While I am utterly convinced of Google’s omnipotent base-owning and world-eating status, one does wonder if there is a message behind Matt Cutt’s (i.e. Google’s herald and wielder of the power cosmic) latest post on paid links. To summarize, it looks like Matt wants people to report to Google when they see paid links, because they want more “data” on the issue of paid links. Oh, its also the third post in a single day on paid links.
What’s the message behind the message?
Could it be that Google can’t find a way to effectively track paid links? The conspiracy theorist in me is also beginning to think that the only way Google can do this is through strictly human methods of snitching whistleblowing of reporting. Andy Beal wonders if this opens up a giant can of ethical worms, as there’s nothing to prevent individuals from reporting on their enemies “paid links” (when there might not be). GrayWolf wonders why there is such consternation and brow-furrowing when the existence of a market FOR links is propagated by Google itself.
Personally, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not if Google will EVER be able to meaningfully track paid links if they’re not overtly notified as such on your blog. Google’s worries are valid: paid links are fine for traffic, but not when it comes to alerting search engine results — or page rank. The problem is that links can be paid for and sold without any notification on your blog, and there would be impossible to tell. For example, not that I would do it (or AM doing it for that matter), but there is no way of knowing whether or not reviews of anything, including web2.0 properties, have been discretely paid for behind Google’s back. The presumption is that the link is “organic” and that its ranking in Google is based on the worth I’m placing towards the link destination.
Of course, the fact that it might be secretly paid for destroys the foundation of what link worth means. And possibly the underpinnings of how Google does what it does.
Is this Google’s Achilles Heel? Will Google ever be able to sort this out without resorting to the messy job of using puny humans to hunt for paid links? Would they resort to the FTC ruling on reporting word of mouth marketing to bludgeon bloggers into disclosing their paid links? Even if puny humans ARE sorting through blogs searching for paid links, COULD they ever find them all?
Right now, I’m thinking the answer to the latter is a resounding “no”. And if it is, it makes me wonder if the answer to the former is really “yes”.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
Hi Tony! Google does use algorithms to detect paid links, but we’re starting to look at some new approaches to paid links, so it seemed like a good time to ask external folks for additional data. I also talked to several people at SES London who asked for an easier way to tell Google about paid links, so providing this keyword also helps with that.
Okay, I’m off to say the same thing over at Andy’s blog. :)
April 15th, 2007 at 2:07 am | Permalink
[...] Anyway, this has an SEOs panties up in a bunch. Tony Hung asks “is this Google’s achilles heel?” [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 2:27 am | Permalink
I can’t even imagine how tough it must be to create an algorithm to detect paid links, so kudos to Google for even attempting to do so.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:45 am | Permalink
[...] Anyway, this has an SEOs panties up in a bunch. Tony Hung asks “is this Google’s achilles heel?” [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 6:09 am | Permalink
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the report.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:54 am | Permalink
[...] media, can Google identify them? Well, that’s the real problem how Google will do that. Tony even wonders: Is this Google’s Achilles Heel? Will Google ever be able to sort this out without [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
[...] Is This Google’s Achilles Heel? To summarize, it looks like Matt wants people to report to Google when they see paid links, because they want more “data” on the issue of paid links. Oh, its also the third post in a single day on paid links. [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
I read through some of these posts, but still wasn’t sure of the intended meaning behind “paid links”. (I’m imaginative, and can read it a dozen ways. ;-) I’m guessing Google is trying to filter out cash influences when spidering site networks, but lots of blogposts are paid in ways other than cash.
Once readers can accurately figure out what Matt’s original message is trying to say, they have to then fill in the missing pieces on what it might mean, as Tony’s followup shows.
That vagueness in the original post seems to have triggered a public controversy in itself — a blogogenic crisis.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
[...] is their hypocrisy. The ability to report sites “selling links” has also caused quite a bit of [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
I agree that there’s a quality difference between paid links and unpaid links but I’m not willing to help Google do their job unless they’re willing to pay me. They’re the ones who created a market for buying and selling links. They made their bed, now they can lie in it.
One has to wonder if Google is really interested in improving their search engine or if they’re seeking this information about paid links for some other reason, for their own advertising, for example. Remember, they sell links!
April 15th, 2007 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
Maybe Google is planning to roll out a paid-link service as well?;)
After all, they just bought one of the biggest ad firms in the net a few days ago.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
[...] Tony Hung agrees and he asks: [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 5:51 am | Permalink
[...] Anyway, this has an SEOs panties up in a bunch. Tony Hung asks “is this Google’s achilles heel?” [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
Exactly! Any real enforcement of this is going to push this all underground. The whole things smacks of the mistakes paid during Prohibiton. Outlawing the sale of alchohol just made everything worse.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
mblair,
Except alcohol is a real commodity. Links are only a commodity because Google makes them so.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am | Permalink
[...] who hand out links the way they hand out hugs - freely and generously. Deep Jive Interest’s post wondering if Google is [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 3:06 am | Permalink
[...] is targeted to take the wind out of PayPerPost. Colud be. Plus, Tony Hung essentially concurs and wonders if this is really Google’s Achilles Heel. Of course it is, and it will be until they can better integrate more telling social metrics into [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
[...] Is This Google’s Achilles Heel? [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 9:31 am | Permalink
Matt-Cutts-Bashing and Other Blunders
Responses to what appeared to be an upfront disclosure and an honest solicitation of industry-input have quickly developed into a slew of Matt-Cutts-bashing. I’ve never met the man but, folks, he simply doesn’t deserve that from you.
That said, I do find horrendous problems for Matt Cutts in finding ways to define, to identify and to monitor paid links. I’ll just give you three examples here.
1. Define What is a Paid Link
At law, compensation doesn’t just mean cash. It also means goods, services and even love. What is a paid link? If I write a 750 word article and allow it to be posted on a Web site in exchange for a link, do you not realize that I have just paid between $220 and $750 in time and talent for that single link even though no money traded hands?
If a philanthropist donates $20,000 to a nonprofit and that nonprofit posts a thank you for the sponsorship on its Web site and provides a courtesy link to the donor’s Web site, is that not a paid link? If it isn’t, than all link farm sites can become nonprofits and give away links for a “donation.”
2. How Will Google Know For Certain How to Identify a Paid Link?
I just finished a backlink campaign for a client yesterday. I submitted 100 links. Not one was a paid link and not one was given a reciprocal link or a “no follow.” If my record holds, 90% of these links will be accepted. But here’s a problem. Five of these links were to directory sites (PR 6 or greater) that also post paid links and links that are paid for by reciprocal links. No one but the sites’ Webmasters and I know for certain which category of link I applied for. I’m certain that the Webmasters of these sites would not want to volunteer how many of their posted links are given for free. Like all of us, they have mouths to feed.
3. How Will Google Monitor and Mediate?
If a competitor of my client’s Website “reports” to Google that I have paid for links, will Google notify me so that I may initiate a slander or libel lawsuit? Will Google mediate so that I have an opportunity to refute the accusation? (How many new employees will Google have to hire to monitor and mediate the accusations and complaints?) Or, are we to be presumed guilty with no opportunity to prove innocence?
So Matt Cutts asked for a discussion, so let’s discuss. I am seriously pleased that he gave us this opportunity to participate. And for all the panicking Web site owners, may I just point out that it is possible to garner a Google Page Rank 7, place #4 on a Google search out of 256,000,000 Results for a 2 word Keyphrase, with a Home page that does NOT contain the Keyphrase and a Web site which has only 20 inbound links. If your SEO expert doesn’t know how this is possible, check http://www.WebSyndications.com next month.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
[...] has all the tools to successfully penalize all those they consider gaming their rankings. Blogger Tony Hung wonders if in fact paid links are Google’s Achilles heel, writing “The problem is that [...]
July 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am | Permalink
[...] will be compromised. Though I am certainly not the first individual to recognize Google’s Achilles Heel, I would like to make a stab at the consequences of its [...]
September 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
[...] it. Naturally, there’s much speculation as to why this has come about. Tony Hung wonders if Google doesn’t yet have an algorithm that can find paid links. Scoble wonders if this a statement to companies like PayPerPost, that [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
[...] is their hypocrisy. The ability to report sites “selling links” has also caused quite a bit of [...]
October 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
Google sells links with their Adsend and AdWord and they don’t want to have any competition thats why this is happening.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:59 am | Permalink
How do Google detect paid links in the first place. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. Links aren`t just about PR, they`re also a good way of driving people to your site.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am | Permalink
Are PRs becoming overrated? Important to advertising revenue maybe, but top placed keywords are what gets visitors to your site.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:05 am | Permalink
[...] Is This Google’s Achilles Heel? [...]