Not that long ago I posted about Review Me and PayPerPost. It looks like the end for those services is nearing (as I predicted in a comment) as Matt Cutts indirectly states in a comment at SEOmoz.
Google wants to do a good job of detecting paid links. Paid links that affect search engines (whether paid text links or a paid review) can cause a site to lose trust in Google.
If the blogosphere is all about disclosure this seems to have huge financial consequences. Will bloggers get punished in Google and what is bound to happen with non contextual affiliate links such as the ones sold by Text-Link-Ads?
Is Google going to oblige every blogger to use Adsense? Will other targeted ads also get punished?
Will advertisers still buy links/reviews if the blogger hasto use rel=”nofollow”?
Is this Do no evil? I am afraid that this one comment, although it surely is no surprise in SEO-land, might involve a lot more than most bloggers think.
I do hope that Matt Cutts will clarify what is exactly meant, before the drama created by Jason Calacanis today escalates (hat tip anyway… with rel=”nofollow”).
I hope Cutts and team won’t punish every blogger using mentioned services, but then again I do trust Matt’s team because Google has become cleaner. But still, it would be nice if the months long guessing about paid links were to be ended soon by an official statement from Google.
Will bloggers be allowed to make money by selling pixel space? Or will they have to implement additional classes (such as rel=”nofollow”) not to get devaluated
3 have made me smarter ↓
1 Pat // Dec 12, 2006 at 12:10 pm// View all comments by Pat //
Hi, I am new to blogging, but I had this to say about the same issue, and the same quote you are using.
Matt Cutts, we “nofollow” what you mean
2 Franky // Dec 12, 2006 at 5:51 pm// View all comments by Franky //
Hi Pat,
thanks for the link and comment. I surely do know how to use rel=”nofollow” (at least I do think), but what isn’t clear for me is what this rule implies.
I have done SEO in times when a lot still was allowed. I remember having kicked a shop for alternative ink cartridges onto the second page when looking for “[printer brand] cheap ink” (in Germany, using lots of different htaccess rules. If I remember well I had 17 different urls for the same article aso …
The shop only had backlinks on 4 (own) domains, money for adwords was only lost money because the results were satisfying. *yawns*
Today I’ld say I am pretty well aware of the meaning of nofollow and also occasionally use nofollow on this (and other blogs).
What interests me more is the economical context of Matt’s comments. And what for the (98%) freetime bloggers who don’t know SEO (and don’t really care either) but who don’t mind either grabbing the quick buck over ReviewMe and PPP. Probably they even review related services.
A question which also bothers me is “Am I fair to review requester/advertiser if I add nofollow? Is Google the one who decides about this?”
Imagine I turn this blog into a geek blog and start getting offers for paid reviews. Those services are related to my (new) content. Should I give them a nofollow because Google has noticed that I disclose getting paid for said review?
Or could we settle on a new class such as rel=”commercial” maybe?
Nofollow today has become a weapon but surely isn’t perfect. A spammer gets a nofollow from me. I even do spread link love here in the comments. If I feel/think your comment is just publicity for your site I take the freedom to delete the link. Or add a nofollow in the comment.
But a new class such as rel=”commercial” would offer several new opportunities:
- The fear to get devaluated would disappear
- Google could easily still take those links in consideration (if the algorithm decides the link is related, but make their importance less than a regular link.
- Services such as PPP and ReviewMe could integrate the rel=”commercial” in their ToS and if they don’t control the usage, they get blacklisted themselves.
Or is this just to make Adwords/Adsense the only allowed option if you want to rank well in Google?
3 pat // Dec 12, 2006 at 6:00 pm// View all comments by pat //
Franky, I hear you. The rel=”commercial” would be a great way to accomplish what matt cautts is saying, and let the ref=”nofollow” stand as intended, a forum / blog spam equalizer.
I actually wouldn’t care what it was but let it be something. Give us a page where we can go read and make a decision based upon a standard is all I am asking of Google.
If they knew how many people were trippin out on this and worrying about their site or blog they would use another method of spreading the word then matt.
argghh.
I am going to bed.