Google: Report Your Competitors’ Paid Links
Apr 20th, 2007 by msdanielle
I’ve been doing some reading the past few days on Google’s new system for reporting paid links*. Now, I’m just going to take a quick step back and say that link building is a very complicated thing. To over-simply the concept and importance of linking: get as many relevant links pointing to your site in order to rank on the first page of Google for whatever keyword phrase you’re targeting.
Lots of high quality links + the right anchor text = high rank. Woohoo! Right?
Well, it’s Google’s job to define quality and discount links that appear to be unnatural, meaning, links to your site that weren’t naturally placed there by the other publisher. In a nutshell, they’re looking for paid links that were placed there for the sole purpose of SEO. They do this with computer algorithms…until now.
Matt Cutts (the head of Google’s webspam team) announced that he’s “excited about trying some ideas here at Google to augment [their] existing algorithms.” Google will be creating a special form for individuals to report paid links as spam, but for now this is his solution:
Sign in to Google’s webmaster console and use the authenticated spam report form, then include the word “paidlink†(all one word) in the text area of the spam report. If you use the authenticated form, you’ll need to sign in with a Google Account, but your report will carry more weight.
Use the unauthenticated spam report form and make sure to include the word “paidlink†(all one word) in the text area of the spam report.
What the…?? I can picture it now, rogue webmasters extracting their competitors’ back links and knocking them out one by one by submitting each “paidlink” as spam. Is this a good thing? Google sees paid links for SEO as a no-no, according to Michael Martinez over at SEO Theory. By the way, SEO Theory is a great blog to read if you’re grappling with the concept of link building and want to have a better base understanding of how an SEO’er should think. Michael’s argument is that the system is inherently flawed and that even if Google does manage to get webmasters to rat each other out, “as long as Google allows links to pass anchor text, it will be easy for you to manipulate their search results.” And so continues the game.
Now here are the pros and cons, as I understand them, of Google’s reporting system:
Pros for the Publisher: None. Publishers will lose advertising dollars from SEO’ers.
Pros for the SEO’er / Advertiser: Allows individuals to report their competitors’ paid back links, thus reducing competition and raising their own search rankings.
Pros for Google: Since Google can’t possibly find all paid links by using computer algorithms, they’ve come up with a way to have people find the links for them for free.
Cons for the Publisher: See above.
Cons for the SEO’er / Advertiser: Allows your competitors to knock our your existing paid links as well. It’s basically a rat race. Who can rat each other out first and still end up with the most back links?
Cons for Google: None. These are Google’s rules.
My argument is that savvy individuals can still purchase inconspicuous links that cannot be determined by looking at them if they’re paid or not (single paid keywords inserted into posts, for example), i.e. Where are the loopholes? Google’s algorithms will never be as smart as humans, this is why they’re counting on outsiders now for finding paid links. And for those who don’t adapt, that just means less competition for those who can. But as Michael points out, it’s all just part of the game until Google fixes the use of passing link anchor text as a means for ranking.
What do you think about Google’s report system? I’d like to hear you all weigh in on this topic, as it’ll most likely affect publishers negatively as well. Is it ethical to have individuals reporting these links? Should advertisers and online marketers be able to purchase links and have them count toward their rankings? And who really benefits, and who loses out? Let me know.
*In this article, the term “paid links” refers to static html links, not java-script or redirect links that are served through third-party ad networks.
[If you enjoy reading MsDanielle.com, please feel free to subscribe via RSS or get free email updates.]
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe via email:
I can’t believe they are pulling this 5hit! There really is nothing natural about marketing, why are they trying to make it seem so.
that’s exactly it, natron. there is nothing natural about marketing, marketing is all about targeting and working the system to your advantage. so i don’t think they’re trying to make marketing seem natural, they’re trying to box out the marketers altogether to better legitimize their search results. but this just makes the crafty more crafty…coming up with even more creative ways to game the system with sneaking in links here and there. that’s why the problem will never be resolved, as michael says, because there is an endless amount of content that can be linked from anywhere to anywhere using any keyword anchor text imaginable! how can google even begin to catch all of these links?!? it’s just not possible.
[...] Posts: Google: Report Your Competitors’ Paid Links Google Starting a War on Paid [...]
Does anyone see a problem with their competition just submitting links they find whether paid or not?
I mean, how does ANYONE know a link is paid or not when the majority of links purchased by smart people will never be under a heading “The following links are paid links for the specific purpose of gaming the Google SERPS.”
Yeah – wipe out all the rest and everyone will simply adjust to natural looking linking like the pros already do anyway. The world will catch up and then the only thing competition can do is what Google can do: guess.
A link purchased by my company is for traffic as much as whatever it will do in the engines, so that’s natural as anything. Paying for it and waiting for someone to link to you on their own – if it’s a relevant site and you know they’d link to you if they had the time – that’s a nautral damn link and I don’t care what they say.
The real issue is that links work and Google is always going to pay attention to link inflation.
How then are they going to deal with the fact that I am posting here to participate in a discussion but also knowing full well this link might help me someday in the engines?
Is that natural?
Just how “pure of heart” are we supposed to be here?
I am paying for this link by spending time arguing a very valid point. Time is money too, and in my case LOTS of money.
So really, there is no good answer here for us or Google.
jack, i love your reply! you’re spot on… people who know how to get “natural looking” links will just keep doing what they’re doing. and you’re right if i send a payment for a link on an authority site, will they accept the payment and link to me if they think my site sucks? most likely not. but they’ll “reference” me if my site passes their test.
where do you draw the line? and how the hell does google determine intent?? and is link bait eventually going to be punishable?? where does it end? they’re eventually gonna have to change the criteria for PR.
Now when I read the stories originally on Matt and Robert’s blog I was under the impression they were targeting paid links that are only placed to increase Page Rank, and not indexing. I also got the impression that as long as each paid post is fully disclosed, we won’t be penalized.
can you tell me more about what you mean? i think this is a great discussion for everyone to be talking about.
i didn’t get into indexing and what-not, i just wanted to point out that publishers would be losing out on ad dollars because advertisers who are purchasing text links for the sole purpose of SEO will cut out these types of buys. For instance, if advertisers currently buying text-link-ads on johnchow.com for $200 a month are informed that those links will not count toward PR (either by google’s algorithm discounting textlinkads, or by being reported), how many will still purchase? can they get enough clicks in one month to justify a positive return from conversions? some may still get enough traffic but for those buying for transfer of PR will surely stop buying.
I just faved you. Please return the favor. Thanks.
Duke Amiene Rev
Username: amienerev
http://technorati.com/faves?sub=addfavbtn&add=http://dukeamienerev.blogspot.com
Tagged ya!
http://homemom3.blogspot.com/2007/04/meme-game-of-tag.html
Gangstas…. I love it!
And I agree. You will still be able to buy links. I think it’s a lame move on Googles part, but… we’ll survive.
i just don’t get it. it’s such a last-ditch effort because they know they can’t possibly catch all paid links via computer algorithm. i agree with michael that their system is flawed and until it’s fixed it will be gamed.
Honestly, I kind of think it’s more of a threat than a promise. I think they are trying to scare people into honesty to make it sound like they control the internet, even if they don’t. Kind of like a saving-face type deal.
[...] Google’s building a Rat Ship – Ms. Danielle gives us the lowdown about Google’s new plan to counter paid linking strategies across the net. [...]