There have been a number of blog posts recently, pointing out the flaws in Google’s logic on the policy of paid links. And we all know the basic argument:
Receiving compensation for a link does not mean that the link is irrelevant, of poor quality, or in any way detrimental to the web.
In fact, a “paid link” might be of more benefit to the web than a straight editorial, depending on the circumstances. What should be obvious to all is that it’s the quality and relevance of a link and the surrounding content, that should be the subject of scrutiny by Google, and any other search engine for that matter. That applies to paid and unpaid links equally, and negates the need to identify a paid link.
My own thoughts:
First and foremost, I applaud any efforts to produce a more accurate index, as long as they focus on the underlying issues. The emergence of paid links for SEO purposes has come about because of a problem, and is not a problem in itself.
The fact that many paid links are irrelevant should not initiate a blanket response. Why? Because it underlines the fact that Google cannot (or will not) address the core issues of relevancy and quality. Instead of “is a link paid”, why not “how deserved is the place of the link”?
Furthermore, the concept of using nofollow makes no sense in the long run, since the idea of webmasters, bloggers, and content writers having to adopt a policy of adding code to their own site will never be taken up in a manner that would make it useful. How it can be anything but a non-starter, taken up only within particular niches related to SEO? It’s actually rather naieve to think that something as large, diverse, and commercial as the internet, could be made to own up to their linking activity motives.
If the purpose of a search engine is to provide quality relevant results to its users, then it cannot rely on anyone else to help identify it, nor can it hope to 2nd guess issues of morality and motive. It has to look at what is there, and judge content based on how helpful it would be to a human reader for any given keyword, right?
Yes, Google can do whatever it wants with its index, but that should in no way stop people from voicing reasoned opinions, nor does it stop those opinions from potentially being correct. This is especially true when such responsibility lies with a company like Google (whether they like it or not).
I’m also very wary of some of the strategies Google employ, such as asking people to report paid links. It certainly looks like it could be a way to divide webmasters, and distract from the real problem. No other engine feels the need to use such provocative tactics, why do Google?
Bloggers Speaking Out:
However, whilst there have been pockets of resistance throughout the blogosphere, there has still been little by way of unified action on this matter. No offence, but PayPerPost doesn’t constitute a spear-head. It could easy be argued that a lot of their reviews fall foul of Google penalties no matter which way you look at it; this is a matter for individuals to come together and voice their arguments. And a time for the opposition to respond.
Whilst blog posts manage this to a degree, I would contend that there needs to be a focal point on the web where arguments can be organised and built upon (through blog posts and other outlets). Something like Wikipedia, but for debates (sounds like the beginnings of a new idea doesn’t it).
To anyone who is reading this, and would be interested in creating such a focal point, let me know of your thoughts. I’m not for one minute suggesting that I lead a move like this (there are far more influential people out there than myself), but there needs to be some kind of united action put forward by those who acknowledge the flaws in “paid link” crackdown logic.
Current Pockets of Resistance:
Just a few articles that view Google’s actions as potentially incorrect, damaging, or even monopolistic. There are far more, this was just a sample (I’ll happily add links to this list if you want to provide them):
Myself - Who should shoulder the Responsibility?
Andy Beard - Google Dictating Nofollow for all Links from Compensated Content
James Morris - Google Blowing Smoke up our Ass
Ted Murphy - Matt Cutts Reponds, Confirms Double Standards
Michael Gray - TechCrunch Scared of Google and caves in like a Schoolgirl
Jeremy Schoemaker - Google Nofollow
GetFoundNow.com - Google is Not your Friend
And to finish:
This article comes from someone who initially thought gaming search engines like Google was of little consequence. The link in my sidebar to a stalled project (LinksInContext link broker) speaks of that. However, I came to the view that it should be up to the individual buyer / seller as to what should happen. All the work I am currently involved with comes with the nofollow option as standard (yes, that was even put into the link broker code), but I believe that quality work deserves recognition - including from the search engines - and as such I have no problem with either buyers or sellers wanting to go without nofollow.
It is therefore my opinion that penalising a link for being paid or compensated, is short-sighted, and misses the point of what we should really be focusing on (reader quality and relevance). Lack of such properties is what damages the web, and should be wholly excluded or devalued. I would hope that it the wish of all who read this, no matter what side of the link you currently come down on.
PS. if you want to take a break from the squabbling for a moment, why not leave your thoughts on the topic of user-driven Niche DigiZines, aiming to help bloggers and inpsiring editors monetise their content, rather than ad space!