in their algo. Crappy paid links like the ones you highlighted are not. My bet is that they are not factored at all - especially given the weigh the sites already have.

Your article says:
non-relevant websites that are primarily responsible for supporting

have bought their way to the top

It certainly seems that you're implying the paid potty links are driving their placement.

Your comment: "
on a different C Block server which makes them immune to FTD.com's bad neighborhood problems" is just so incorrect.

No, I don't have a problem with paid links. It's like any other service (SEO, for example - or floristry). There are ways to spend your money and get nothing - or you can work with a professional, pay an appropriate rate, and get valuable results. Having 10,000 PR0 links from a blog farm or discount paid ads on russian sites will get you nowhere. It's like basement-betty SEO.

Ryan
 
I've never personally met either MC or JC so I apparrently don't have the inside connection you do to speak either way.

But I can say that your post strikes me as double talk as I clearly imply that I do believe links *like* "potty training" are influencing their ranking which is why I believe Google is making such a ruckus over paid links. That's all I'm saying regarding that and I think you agree with that simple bottom line when you said: "Good paid links are a problem for Google - because Google decided to heavily weigh link value in their algo." Crappy or not, visible or not, the intent on getting involved in paid link programs is to manipulate the search engines. Is it not? Can you agree with that central point? And if you do, do acknowledge that these companies are even involved with paid link schemes?

I guess the real question here is: are these companies ranking good based solely on natural processes?
 
I guess the real question here is: are these companies ranking good based solely on natural processes?


That's impossible to know. I doubt even Matt knows for sure. I can tell you with certainty that the links you've highlighted are not boosting their rankings. I think the better question is: Are the paid links giving them a better ranking than they would otherwise have?

Simple answer: no. They are the largest players, with extensive affiliate networks and broad link profiles. For them, the only benefit of building paid links would be to possibly help with long tail searches, but it seems they are buying links for "flowers." My guess is they are doing this in-house, or they've hired an SEO who is too out of touch to know better.

Are paid links bad? No - the system is built on links. For a new site to rank well, it needs incoming links. You're an SEO - you know why.

Are paid links from a potty training site to a flower seller good? No - they are just useless clutter on a useless page of a useless site putting loose change in the pocket of the site owner.

Ryan
 
Well, you are entitled of course to your philosophical opinion that paid links are not bad. But in Google's eyes they are, and that is an undebateable fact.

Let me ask you a question: are you involved in buying text links?

If so, perhaps you could explain for readers the difference between seeking broker services like what FTD used (e.g. text-link-ads.com) who claim they will "Improve your traffic and search engine rankings" verses quality link buying.
 
Man, gotta admit that this thread has just made me realize how much I don't know.
Looking forward to seeing where this goes, and maybe learning something.

Kudos to Mac and Ryan for this debate.


ManorMan
 
It is a good one - please pass the popcorn Kevin.
 
Well, you are entitled of course to your philosophical opinion that paid links are not bad. But in Google's eyes they are, and that is an undebateable fact.

Let me ask you a question: are you involved in buying text links?

If so, perhaps you could explain for readers the difference between seeking broker services like what FTD used (e.g. text-link-ads.com) who claim they will "Improve your traffic and search engine rankings" verses quality link buying.

First a question for you, then my answers:

Is Google the government? The law? The gatekeeper to the internet? What gives them the right to dictate how business on the web should be run?

Now my answers:

1) My "philosophical opinion"??? Get real - this is web design and commerce, not philosophy 101.

2) In Google's eyes: Then why does Google offer paid links? Numerous examples have been posted of links from Google to their clients and partners. Anyone who stays current with SEO news knows this. That being said, back to my question to you - why do we have to obey what Google says is bad or good?

3) Am I involved in buying / selling links? Heck, ya :) (I thought about it for the "no talent rip off" bit of fun, but didn't need to.) It's not something I do for every client - many don't require it.

4) Firstly, it's possible to get great quality links through a broker. While the best brokers are underground and don't advertise, even the more popular ones can deliver good links. The FTD, etc, campaigns you described are perfect examples of bad link buying. That's the shotgun approach. Quality link buying involves finding relevant sites with good quality traffic and acquiring a link(s) from them. A well placed link will deliver a significant amount of qualified traffic, even if the link is nofollowed.

But you're an SEO. You know all of this.

Ryan

PS - Backlink updates are so over - Google hasn't done them for ages. Backlink reports are updates continuously. Perhaps you meant the ToolBar PR update?
 
Thanks for your response Ryan. Now lets look at it what you wrote:

Ryan wrote: Is Google the government? The law? The gatekeeper to the internet? What gives them the right to dictate how business on the web should be run?

Mac wrote: Now Ryan, you seem like a smart individual. What type of questions are you asking here? The type of questions whether you accept it or not are philosophical questions by nature. The reason I mentioned that you were doubling talking before is because you often say things that run counter to your points. Like when you answered your own questions above with: “My philosophical opinion??? Get real - this is web design and commerce, not philosophy 101.” They questions you ask are philosophical.

Ryan wrote: 2) In Google's eyes: Then why does Google offer paid links? Numerous examples have been posted of links from Google to their clients and partners. Anyone who stays current with SEO news knows this. That being said, back to my question to you - why do we have to obey what Google says is bad or good?

Mac wrote: Because I choose to. It is my choice.

Ryan wrote: 3) Am I involved in buying / selling links? Heck, ya.


Mac wrote: Ok. This is root of why you decided to take me to task and I thank you for your honesty. This is of course something you “choose” to do even though you know it is clearly out of Google’s Guidelines.

Ryan wrote: 4) Firstly, it's possible to get great quality links through a broker. While the best brokers are underground and don't advertise, even the more popular ones can deliver good links. The FTD, etc, campaigns you described are perfect examples of bad link buying. That's the shotgun approach. Quality link buying involves finding relevant sites with good quality traffic and acquiring a link(s) from them. A well placed link will deliver a significant amount of qualified traffic, even if the link is nofollowed. But you're an SEO. You know all of this.


Mac wrote: Yes, I know all this which why I wrote the review. It seems Ryan that while you agree for the most part about my criticisms regarding FTD/1800flowers/Proflowers involvement in spammy paid text link programs you just disagree with me that it is bad. I can accept that.
 
I think the biggest difference is that you've decided to take Google's corporate guidelines as gospel truth. This is quite common amongst freshly minted webmasters, but rare in the SEO community, to be sure.

Google is a service provider - their job is to organize data, not dictate how that data is created or presented. Over time, the deification of Google tends to wear off with experience.

Google is not the customer - your job as an SEO is to get the best results for your client, not pander to a third party.

Ryan
 
My job as an SEO is to watch out for my clients well-being and to implement long term strategies that are beneficial and not counter productive to the cause. I didn't make Google's Guidelines...I just follow them because I personally know what it's like to burn a website in Google and the ripple effect it has on a client. I am not wet-behind-ears, rather, I'm what you might call seasoned as I've been on the wrong side the tracks before. I no longer choose to follow that black hat path.
 
lol - The fact that you call it Black Hat says it all :)

Ryan
 
"There's your sign." as Jeff Foxworthy would say: "There's your sign."

Actually, that's Bill Engvall.

Good paid links are a problem for Google - because Google decided to heavily weigh link value in their algo.

Heluva good point--the importance of this sentence cannot be overstated.

Is Google the government? The law? The gatekeeper to the internet? What gives them the right to dictate how business on the web should be run?

Yet another good point. However, this is from a guy who takes Google's canonicalization rules as law. I remember making a very, very similar point in a thread a few months ago that was regarded in the opposite. I'm just sayin'...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Not sure on the relevance to the thread but just came across this :
Thursday, Jan 17, 2008

As complex as Google's PageRank may be, search experts at Yahoo seem to think it's not complex enough. Based on patent filings, Yahoo is dabbling in ranking algorithms that incorporate more user behavior data in advance of the company's next run at toppling Google's haloed relevance.


Editor's Note: Yahoo, as usual, is fairly confident in its ability to create a search algorithm that meets or exceeds the quality of Google's. Lots of search players have felt the same and have yet to deliver. Do you think Yahoo will ever catch Google or is it just too late to take down the Mountain View Monolith. Let us know in the comment section.

Seeing will be believing when it happens, of course, as Google is highly secretive about how its search engine calculates PageRank. If history is any indication, they're already way ahead on behavioral factoring.

Nonetheless, Yahoo can afford the best search engineers in the business (if they can get them before Google does, anyway) and the patent filings shed some light on how PageRank is currently calculated and ways it might be improved in the future.

Bill Slawski, Director of Search Marketing at KeyRelevance, goes into painstaking detail of Yahoo's user data challenges at his SEObytheSea blog. Patent language, especially when dealing with algorithms, can be confusing and dense, so we'll just highlight a few interesting points and leave the lexicographical deciphering to you.

Some Yahoo assumptions about PageRank and flaws associated:
  • Internal and external links are often weighed equally even though internal links can be less reliable and more self-promotional. Some links, like disclaimer links, are rarely followed.
  • PageRank ignores that webpages are often purchased and repurposed, decay or become less valuable over time at variable rates.
  • Current calculations, like TrustRank, are engineered more to combat webspam than to reflect actual user behavior.
  • Sometimes PageRank deals with links in bulk, aggregating according host or domain, also known as blocked PageRank.

What Yahoo plans to do about it:
  • Measure link weight – influenced by the frequency with which users follow a link
  • Note when links are ignored and users leave (teleport) to another page of their choosing
  • Calculate the probability that a user stops and reads a webpage rather than views it and moves on.
  • Incorporate user data into the algorithm – "User Sensitive PageRank could reflect "the navigational behavior of the user population with regard to documents, pages, sites, and domains visited, and links selected."
  • Personalize PageRank based on demographic information – age, gender, income, user location)
  • Emphasize recent information
  • Weigh anchor text more heavily – the patent filing calls anchor text "one of the most useful features used in ranking retrieved Web search results"
Comment
About the Author:
Jason Lee Miller is a WebProNews editor and writer covering business and technology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.