A post by Google’s Matt Cutts on Google’s thoughts about the buying of links has generated a good amount of ripples in the SEO end of the world, just as expected.
The post appeared on Matt’s blog, and it made some interesting points (our coverage here) about this oft-discussed issue, with which the SEO response task force has some points they’d like to discuss. In Rusty’s post, he referenced a Dave Naylor post about Yahoo’s acquisition of a top spot in Google and the part paid links played in their ascent.
Another SEOMoz.org blog, Rand Fishkin delivered a measured response to Matt’s post, pointing out what he considers to be oversights on Matt’s behalf. Rand points out that long before Google, webmasters have been paying for links and it’s unrealistic for Google to feel they can change the way links are and were used, especially if the reason cited is to make less work for their algo teams. Rand also points to a much more heated reaction that was issued by Nick Wilson at Threadwatch.org.
To put it mildly, Nick was a little displeased by the perceived arrogance he felt coming from Matt’s post; and when you look at things from Nick’s perspective, it’s easy to see why he thinks Google is taking an arrogant position here. By suggesting the use of a “nofollow” attribute in the link a webmaster has paid for or perhaps face potential consequences – “I wouldn’t be surprised if search engines begin to take stronger action against link buying in the near future.” (taken from Matt’s post) – does portray Google has a position of authority over the ways webmasters conduct their business, which understandably does not sit well with others.
Nick, as do many others, do not feel Google should determine how site owners choose to advertise. If, like Matt says, Google’s algos can determine the difference between links bought for advertising purposes and those that are not (although, this line is blurry too, unless the link is hidden), then why should advertisers/web owners who choose to buy links outside of the established text ad providers be punished or have their link discounted?
In Matt’s defense, he seems to be targeting the majority of the punishment talk at link farms and those that buy just for PageRank. Matt indicates PR (editorial reputation) won’t be passed to those sites buying links because Google can’t seem to determine if the recipient site is reputable or not. However, his arguments about the increased work load when trying to figure out whether a paid link is an advertisement or not rings a little hollow. Instead of increasing the algo team’s workload, Matt suggests using a “nofollow” attribute to designate these paid links.
Although, when you do use the “nofollow,” the site that paid for the link gets no benefit at all, leaving the link buyer to ask “why even bother?” Perhaps this is the direction Google is trying to steer people towards.
Chris Richardson is a search engine writer and editor for murdok. Visit murdok for the latest search news.
