Matt Cutts banning seos / websites for not using no follow tags

[tdd1984]

What is this, is Matt cutts penalizing people for not using the no follow tag?

From what I'm reading in his latest blogs, and videos I'm watching on the internet if they find out people are buying links for search engines rankings, then its a good possibility the user can get banned, Matt clearly states creative website deserve the rankings, natural links, like link baits.

I'm going to start attending ses conferences when I get the cash, and possibly trying to meet him, he seems to be a cool guy, but I don't see how they could penalize users for buying links for traffic, I think this is coming forward into seo, I think search will highly depend on organic links, and not contextual links, and etc, I think its moving in that direction.

[tdd1984]

in this recent blog post he stated how to report paid links

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/

[AnaB]

So, if I get mad at my competitors, I can just tell google they're buying links eh? How's google gonna know if a link is a paid link or one added in good fate? Seems like a pretty dumb idea to me. (sorry)

Isn't it a bit like saying I can't pay to advertise my website? People have paid to advertise their websites for ages..

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by AnaB

So, if I get mad at my competitors, I can just tell google they're buying links eh? How's google gonna know if a link is a paid link or one added in good fate? Seems like a pretty dumb idea to me. (sorry)

It don't necessarily seem like a bad idea, but granted a lot of seos might not like this at all, and it will put a lot of companies underground, right now matt cutts is considering buying links as blackhat, and organic links white hat.

I have been focusing more on link bait strategies, and baiting content then I have in the pass, which I don't see anything wrong with Matt cutts idea, but then again to a degree I do.

I think social media link baits are the best way to achieve links, and good links by far, but I think link buying should be aloud, but what I think mainly matts crew is focused on is high end link buyers just buying links to pacifically spoof pr levels, like buying mass quantities of links to spoof page rank to considerably get ranked for dozens of competitive keywords.

So basically there focused on content that did not deserver the links, and thats considerably where there coming from.

[tdd1984]

read this too
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070416-020746
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...threadid=17164

[AnaB]

Originally Posted by tdd1984

It don't necessarily seem like a bad idea, but granted a lot of seos might not like this at all, and it will put a lot of companies underground, right now matt cutts is considering buying links as blackhat, and organic links white hat.

I have been focusing more on link bait strategies, and baiting content then I have in the pass, which I don't see anything wrong with Matt cutts idea, but then again to a degree I do.

I think social media link baits are the best way to achieve links, and good links by far, but I think link buying should be aloud, but what I think mainly matts crew is focused on is high end link buyers just buying links to pacifically spoof pr levels, like buying mass quantities of links to spoof page rank to considerably get ranked for dozens of competitive keywords.

So basically there focused on content that did not deserver the links, and thats considerably where there coming from.

Hmm, I think my problem with the idea is the fact that it sounds far far away from the idea of a free market...I mean, if you make 10K/mo and I make 1K/mo, it's obvious that you are going to be doing tons more advertising than I am. Online or offline...

Google's trying to run a planned version of net economy by saying sites that buy links may suffer..it's counter intuitive...It's like saying if I advertise my business more, yellow pages is going to de-list my business or rank it at the bottom even if i should be on top alphabetically...makes no sense at all..I have every right to advertise my business...

I understand well that Google is not an advertisement search engine...so why doesn't Google just strengthen it's algorithm when it comes to LSI, original content and links from .gov and authority websites?

Another thing, isn't a site that's paying for advertisement more likely to be a serious business and thus offer people what they're looking for than so many MFA's and spammy pages that trick the users...Counter intuitive again..

My rant aside, Perhaps it'll take them a couple years and in the meantime while they focus on this <sarcasm>brilliant</sarcasm> idea..Yahoo will probably catch up...In any case, doesn't seem to be anything more than Google trying to win back trust from it's users..

end of rant (no, really)

Ana

[peter_d]

in this recent blog post he stated how to report paid links

...which will merely result in an avalanche of false reports.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

...which will merely result in an avalanche of false reports.

Well I wouldn't put it pass them, I think the future of seos will be based upon naturally organic links, and baity content will be the way to go, but then again I would have to agree with you on the false reports, I think there going to try to find ways of locking things down, and making things more tight.

[peter_d]

SEO is all about winning a popularity contest.

Google can't decide for certain which links are paid, and which aren't, just by looking at them. A human couldn't do it.

What Google will surely be doing is looking for link bursts pointing towards a site from known traders, and most likely discounting those links. They are unlikely to ban the target site, as it would be too easy to get a competitor taken out.

Also, these days, Google just tend to bury sites. Saves all the hassle of having the owners whining about being banned, and unfair competition. Rather than being removed, their sites just don't rank.

I think Google have an ongoing business incentive to reduce the placement of purely commercial sites in the main SERPs, regardless.

The webmasters who understand that, understand how to profit from search.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

SEO is all about winning a popularity contest.

Google can't decide for certain which links are paid, and which aren't, just by looking at them. A human couldn't do it.

What Google will surely be doing is looking for link bursts pointing towards a site from known traders, and most likely discounting those links. They are unlikely to ban the target site, as it would be too easy to get a competitor taken out.

Also, these days, Google just tend to bury sites. Saves all the hassle of having the owners whining about being banned, and unfair competition. Rather than being removed, their sites just don't rank.

I think Google have an ongoing business incentive to reduce the placement of purely commercial sites in the main SERPs, regardless.

The webmasters who understand that, understand how to profit from search.

so your saying its okay peter? also do you do seo for a living? or just blog for john?

[peter_d]

I used to be an in-house SEO at a web agency, then an independent SEO consultant.

Now I do it for myself (affiliate, arbitrage). And write

so your saying its okay peter

Buying links? I've always bought links, one way or another, and see no reason to change. Are Google going to discount the entire Yahoo Directory, for example?

Linking buying pre-dated Google.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

I used to be an in-house SEO at a web agency, then an independent SEO consultant.

Now I do it for myself. And write



Buying links? I've always bought links, one way or another, and see no reason to change.

Linking buying pre-dated Google.

Right on, you seem to be pretty cool, john seems to have a be pretty group put together for v7n.com, yes buying links is great sometime I get a little caution about it, but I only buy relevant links, all my links are relevant, and I notice my competitors sites have some high pr links, but there all off topic, they are not related to there site at all.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

I used to be an in-house SEO at a web agency, then an independent SEO consultant.

Now I do it for myself (affiliate, arbitrage). And write



Buying links? I've always bought links, one way or another, and see no reason to change. Are Google going to discount the entire Yahoo Directory, for example?

Linking buying pre-dated Google.

ohh yea arbitrage I heard there some $$$ in that, and thats how shoemoney got started with his niche, I'd like to go strictly into stuff like that, and make income through advertising, and etc, but I'm doing the web development too, and in the process of hiring some programmers for our company, but I like the hole arbitrage cause its different high profit values, and affiliate, well thats if the traffic is there.

[peter_d]

>>but I'm doing the web development too, and in the process of hiring some programmers for our company

Sounds good, tdd1984

Arbitrage tends to start off easy, then gets hard.

Arbitrage markets don't tend to last long, because market forces will always move to close the price gap differential. That's why arbitragers shift areas so much. Ring tones are probably pretty competitive these days

But if you find a good niche that not many people know about, arbitrage can be pretty lucrative.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

>>but I'm doing the web development too, and in the process of hiring some programmers for our company

Sounds good, tdd1984

Arbitrage tends to start off easy, then gets hard.

Arbitrage markets don't tend to last long, because market forces will always move to close the price gap differential. That's why arbitragers shift areas so much. Ring tones are probably pretty competitive these days

But if you find a good niche that not many people know about, arbitrage can be pretty lucrative.

yea, I'm really looking forward to arbitrage, I don't know to much about it, but I do know some what of how to do it, I was just reading this at
http://www.distinctseo.com/blog/seo/...ord-data-sets/

so is arbitrage treating you wel hehe

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

>>but I'm doing the web development too, and in the process of hiring some programmers for our company

Sounds good, tdd1984

Arbitrage tends to start off easy, then gets hard.

Arbitrage markets don't tend to last long, because market forces will always move to close the price gap differential. That's why arbitragers shift areas so much. Ring tones are probably pretty competitive these days

But if you find a good niche that not many people know about, arbitrage can be pretty lucrative.

you know now you bring up arbitrage, I'm thinking about trying something really quick with adsense, and dating sites

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by peter_d

>>but I'm doing the web development too, and in the process of hiring some programmers for our company

Sounds good, tdd1984

Arbitrage tends to start off easy, then gets hard.

Arbitrage markets don't tend to last long, because market forces will always move to close the price gap differential. That's why arbitragers shift areas so much. Ring tones are probably pretty competitive these days

But if you find a good niche that not many people know about, arbitrage can be pretty lucrative.

you just got me thinking I found a affiliate that is paying $10 dollars per sign up, I could run that through adsense.

[sniperhiga]

Google can start to penalize paid links. But it is still hard to proof. How can you say that link was bought?

I have a lot of links from paid directories and some of them not paid! I got many of them as partner, supporter, friendship with owners.

Even if your link on pr7 website saying "Thank you our sponsor"... it can be not only money. Maybe i provide free software, or i am investor, or i gave money to create whole website, maybe i designed it for free, maybe i paid money for their office, i saved them from bancrupcy, i pay hosting etc.... In this case company link my company because i am a part of the company.

Only one way to do it if Google start to discover scripts which add link after you pass PayPal (other) cart. In this case it is easy.

[sniperhiga]

Google just paid 1.8 billion for link from YouTube and they don't have "nofollow"

[LazySEO]

Hmmm...I don't know if I'm buying this one. Maybe Matt's trying to discourage people from purchasing links or something, because I don't see how Google could actually enforce this without making their results completely worthless.

As has been said, buying links is highly-utilized mode of online advertising. Not everyone buys links to influence Google's hokey concept of PageRank. If they do enforce this, they'll end up with a bunch of smaller sites that can't afford to advertise high up in the rankings.