The Paid Link Farce is 3 Years Old – Get Your Act Together Google
Today we woke up to see a nice logo celebrating Googles 10th birthday. It gives everyone a warm feeling to look at the fun logo and think how Google has shaped our lives over the last 10 years but it also makes me frustrated that there are a number of fundamental issues affecting search quality that don’t seem to be getting fixed.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Google as much as anybody. That’s probably why I hate to see the same issues cropping up day after day, month after month, year after year.
3 years ago, in September 2005, Matt Cutts wrote the first of many blog posts about paid links. It sparked a passionate debate that still continues today.
…….people can probably guess that Google does consider buying text links for PageRank purposes to be outside our quality guidelines.
But for everyone else, let me talk about why we consider it outside our guidelines to get PageRank via buying links. Google (and pretty much every other major search engine) uses hyperlinks to help determine reputation. Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search. Selling links muddies the quality of link-based reputation and makes it harder for many search engines (not just Google) to return relevant results. When the Berkeley college newspaper has six online gambling links (three casinos, two for poker, and one bingo) on its front page, it’s harder for search engines to know which links can be trusted.
At this point, someone usually asks me: “But can’t you just not count the bad links? On the dailycal.org, I see the words ‘Sponsored Resources’. Can’t search engines detect paid links?†Yes, Google has a variety of algorithmic methods of detecting such links, and they work pretty well.
The thing that really upsets most webmasters isn’t the fact that Google has decided to force the whole nofollow paid links issue on the web. Most people, myself included, believe that Google has every right to make up whatever rules they think will make their search engine and company more useful and more profitable. If you want traffic from Google then you need to play by their rules, whatever they might be.
No, the thing that really upsets webmasters and makes us angry on a daily basis is the way Google enforces those rules.
Link Spam
Have you looked at the Google.co.uk search results for some competitive terms recently? If you do then take some time to examine the links pointing to some of the sites in those search results and see why they are ranking.
Perhaps 70% of the search results for competitive terms in the UK are based purely on paid links.
3 years into the fight against paid links, how can this be possible? Why are thousands of highly intelligent people unable to figure out how to algorithmically discount blatantly paid links? What are the thousands of human editors doing every day if they can’t find all the link spam propping up what seems to be half the sites in the UK?
What type of links are working
Every day we look at paid links and see which seem to be working and the patterns are always the same. Brands large and small buy lots of links, either sitewide or within articles, with the anchor text they want to rank for and then as if by magic they shoot up the rankings.
Let me make one thing absolutely 100% clear – there is no way in the world a sitewide footer link to an external page with keywords in the anchor text should pass any weight. This is such a fundamental principle of link spam analysis that I almost feel like I don’t need to say it. And yet here we are 3 years after the whole paid link debate really kicked off and we all know that the quickest way to move a website up the rankings in Google is to go out and buy lots of links.
We know that the biggest flaw in the Google algorithm is anchor text – what we don’t know is why this flaw isn’t being fixed.
The dilemma – should we just join them?
This all leaves webmasters and SEO teams in a bit of a dilemma – on one hand we have Google threatening bans and penalties for buying links but on the other hand how many sites have been hit in the last 3 years? Is it worth taking a risk and just moving up the search results?
As Google takes longer and longer to sort this issue out we are going to see more people going back to paid links. Google scared most people off with threats and promises of penalties but after 3 years a lot of people we talk to are deciding that commercially they are willing to take the risk and start buying links again. After all if the top ranking site in their niche has been successfully buying spammy links for years why shouldn’t they get in on the action too?
Paid links & the SEO industry
The paid link issues leave SEO companies in a huge predicament. On the one hand clients want to compete with the guy at the top but what if that guy is buying links? If a client tells their SEO company to buy links and gets banned then that’s bad enough but if the SEO company doesn’t make the risks clear and the client gets banned they have every right to sue them – it’s negligence.
The era of the £50,000/month link acquisition budget
Have you got a quote from a SEO company recently? Are you trying to compete in a moderately competitive industry? If so then the quote would have included a “link acquisition budget” that quite probably made your eyes water.
The problem with a lot of links is that they are rented on a monthly basis. So if you want 1,000 links and each one costs £50 a month then you have to spend £50,000 a month on your links. Stop paying and you stop ranking – it’s that simple.
Google – we’ve had enough
Google, it’s time to sort this issue out once and for all. Either let people buy and sell links or sort your systems out and do something to enforce all the rules you’ve made up.
If you continue to ignore link spam then it’s going to get more and more widespread and you’ll be right back in 2005 again.
The only people making money from this whole mess are link buyers and link sellers – precisely the people who are breaking your rules.
Patrick Altoft is Director of Search at Branded3, a Leeds SEO & Digital Agency specialising in SEO, Web Design, Development & Social Media.
Comments
Read the 21 comments below, or add your own!
Absolutely Patrick, I agree!
Another thing that really gets my goat is the link-spamming and content scraping that goes on by black hats. I suppose it’s just curiosity, but I’ve subscribed to some black hat blogs recently and it makes my blood boil how blatant these guys are, boasting how successful they’ve been in ranking for terms (on Google) and creaming off AdSense profits (from Google). And as for publicly distributing ‘How-To’ guides on these topics…they even rank for them (on Google)! I can’t believe it’s still going on, I could swear it’s more popular that 5 years ago. It’s a bit like letting pikeys buy baseball bats from Tescos, knowing they’ll stand outside threatening old ladies and taking their purses.
It’s worse than this because the same companies buying links are often doing it with a number of different domains targeting the same keywords.
Good post. I agree completely. I’ve turned down hundreds of pounds for text links, assuming Google would do what they say they intend.
One of these days someone is going to come up with an entirely new algorithm, a new way to gauge relevance and be a serious rival for Google.I’m sure Google have a team working on it, because there is soon going to be a point where just tinkering with paid link reporting and nofollow isn’t going to be enough and this way of establishing the relevance of a site will be as redundant as keyword metatags.
There is no topic as hot as paid link, and no issue that bugs Google more.
I am not a “black hat” but I will tell you this. Google will always have problems with distinguishing paid links purely algorithmically, no matter what they say. After all Google said a lot of things in the last couple of years. Some of which was pure bull…
like “we are very good at recognizing paid links algorithmically.
I disagree about your point:
“Let me make one thing absolutely 100% clear – there is no way in the world a sitewide footer link to an external page with keywords in the anchor text should pass any weight. ”
For the most part it can be called spamming but if a WordPress designer has created a great template which is being used by multiple sites – why shouldn’t he/she receive some value for their work?
I understand that having “poker” or “make money” links in a footer sitewide are “alarm bells” for Google but only 80-90% of the time.
I’m quite sure they do hold some weight, but very little
Very nice assessment of that situation. I’m always amazed at the backlink profiles of some very competitve sites but the fact that Google is counting these links means you have to consider doing the same things in order to compete.
One thing that I still don’t get is how Google can justify penalizing/banning a site on the back of paid links – discounting the links entirely, sure; but surely buying links is, essentially, advertising. How can Google tell me where I can and can’t advertise? If I can buy a text link on a topic-specific splog that ranks above me for a high volume keyword why shouldn’t I if that link is going to end up bringing me some of the traffic I’m not seeing because that splog is ranking above me? Now if Google found a way to get rid of the splog, I wouldn’t advertise on it – and that’s one less paid link to contend with. That doesn’t mean I still wouldn’t want to buy text links on sites that might send me traffic – they’re still cheaper than CPM banner ads!
Very interesting post Patrick. Something I have been spending a lot of time thinking on paid links domination on Google over and over again. I do spend a lot of time analyzing our competitor and most of them are ahead of race because of this paid links and paid review process.
I am totally against this process but I don’t see them decrease anytime! Look at DP Forums that have a devoted section for Paid Links & tons and tons of discussion going around it. Paid Links are like drugs… Lots being stop them but they emerge. I really wish Google changed its algorithm which now is purely based on no. of links pointing to the site with ‘anchored text’.
Great post.. stumbled it!
Call me a cynic, but Google is allowing paid links to pass weight so it can police the top of the SERPs for its premium commercial terms and make sure that the sites IT WANTS to rank highly do so. This way, they can control which of the large brands are successful whilst kicking out the ones that are TOO good at SEO and do not have the brand pull to back it up with manual hand edits. Of course, if you challenge this then the PR machine calls you out on it by calling you a spammer or implying that your website was not in the interests of its users (AKA… Indirectly you are a spammer). Otherwise you can just wait a few months and beg and plead for your re-inclusion request to be reviewed by a Google engineer.
Another thing, they manually adjust a lot of the toolbar page rank but do not actually block the links from passing weight. I know of TOO many examples of websites that are propped up by a few links that APPEAR to have been penalised but a few short tests later it is quite obvious the link juice and anchor text is passing just fine.
I think that these hypocritical policies are only going to continue in the future, and this manual control of the SERPs gives Google the greatest control of who ranks and for what terms. This is the downside of monopolistic control and the only hope is that a real challenger to Google can appear and force on the defensive with a better product. Even then, I see the days of the webmaster in his bedroom ranking for highly commercial terms disappearing over the next few years.
Very well said, Patrick. As someone who competes in the “cell phone” space in the U.S., I can confirm how ridiculous the paid linking has become. I dare you to find a major carrier that isn’t loading up on tons of paid links. It’s so blatant it’s absurd. And, still they continue to rank. No PR drops for them. If Google was truly serious about this, they would have done something by now.
I could hire 5 to 10 people of average intelligence, point them in the direction of handful of major sites buying and selling links and tell them to follow the path where it leads them: to more and more sites buying/selling links, and they could generate a list of 10,000 of sites buying and selling links in a month or two.
Surely, Big G can afford that. No?
Excellent post, it feels neigh-on impossible to get enough links that conform with Googles standards to be able to compete with a semi competative keyterm nowadays.
Especially when quoting for a client when you are not a brand name SEO company. When quoting to small business my company might be one of the higher quotes, and we dont promise instant results. Where as cheaper companies will eithe promise results and not deliver or promise results and link spam the site to death.
You would think the companies with large link aquisition budgets would at least make the links look as natural as possible. Though I guess that is too much like hard work.
It is unfair that these chuckleheads are ranking with their so blatently obvious paid links. I’m not going to whine about it though – Google isn’t going to do anything about it – most of these sites seem like they are genuinely being protected by Google.
You just have to get smarter than them, while still sticking inside the guidelines. It is possible, but it requires more work. I’ve bought tons of links in the past and I’ve seen friend’s sites banned for that too. At the end of the day I want to sleep easy at night, so I gave up buying any links and I feel a lot better for it. Sure, it’ll be 10X as much work to rank, but if Google actually does pull it’s finger out of it’s ass one day I’ll be sitting pretty.
Unless of course my competitors buy a load of links pointing to my site to destroy me
What surprises me that even simple detectable paid links arent really being ignored. I regularly see “” in the code. Ummm like hello?
Crap – sorry – the quotes show ” — begin textlink ads — “
Yeah and Digital Point Ad Network (the worst offender of all) is obvious when you look in the code as it has a tracking link straight back to digitalpoint.com.
I’ve blogged at length about this and it hacks me off big time. Effectively Google is saying “Please play by these rules” and while we do the firms that are not playing by them prosper.
It’s a total mess and it’s infecting just about any serp you can throw up. Google didn’t invent spam but it’s got a duty of care to modify it’s algo or throw the towel in. It’s just not fair on people who play by the rules.
We could make a small fortune selling links but refuse to do so, come on Google, buck your ideas up!
d
Here’s the thing; You either play by G’s rules, or you go around them. I’m in-house for a very large multi-million dollar company, and I’ve never once purchased a link for them. We’re white hat all the way. The thing is, I don’t complain about the guys who jump up because the market is so competitive in terms of branded sites for our industry, that even if they pop into page 1 of the serps, they can’t afford monetarily to stay there. Flash in the pan I always say. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I purchase links for my own personal business. Why? When you’re a top dog, it’s easy to play by the rules and sit pretty (the company I work for). When there’s no top dog, you have to do whatever you can to rise above everyone else (my personal company).
I disagree about “Perhaps 70% of the search results for competitive terms in the UK are based purely on paid links.” because first position has old sites with natural links (WikiPedia and e.t.c)
@Mindy:
“but surely buying links is, essentially, advertising. How can Google tell me where I can and can’t advertise?”
I think what no-one seems to be focusing on here is perhaps a lot more sinister than anyone has cottoned onto here. Google, the big corporation that it is, makes it harder for the majority of smaller, newer websites to rank themselves (vs bigger branded/more established websites). Historically buying links from directories and other sites would help give your new site a shot in the arm. Now google wants to remove that shot in the arm, effectively holding your site down.
With no traffic comes no new links, with no links comes no traffic – so what do people turn too, simple – ADWORDS. I honestly believe Google are making it harder for the majority of smaller organisations/brands to compete well in search results. If google punish us for buying links, then perhaps enough of us will instead put that budget into Adwords, which ultimately is what Google Corp are after (in my humble opinion)!
@Karl:
“I honestly believe Google are making it harder for the majority of smaller organisations/brands to compete well in search results.”
I don’t agree. IMHO Google is trying to give credit for links based on merit and provides a nofollow attribute to allow paid links or anything else that shouldn’t pass Pagerank. The conspiracy theory doesn’t add up for me. To me it makes sense that the web should be a meritocracy and you shouldn’t be able to buy ‘high office’ But hey, I’m a purist
d
And it’s just the big boys of the industries that can get away with it – whoever’s got the biggest budget wins! Isn’t that what PPC is all about?*
Organic results are based on relevancy and genuine popularity aren’t they?*
What Patrick has been highlighting is spot on, and this kind of stuff from Google only creates cynicism, sloppy results and also tempts those that are essentially being white hatters to move towards the more grey area of SEO.
*rhetorical question!
9 trackbacks
October 1, 2008 at 9:14am
October 6, 2008 at 10:55am
October 7, 2008 at 6:19am
October 13, 2008 at 1:38pm
October 20, 2008 at 9:36pm
October 27, 2008 at 9:58am
November 11, 2008 at 8:51pm
May 4, 2009 at 9:50pm
April 9, 2010 at 8:32am