i think it helps indexing

But which matters IF not everyone will links out to relevant, high quality site. If there’s an IF, then that’s too big a loophole. It shouldn’t matter no matter what.

Otherwise, the potential for exploitation is there.

Just run Xenu on seo4fun.com and see what kind of “relevant”, “quality” links you come up with. And if that’s not enough, like I said before, look at seroundtable linking to a wedding site and cre8asiteforums linking to a cardboard site. Like I said, everyone has a price.

“If a link points to a relevant, quality site then compensation is irrelevant.”

“Rebuttal: Everyone has a price. …”

…which does not matter, if the link is relevant and does not point to a crappy site (not crappy as in ugly, but spammy e.g. bad neighborhood)

You did not elaborate on what you mean by “relevant” so I assume that it is meant that the linked to page is contextual relevant to the page where the link resides on.

I started a comment here and was going on and on. Well, I realized that this is a bit too much for a comment and spent the extra time to make a (series of) post(s) out of it. It also allowed me to consolidate the various things that are related to this discussion and also provide some suggestions for alternative solutions for the same problem etc.

It was essentially an aggregation and I need now only to link to one place to reference to my stuff. I mentioned this in a related post here, natural SEO :)

“punish link buyers and sellers”

If that is Google’s intend, then affiliates are safe, right? Google was clear about this… wait, they were not and Matt did on purpose not answer my question if affiliate links are considered paid links or not. No answer is also an answer. An answer I don’t like for reasons, which I already mentioned more than once.

Here’s a random thought about nofollow.

Google wants not only to devalue paid links but punish you for selling/buying links. But if Google punished all sites that got paid to link to another site, then many innocent sites just selling ad space and traffic will be inadvertently be hit. The only way to prevent that from happening is nofollow. If people used nofollow, Google can punish link buyers and sellers while keeping innocent sites out of harm’s way.

If Google’s intent was just to devalue paid links, nofollow would not be necessary.

co.mments rocks. It took me a bit to get used to it and throw some old habits over board, but after that did my appreciation only increase :)

Each Gorilla is a person or group of people.
Gorilla Left who thinks he is Einstein is D.P.
The SEO Rocket launches so SEO must be rocket science in a sense. It’s a toy rocket so its only small rocket science :)

The Crowd has no clue and thinks WTF as always. People, as in the “mob”, are dumb as we all now.

The Gorilla on the right who counts the money could have two meanings, you are right. My original intention was to have it represent Webmasters/SEO that sell links (noticed the chain beneath? Noticed the tag and what is chained? The Tag is not the original one…. what happened? Did you find the old one? That was kind of thrown away?

Matt and a hulk. That’s a good one hehe. Yeah! .. no, coincidence. I used a caricature of him which happened to have this color.

9 pics merged, effects added and some old-school pixel work “Roy Style” :)

I will check in a week or so, when you are done reading the stuff I referred to hehehehe.

Cheers!
Carsten

Seriously, with all this talk about nofollow, notice my comments are nofollow-free.

“Also did you see my other comment at SEJ? You should have gotten an email.”

Nope, I never get email alerts from SEJ. I added it to my co.mments though.

@image.. hmm.. let me guess. Alotta people in fear, uncertainty, and doubt. SEO is (isn’t) rocket science. The big G likes money. Dumb PHDs..and Matt Cutts turned into the Incredible Hulk? :)

Okay, disagreement. I would not recommend you to a bank for security consulting though hehe

Regarding the linking stuff.

I am thinking and writing about the subject for several months now already during the different stages of Google’s morph from one thing to a completely different one. That’s why will I simply refer to posts or comments of mine. Not because I want to link to it, but I don’t want to repeat everything I already wrote in great length at posts of mine and comments on other blogs.

Just as a heads up. I think that we actually agree on the fundamental issue and only disagree on how to approach it. :)

See my comment at Matt Cutts’s blog (link to the comment, because you would not find it otherwise (the post has already over 520!!!!! comments) :)

Link to Comment at Matt’s Blog

Also did you see my other comment at SEJ? You should have gotten an email.

Link to Comment at SEJ

And finally look at my post at ReveNews.com. The post refers to several of my posts at SEJ, all about this subject.

Link to RN post

Want to see a very real case that shows why Google is wrong?
See the discussion at Sugarrae.com

Link to Rae’s post and comments

A lot of stuff to think about, but I would be glad to hear your take on the stuff. Thanks

C’mon, let’s not steer this discussion into I’m right/you’re wrong mode. We have different views - I agree to disagree.

“but don’t implement anything that your customers don’t accept”

Carsten, when did webmasters or SEOs become a part of Google’s customer base? I don’t hear a single average Joe non-webmastering Google user complaining about nofollow or Google’s paidlink spam report form. Google doesn’t lose anything by pissing webmasters off.

“but I don’t get that one. Did I miss something I should know about?”

Oki doki, here’s another example. Say I run a review site with a list of all SEO consulting sites out there. I tell people who I recommend and who to stay away from. A big portion of traffic to the site might consist of people asking “is xyz.com trustworthy? Does 123.com have experience running $10,000/day Adwords campaigns? ” By only listing sites I recommend, I miss out on traffic looking for information on lower quality sites - that traffic will get picked up by my competitors.

Sure, I can avoid using live links when I link to SEO firms I don’t like, but that’s poor usability if a visitor wants to visit that site; Instead of clicking a link, he’d have to type in the url in his browser.

Me: “You don’t link to crap sites where you know that your users will be ripped off.”

You: “In cases like Site Advisor where they track malicious websites, failing to link to crap sites results in bad user experience and zero retention.”

Haeh? Sorry. but I don’t get that one. Did I miss something I should know about?

Me “If I endorse something, then I have no problem with passing on Google Juice.”

You “Yeah, I might not have any qualms about making $1,000,000 off a bank robbery, but the bank I rob has a problem with it obviously. I mean, c’mon. It’s a no brainer. Why is it so shocking to hear Google threaten to up its security when its getting robbed left and right?”

Wrong, fix the security but don’t implement anything that your customers don’t accept and understand that this is for them and not just a convenience for the “Bank”. A bank that would strip search each customer like they do at the US consulates around the world (or Airports.. Did you fly recently?), before they are allowed to enter the bank, will be a bank without a lot of customers quickly.

If customers allow this to happen, what will be next (since they are already used to take whatever humiliation and pain asked from them to endure)

No No, bad argument.

““The listings that do not have the word “paid” have been with Business.com since 1999.”

I guess they figure if they were upfront about running paid links through redirects, no one would buy.

All they have to do is copy Yahoo! Directory’s business model, but instead it seems they rather piss off their customers.

In cases like Site Advisor where they track malicious websites, failing to link to crap sites results in bad user experience and zero retention.

“If I endorse something, then I have no problem with passing on Google Juice.”

Yeah, I might not have any qualms about making $1,000,000 off a bank robbery, but the bank I rob has a problem with it obviously. I mean, c’mon. It’s a no brainer. Why is it so shocking to hear Google threaten to up its security when its getting robbed left and right?

“Google, you’re being hypocritical. You said Yahoo Directory is ok because people pay for the review, not the link. So if someone pays me, I review his/her link, and then add the link to my site, why should I get penalized?”

I just paid $199.00 to get my company’s website listed in Business.com, because I kept reading over and over that you need to list your website in “quality paid directories” like this. Who decided Business.com was quality? A quick scan of my subcategory and I see tons of poorly categorized listings. I dig a little deeper and find a number of MFA sites and dead links.

Then I discover that out of hundreds of links on that page, only 6 were marked (paid), including mine. WTF? This is a paid directory, is it not? So I ask customer service about it. Answer: “The listings that do not have the word “paid” have been with Business.com since 1999.” Translation: Sucks to be you. Now hand over that $199.00 and STFU.

Business(.com) as usual.

“But who decides if a guy is innocent? You? His ex-wife? His father-in-law? The victim’s daughter? If we knew he’s innocent why the hell is he still sitting in trial?”

The user does. Keep in mind that directly paid links are paid no matter what happens with them, regardless of traffic that is being generated from them and regardless of conversion.

You don’t see a dime as affiliate if you are unable to be relevant for your users. You have to be relevant or you are without any income at the end of the month. You don’t link to crap sites where you know that your users will be ripped off. They will come back to you and here goes your reputation. That will hurt your bottom line more and more over time.

If I endorse something, then I have no problem with passing on Google Juice. Most affiliate links don’t, but that is the merchants problem. I was not accepted by multiple affiliate programs for my pet project site cumbrowski.com and I always wrote a nice and long email to them, that made them change their mind. It had to do with linking to them anyway :).

So in effect are those links what Google is looking for, right? Why exclude them and indirectly state that you do not endorse the site and its services or products?

Yesterday, I left a comment on Graywolf’s blog that instead of bashing each other, we need to think differently about SEO.

There is just too much bashing going on regarding this change. Why don’t some people want to give credit to them who really deserve it?

To the Anti-Nofollow SEO crowd: If you are so afraid of this change that you need to start bashing, a client like me will never select you as a SEO consultant. IMHO, lazy people need to depend on link baiting. Please let Google do what it’s doing. I’m already pissed off seeing crap results coming higer in the SERPs whenever I need to work on a research project.

Oh, if you talk about Google AdWords, how does it become bad if Google does something to increase its profits? Now what do you expect from Google? Should they give away everything for free just because YOU are not happy? That’s not going to happen, no matter how much bashing goes on (well, that’s my guess). Google is already offering enough for free.

- Avi

Hi Carsten,

On a review site I run, at the end of each review you’ll see a “visit this site” affiliate link. When I rave about a product, my affiliate link is an endorsement and highly-editorial. When I honest-to-god think a product is a rip-off, my affiliate link is just a point of reference.

But either way, those affiliate links are not to be trusted.

Ask yourself, “Why am I writing reviews in the first place?”

I can easily talk myself into believing that I’m writing reviews to help people avoid lame products. Sure, I hope I’m providing a valuable service. And I pour hours into creating value - being second best isn’t part of my game plan - but the reason I run the site is what..

to help other people? What about my mortage payments? What about my food bills? What about my beer money? What about the PS3 I haven’t got around to buying?

I might talk myself into believing that my affiliate links are genuine, editorial endorsements. Yeah, I’m extremely picky and not easily satisfied. I only recommend products I’m crazy about. So my affiliate links must be highly editorial.

They may or may not be but you can’t say for sure because you know one thing - those links got my ref codes all over them.

When a few affiliate programs killed my accounts, I was forced to link out to their products using straight links. Not fun. It felt as bad as linking out to Wikipedia.

Let’s face it: editorial or non-editorial, we use affiliate links to make money. Don’t tell me no, because if you didn’t care about money, you wouldn’t be using affiliate links. The fact that an affiliate link points to a great product that people will thank you for is just a justification for making a profit.

Not to mention two other things:

1) Nofollow-free affiliate links hurt your bottom line by boosting your affiliate program site’s search ranking. You gain nothing out of that.

2) Noisy nofollow-free affiliate links water down your site and can keep your site stuck in the supplemental index.

Here’s a hypothetical about paid links in general:

Suppose you killed someone, but nobody knows the truth except you. Everybody thinks you’re guilty (and they’re right), but you’ve paid $100,000 to all of the jurors to change their minds. The final judgement - Not guilty (remember O.J?)

Now suppose you’re innocent, but everybody thinks you’re guilty (remember Scott Peterson?). Again, only you know the truth. You pay $200,000 to all the jurors. Final judgement: Not guilty.

In the second scenario, money helps prevent injustice, while in the first scenario, money perverts justice. Pro paid linkers say paying jurors is ok if it helps them draw the right conclusions. But what guarantees that bribing jurors only happens when the guy on trial is innocent?

Google says “look at the facts.” Where were you at the night of the murder? Why do you have “pitchfork” searches in your Web History 2 days before the murder? Why does the victim have your fingerprints all over her dress?

SEOs say “Fuck that. We should be able to bribe jurors. It’s our money - don’t tell us how to spend it. As long as we’re using our money to defend an innocent man, its a.o.k.”

But who decides if a guy is innocent? You? His ex-wife? His father-in-law? The victim’s daughter? If we knew he’s innocent why the hell is he still sitting in trial?

BTW, there’s one situation where I wouldn’t use nofollow on affiliate links. You can read about that here.

If you want to provide quality content, you can’t just link to sites that do have an affiliate program and leave the rest out. That would reduce the quality of the site and give the affiliate a hard time to build up a following that comes back to them first.

Your thoughts?

Annoyed Nick? That’s how some users feel when they click on a manipulated search result and wind up on a page that doesn’t deliver. Paid links help make that happen.

If an extra paid link means higher rankings and more sales, I say “name your price.” But I don’t need to justify my tactics with irrational arguments just to keep my conscience clear.

How are they irrational? Do I really need to blow a whole day drawing you a road map on why those objections are weak? Then again, maybe I do.

Heh too bloody right you duck. I click through for “21 reasons why anti-no-follow seo’s can’t think straight” and get 24 reasons why no-follow is wrong. And a 5 word rebuttle.