| LED Digest 2566: Search Algorithms & Paid Links |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom www.WillMaster.com/Master : the LED's Key Sponsor Master Series Software - Get Connected with Your WebSite www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. January 9, 2007 Issue no. 2566 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== The Paid Links Scam ==-- ~ Nathan Holley "People are clueless about search marketing. Some things never change!" ~ Dan Thies "...what's the algorithm for determining intent? They don't have an answer for us..." ~ Big Bill "A paid link in Yahoo isn't a paid link." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Nathan Holley Subject: Paid links I've enjoyed this discussion and the exchange between Chris and Dan. I think you agree with each other more than you disagree. Some of the details just differ in your perspectives. I remember well the Links to You service, and others as well. Dan mentions that - > Just like back then, the 'service > providers' today don't disclose the > downside in their sales pitches. They don't > remove sites from their networks, even > after they've been publicly identified by > search engine reps at major conferences. - Dan Thies, LED Digest 2565 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1980/190/ Indeed. This is the crux of the problem with TLA in my opinion. These networks are feasting on the ignorance of the multitude, who believe links are the most important and effective technique for promoting their sites in search. Yet exactly as Dan says, they don't mention the pitfalls, and they don't take action on sites in their network that are actively being devalued in Google. It's a sham, it's a shame, but it's easy money for them. And lest I speak as the hypocrite - I use TLA (but please read more). People are CLUELESS about search marketing. Some things never change! It's been that way for a long time, since at least 1997 when I got started in affiliate and search marketing. The big change is that SEO now has wide exposure and everyone "needs it" but has no clue what the strategic reasons are. TLA networks simply take advantage of this. They're an easy solution, because (up until recently) they've worked too well. Now they can still work well, but there are considerable downsides. There are better ways, and a wake-up call needs to be sent across the webmaster public at large regarding this whole linking issue. It's not everything, in fact there are other ways to market websites (I know, *gasp*). It's called compelling content, smart promotion using traffic and awareness vehicles in addition to search engines, and real business models. The only person I've read recently offering the suggestion that links are not the ONLY way to achieve rankings has been Michael Martinez right here on the LED. Does anyone else get this?? To me this is a key issue. A couple quick answers for Howard Brereton as well -- > 1) How do search engines know the > difference between a paid for banner and a > paid for text link from one site to > another? They have sophisticated automated tools and also use human review. Discriminating between sitewide media buys (such as banners) and text links with anchor text is fairly elementary. The more pressing issue at work is distinguishing between paid and unpaid links. For contextual links that are purchased - depending on the skill and time invested in masking them as natural citations - there is very little chance they'll be detected. I've been practicing this for many years, because the text around the link and on the page (and several other factors) all contribute to the strength and weight of the link. The rub is, once you invest the time into making purchased (or traded) links appear this natural, they actually become natural because they're designed with heavy quality control in mind. Thus, they add to the web environment and the SEO at the same time. I still buy links for some spammy sites too. But these are what I consider throw-away domains, and once they're tapped of revenue potential they're done. SEO is not about quick ways to rank. It's about investment in actual business models, networking with others, being part of the discussion. Eric Ward had a killer quote in a recent article title, "Don't Blame Google for Your Own Linking Failures": ----------------- "Google's focus on trusted sources is your worst nightmare. At the heart of the trusted link model is the word trust... It was never the page itself that was trustworthy. Nor was it the domain. Nor was it the IP block, or the number of co-hosted web sites present or some other silly metric. Trust originates with the steward of the content. The page editor. The author. Trust originates from people, and manifests itself on the web as links." Source: http://searchengineland.com/080107-160520.php ----------------- Trust, credibility and influence MANIFEST on the web as LINKS. Once you understand that, you understand the core of any and all search engine algorithms, now and in the future. It's not about the medium - it's about the business working in the medium. And once these cowboy days are done, the webmaster community will realize that. Nathan Holley ========= Begin Sponsor Message ========= 50 Things You Can Do With Master Form V4 Get this visual ebook, a showcase with links. You'll discover why we say: Master Form V4 is the best form-handler on the 'net! Click this link to download: http://flowto.us/LED/download.html ========== End Sponsor Message ========== -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dan Thies Subject: Paid links > My comment about Yahoo was extreme, but > "straw man"?... I don't think that applies, > but perhaps you can explain why a paid > link in the Yahoo directory is any > different than a paid link on any other > directory or site. - Chris Nielsen, LED Digest 2565 Chris, you disagreed with my assessment of the TEXT LINK AD industry, correct? That's what my comments in SR were about, after all. Comments that you dismiss as "blanket statements... so clearly not true." Am I missing anything yet? But as I so often encounter in these discussions, you didn't really address the issue of whether the TLA vendors are selling a worthwhile product... because you really can't win that argument. As I explained in LED 2564, it's a no brainer. So instead of addressing my actual position, you argue about the definition of a paid link. You attempt to broaden my position until you find something you can argue with, "win" that argument, then use that to dismiss my actual statements as untrue. That's a straw man argument. I don't disagree with the idea that Google are putting themselves (and dragging the rest of us) into a very difficult position where we lack clear guidelines. The guidelines are certainly more clear than some want to admit. I suspect that you actually could tell the difference between real editorial directories like Yahoo vs. straight-up text link ads or made- for-PageRank directories, if you really wanted to. However, I think we can all agree that the "rules" are still a whole lot muddier than what we really need. As I asked Matt Cutts long ago, "what's the algorithm for determining intent?" They don't have an answer for us, do they? I completely agree with Dirk Johnson's comments in LED 2564 [ http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1979/190/ ], and with most of your comments for that matter. I've explained in great detail on my blog why Matt Cutts' position that the FTC would somehow bless "nofollow" will never hold water. While they have a legal right to run their search engine as they see fit, they will also find that the world doesn't respond well to threats. To me, this isn't about whether it's right or wrong to advertise - why is that even open to debate? It's not about whether we might benefit from the judicious use of advertising & marketing dollars in support of our SEO efforts - of course we can. To me it comes down to a very practical matter, which is effective SEO practice. I believe I've already addressed that matter quite well enough with respect to the TLA business, in spite of the side arguments. Dan Thies - Author & Publisher of SEO Fast Start http://www.seofaststart.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Big Bill Subject: Paid links A paid link in Yahoo isn't a paid link. Yahoo isn't a pay for inclusion directory, it's a pay for consideration directory. A link from a directory that lets any old site in it is worthless for reasons of basic SEO. A link from the Yahoo directory is there on merit and reflects Yahoo's established integrity in the marketplace. Google's algo is at best a software affair and has been fooled many times, whereas each site in the Yahoo directory has been judged by a person and so has passed a far more difficult test. Google can serve a site from a category within Yahoo's directory with some confidence, more than it can if the same site was merely in Google's own index. So, if you want to get ahead in Google, get into Yahoo's directory. BB. (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Happy Birthday to my beautiful wife |
