While I did not expect much in the way of news here in the U.S. due to the Thanksgiving holiday, it appears that Google took the opportunity to update their web master guidelines regarding paid links. The changes essentially reveal that buying or selling links that pass PageRank can penalize a site not only in its Google Toolbar PageRank status, but also in Google search results. What does this mean for those that consider themselves “white hat SEOs?” Better go shopping for a new hat – a nice black one.
This is what Google currently has to say regarding those who buy and sell paid links:
Some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.
Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:
- Adding a rel=”nofollow” attribute to the tag
- Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file
Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank.
We have already seen in recent months that selling links can have a negative impact on one’s Google PageRank score as thousands of sites saw their PageRank lowered significantly. Now they are saying it can impact your ability to rank well, not just for sellers, but buyers as well.
So for all of you white hat SEOs who buy and sell paid links with the goal of trying to improve a sites visibility in the organic search results, you are now officially a black hat! I’m included in that mix as I buy links for clients and sell them on sites we run as well (not this one).
A quick word on my stance as a seller of links – we do not offer links for sale with the goal of manipulating Google’s SERPs but rather for the sake of exposure and direct traffic. The sites that we sell advertising on draw a lot of traffic in specific niches and as a result, our advertisers want to attract some of that traffic. If it helps their sites to rank better, that is an indirect affect and is actually he fault of Google’s own algorithm. Despite that fact, I am now violating their guidelines if I do not add a “nofollow” attribute tag to the links or use some kind of redirection so that the link is not a clean html link. I’m sorry but that is pure bull!@#$ and further evidence that Google has turned into a bully, trying to dictate how web site owners should run their sites.
So, I’m off to get a new hat. I don’t know if it will be a cowboy hat or baseball hat, but do know what color it will be. 😉
David Wallace
David Wallace, co-founder and CEO of SearchRank, is a recognized expert in the industry of search and social media marketing. Since 1997, David has been involved in developing successful search engine and social media marketing campaigns for large and small businesses. Follow +David Wallace on Google + as well as Twitter.
Follow Me:
Doug Heil wrote:
“hmm. If a site’s goal when buying or selling links is to improve in Google; when did that ever equate that webmaster with being a whitehat SEO in the first place?”
By your definition, optimizing title tags, meta descriptions and content in order to improve one’s ranking in Google would also be black hat. So I guess anyone who touches any facet of a web site in order to improve their visibility in Google (or any other search engine) is a black hat! 😉
David,
A completely valid stance you have, one which I agree.
The next question to beg is whether or not a link is paid for the sole purpose of manipulating the search engines or if it was done for purely advertising.
What if I bought you a cup of coffee and asked for you to link to me. Would that be considered a paid link? Which kind of paid link would it be? Should I nofollow it?
It’s all just big joke to me. They’re fighting a battle that they will lose.
You wrote this:
“So for all of you white hat SEOs who buy and sell paid links with the goal of trying to improve a sites visibility in the organic search results, you are now officially a black hat! I’m included in that mix as I buy links for clients and sell them on sites we run as well (not this one).”
hmm. If a site’s goal when buying or selling links is to improve in Google; when did that ever equate that webmaster with being a whitehat SEO in the first place?
I’ve never considered someone who bought and sold links because of Google a whitehat at all. It seems you think this is something new? I also thought of things meant to trick Google or manipulate Google was called “blackhat”. What you describe as always been blackhat in my neck of the woods.
That might be true if you had stated that buying and selling links was done for some other reason. You didn’t say that. You said it was done to “improve serps”. If that is what you were buying/selling for, then that has “always” been search engine spam and has not changed.
I’m wondering why people “just now” are surprised that Google is Finally cracking down on search engine spam? I know that we, (the forums) have been discussing this for at least 3 years now or so… maybe longer… since the Massa fiasco, I think.
I’m just amazed that everyone is considered guilty until proven innocent. On many links Google has no proof that money has exchanged hands. Also, since when is 15 year standard of linking sudden considered against the terms of use?
Google shouldn’t tell how to code their websites. Google is a little arrogant thinking that links are made just to thwart their system.
Yes; that is true annon, but if the links are not made to “thwart” their system, then you should not have a problem putting them in a redirected page first, or using a nofollow tag, right?
And yes; you will then tell me that Google should not “control” us or the internet.
Google is NOT controlling anyone, nor are they “telling” anyone what to do. You can do as you damn well please. At the same time, Google can do as she damn well pleases as well. It’s fairly easy to understand. 🙂
Google states to not use hidden text or links in your content as well. It seems that some SEO types are saying that Google should not be stating anything at all as that would be “telling” webmasters what to do.
Websites have always had the choice on whether or not to abide by stated search engine guidelines. That hasn’t changed since day one.
I agree with you (Doug Heil) is not controlling anyone. They are however, “telling” (though more “writing”) webmasters what to do with their websites. No other search engine that I can think of requests that you change your HTML for them.
Wikipedia (may not be the best source) does say that the nofollow attribute is a “non-standard HTML attribute.” So now one company is requesting people make their code not up to the agreed upon standards. What if another company creates a search engine and says that the “nofollow” tag violates their webmaster guidelines? Suddenly people are forced to choose sides? That doesn’t seem right.
I don’t have a problem with hidden links or text since it’s 99% purposeful. It’s also 100% provable that it’s “hidden.”
I have a blog that’s in a certain niche. However, I have friend that run websites in a separate niches. So I have a blogroll for that niche and then I have another section of “Friends” for those websites. I can easily see why Google might think that these are paid links. Google can’t also assume that every webmaster knows what a “nofollow” is.
This is what it comes down to… Google can PROVE that hidden links and text exist. They CAN’T PROVE that money has exchanged hands.
Well sure; but no “proof” is necessary if you are Google. It’s their search engine and algo, so they can do as they please just like you can do as you please with your website. 🙂 You either play by their rules to get “free” referrals, or you don’t.
laef wrote:
“How does google make the differnece between a natural link and a paid link?”
None of us know for sure. I assume they try to do it algorithmically maybe by looking for html text that marks the links as sponsored (e.g. sponsored links, advertisements, etc.), run of site links, links to sites that are irrelevant of site that is linking, etc.
They also rely on tattle-tales and having access to inventories of sites that sell text links such as text Link Ads, who I might add now hides their inventory from public view.
How does google make the differnece between a natural link and a paid link ?
Everyone is always looking for ways to rank better in Google, trying to figure out the innumerable facets of their ever-changing algorithm. Now they give a clear cut method, and everyone is up in arms. Why? Because they phrase it in terms of penalty, rather than benefit.
Just call rel=nofollow “GoogleTagToHelpMeRankBetter”-and it would be much more popular—a white hat way to rank better!
There are a lot of other things you can do to attempt to manipulate PageRank, and all you hear about them is “If you do that, just don’t get caught!” Everyone knows what’s “wrong” with manipulating PageRank—if it gets out of hand, the index is devalued. Google has put the most impressive collection of brainpower ever gathered in a public company to keep the index clean and of high value. Search is not a trivial problem to solve, and Google does it better than it’s ever been done.
People are also mad that Google added to the purpose of rel=nofollow over time. Fine. Use an robots.txt blocked intermediate page instead. No one is forcing use of rel=nofollow—it’s a convenience.
And it’s always been the case that some of what you do to optimize for one search engine will not help/may hinder optimization for another search engine.
And, frankly, if you’re aware of the problem, and you can’t think of a way to make your paid links look “natural,” optimization isn’t really something you should be messing around with.
My problem is that sometimes it’s nice to make something look like a paid advertisement and have it pass page rank, when it isn’t paid. Remember all the “ads” to help people donate after Katrina, or the tsunami? I had no problem “recommending” (passing PageRank) to the Red Cross at the time. (Now instead of an ad, you have to do a sidebar column article, or text link, or some such.)
Google has shown that giving great search results is rocket science, and I’m grateful for what they’ve done. The quality of their search results is what has made the internet such a life-changing part of modern culture. Giving savvy webmasters who buy and sell ads the opportunity to improve their placement in search results by adding rel=nofollow to paid ads really seems pretty straightforward to me.
More and more people are turning to black hat, who cares about google, they think they own the internet – can’t you see what they are up to – they want those people who are investing money on their websites to have not other option but to use crappy adwords, and we know how much that costs. Get a black hat, fill their damn search engine with spam and don’t pay for any adwords, adwords are a con, what it comes down to at the end is which webmaster is willing to pay the most for a keyword – which means which webmaster is willing to work for the smallest profit, which means its like gambling for the webmaster but google has no risk at all. Black hat seo websites are filling the internet because they actually work.
Blackhat is scary because nobody wants to get banned by Google. I didn’t even realize you could get black listed from the ping service.