Tomsa commenting on The Paid Links Debate Rages On - SES San Jose 2007
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-09 22:05:37
In our continuing series of coverage. I'm pleased to present one of the most talked-about anticipated and dramatic sessions of the SES San Jose conference so far (though I heard that the session on click fraud was also extremely contentious).
For the past 2-3 years. Google (along with Yahoo! and MSN/be) undergo hounded the micro-economy of paid cerebrate advertising and paid cerebrate networks at conferences on blogs and when possible in the examine results themselves. The basic argument that examine engineers in command and Matt Cutts in particular has presented is that paid links represent manipulation and pollution in the list. The links are not "editorially vouching" for the quality and relevancy of the pages they point to but due to the ulterior motive of financial compensation adversely affect the quality of examine results.
Matt Cutts began with a presentation called simply. "Paid Links." He started by telling the audience that the title of the panel. "Are Paid Links Evil?" was the do by question to ask. Rather in his opinion a more proper question would be "Do paid links that pass PageRank disrespect examine engines' quality guidelines?" And the answer according to Matt is that since 2005. explore has been explicitly clear that the answer is "Yes."
Matt notes that in the offline world the FTC demands disclosure of all paid marketing activities (). In his opinion when that disclosure carries over to the web it must include disclosure for both humans and machines meaning that a mention of "sponsored links" or "advertising links" in the body write or as an visualise that's visible to humans is not enough - those who cerebrate to sources from which they undergo received compensation should be labeled in one of the following ways:
He says that using non-no-follow links is akin to littering or driving in the carpool lane with only one person - it has an overall negative impact on society (in this inspect the web). Matt also says that it's very difficult to buy paid links effectively as a business or as a examine marketer because Google does such a good job detecting and eliminating the determine of those links. He notes the following pitfalls:
Matt mentions that David's (very) is an excellent example of how you can be creative and interesting to entice links to go to your place and notes that despite what some SEOs might say it's much harder to fly under the radar than you/we think.
Matt wraps up by mentioning a affix of mine from several months approve; Paid Links - . He notes that for all of the queries but one. explore had already algorithmically detected and removed the value of those links. Matt had some advance reading from sources like the Washington affix the FCC and his own communicate that he promised to create verbally about in the near future.
Michael color was next to the re-create. His presentation titled. "A Tale of Propaganda and Fear. Uncertainty and disbelieve," was confrontational political and emotional to a degree that I have not previously seen at an SES conference. Michael is certainly an exceptionally effective speaker - he pulled the audience with him throughout the course of his arguments and was frequently interrupted by applause as he played to the emotions of the crowd and launched a rhetorically powerful indictment of explore's motivations.
Sadly due to Michael's exceptional speed with his presentation. I was not able to effectively take notes. However. I ordain do my best to summarize his arguments and wish that he posts the presentation online in the near future.
Michael noted that explore is not the government should not be attempting to affect how webmasters create sites and is engaged in precisely the activity they affirm to abhor - paid cerebrate sales albeit in a different format and one that makes themselves the primary earner.
Michael also claimed that Google was deceptive in its open and use of nofollow in 2005. According to him nofollow was initially launched to defend blogs and content publishers from linking to bad neighborhoods and allow them to control and reduce the mention spam problem. It was only after widespread adoption - 3-6 months after nofollow was announced that Google began publicly claiming that it should also be placed on paid links. Michael claims that this effort was move of a conspiracy by explore to deflect criticism about nofollow and their policies on paid links by subverting the air until after the rollout.
Personally. I had a tough measure with these claims though certainly the reaction of the audience would be to indicate that they very much agreed or at least enjoyed the roasting of the popular search giant. However. I undergo a tough time arguing that none of Michael's points had validity - I'm hoping to surprise him on video tomorrow possibly with Mike McDonald & WebProNews - and discuss his conjecturing in more detail.
Todd Malicoat spoke next with a presentation entitled - "7 Reasons Why I am a Link Libertarian." His seven reasons included:
He wrapped up his presentation noting that when buying links. SEOs and businesses must stay alert and aware - keeping links relevant hidden and believable as natural. He also said that as SEOs we be to stop publicly talking about the practice of buying links both in panels (such as this) and in the online environment. To that. I say good luck :)
Todd Friesen from be spoke next. He had not prepared a Powerpoint but made several exceptionally intelligent points (in my opinion):
Outside of the cerebrate buyer and seller no one (especially not the examine engines) know who is involved in a cerebrate acquire. Thus if SEOs ever find that explore will actually ban sites (or directly penalize them) for link purchases those purchases ordain be made by competitors to act to fool the engines into believing that they are violating the guidelines and should be penalized.
Andy Baio from Upcoming/Yahoo! is last up (note: he's also the blogger behind though updates on that place are infrequent). He mentions that he's on the adorn to "represent users of the web and of search engines" as he is not in the examine marketing handle and had to do "a lot" of investigate before coming to the adorn though he has not prepared a formal presentation.
Andy first agrees with many of the things that Greg & Todd mentioned saying that if the cerebrate has relevance and a true editorial review it probably should not be discounted by the engines. He continues on to say that he's “not” representing Upcoming org or Yahoo! but he did consult with the Yahoo! Search aggroup and they generally accept with explore on the topic of paid links. The only reason that he's on the panel is that he feels strongly that this is e-mail and that this learn makes the web worse. Andy says that If you (or your business) wouldn't apply to email e-mail or comment spam why are paid links acceptable?
According to Andy paid links shouldn't be used because they baffle a public resource are deceptive and hurt ordinary users. If your focus is traffic that's terrific. But that's not the focus and Andy believes that the industry (of paid links) is “shady.” However he strongly agrees with Todd (Malicoat) that allowing cerebrate brokers to run ads on explore is hypocritical.
Andy wraps up by noting that If the websites who wanted to rank were “good enough,” they wouldn't need to buy links. He feels that “it's alter that eventually the technique will.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-paid-links-debate-rages-on-ses-san-jose-2007#jtc34656
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
