(While there's no shortage of coverage on this issue, many small business owners are finding themselves a bit bewildered by the whole paid links debate. This series is designed to help them understand the issues at play so they can make their own decisions about how to move forward in regards to buying, selling and nofollowing links.)

In the first article in this series I outlined the history of the nofollow tag. In the second article, I took a look at some of the complex issues in the "are paid links ok or are they evil?" argument. Today I'll explore the options Google has in dealing with this problem and will explain why I think they're taking the wrong route.

The FUD Effect

One of the biggest issues many have with the current paid links debate is the way in which Google has shared (or not shared) information with the public. Heavy handed tactics and veiled threats just don't seem to match up with Google's original "Do No Evil" philosophy.

In fact, folks like Michael Gray, Todd Malicoat, Ralph Tegtmeier and Aaron Wall have been referring to the way Google has handled things as FUD (the old sales tactic of fear, uncertainty and doubt.) I find it an incredibly accurate description.

So how does FUD work?

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative (and vague) information.

Google launched their FUD campaign back when Matt first started posting with the "suggestion" to use nofollow on paid links back in 2005.

Using nofollow is a safe way to buy links, because it's a machine-readable way to specify that a link doesn't have to be counted as a vote by a search engine.

It wasn't long before Matt moved from making nofollow on paid links a suggestion to strongly encouraging it. A short while later, he was flat out asking site owners to submit spam reports on suspected link buyers and sellers.

Soon blogs and discussion forums were packed with terror stricken site owners who were convinced Google would "shut down" the traffic to their sites unless they obeyed the word from Mountain View. In fact, those outside the industry soon began making giant leaps in logic based on what they were hearing.

The recent David Airey incident is a perfect example of this. While David has some knowledge of SEO, he's a graphic designer at heart, as are many of his readers.

Back in September, David wrote:

I've just removed what little advertising there was on my blog. The ads were shown below my category list, and included just four simple text link ads (two for print cartridge retailers and two for web template sites).

Why did I do this?

Google have been working behind the scenes, and I no longer rank highly in search results for design-related topics.

He went on to explain he'd spoken with several trusted friends and associates and had decided Google had probably penalized him for running Text Link Ads and also for running a contest that encouraged readers to link back to him with certain anchor text.

David ultimately ended up having a little back and forth with Matt Cutts in the comments area of Matt's blog. David (and others) felt Matt was incredibly gracious in his efforts to help David "clean up" his site and regain his rankings.

Personally, I found the conversation to be more than a little disturbing.

After Matt pointed out the problems I mentioned above, David not only pulled the Text Link Ads, but proceeded to email everyone who had linked to him due to his contest to request they remove their links.

I asked everyone who entered to remove the links to my blog, and about 50 of them have already replied saying they will. Hopefully the others will follow suit.

In fact, David ended up writing the following on his blog post about reversing his ranking penalty:

I asked entrants to link to my website using specific anchor text, in effect, I tried to 'game' my Google search engine ranking positions (SERPs). This is known as 'black hat SEO', which, according to About.com, is "customarily defined as techniques that are used to get higher search rankings in an unethical manner."

As I read those lines, I chuckled to myself. After all, David basically just said one of the oldest forms of legitimate link building (seeking links and encouraging good anchor text) was now being classified as "black hat seo." Who knew?

The problem is, most of his readers took it literally. One asked if running a contest to encourage folks to use a badge created by his blog was "black hat." Another commented he had no idea asking for certain anchor text was considered black hat SEO. Unfortunately, almost no one stepped in to correct these assumptions.

And we wonder why SEO has a reputation problem? The Google paid links debacle has people terrified of doing anything that might upset Google, even if we're just talking about common sense marketing tactics.

Was David's site really penalized for the Text Link Ads and the contest to boost back links? Perhaps. Only Google knows for sure. It's interesting though to see most folks ignoring the comment on the original thread suggesting a 302 redirect might actually be the cause of the rankings drop. Far more exciting to believe Google was out to "get" folks. Of course Google hasn't been doing anything to discourage that type of thinking. (This was a common problem during the sandbox hysteria as well. Webmasters often thought they were trapped in the sandbox when a little bit of digging often turned up other problems that may have been keeping them out of the index.)

So now Google's FUD campaign has moved the average web site owner from thinking paid text links are bad to thinking paid ads that include links are bad to thinking incentivized links are bad and finally, that even keyword rich links are bad.

In light of the apparent slippery slope of Google's definition of "bad" link building, perhaps I can suggest a change to Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

The current guidelines include a section called "When Your Site is Ready" and includes a list of tips beginning with "Have other relevant sites link to yours."

Perhaps it's time to change that line to "Hope other relevant sites link to yours."

Even with Google seeming to have declared all out war on paid links, the question still remained on how Google would handle the issue moving forward.

Devalue or Devastate?

Up until last week, most of the talk surrounding Google penalizing sites for buying or selling links was pure conjecture. Jim Boykin had an excellent post offering up his take on the David Airey situation and pointing out the lack of proof that Google was penalizing (rather than simply removing the ability to pass PageRank) sites for buying or selling links.

In my experience the only thing I've ever seen from google, as far as effect of selling links, is that Google may block your site from passing PageRank. Doesn't hurt your site one bit, you'll rank the way you always would...Google just don't count your link love you give to other sites. (PageRank Block beyond your site). The ironic thing is that if you're wanting to sells links, go ahead. The person buying them will probably never know if that links passes link juice to your site in the eyes of google, and it isn't going to hurt you.

For the past two years I'd mostly been in the same camp as Jim. I assumed Google might filter out the impact of paid links or even "penalize" a site by removing it's ability to pass PageRank, but I was pretty confident Google wouldn't remove or demote sites in the rankings for the practice.

After all, when it comes to an issue like nofollowing paid links and ads, we'd be talking about Google hurting a site for NOT doing something. In general, Google penalties were handed down to sites that actively did something to violate Google's guidelines.

Think about it. A webmaster has to actively ADD hidden text to their site. It's a clear cut attempt to "game" Google and no webmaster is going to accidentally trip over their keyboard one day and generate a list of background colored keywords at the bottom of their page.

On the other hand, tons and tons of web sites and webmasters who know absolutely nothing about SEO sell ads and links on their sites to earn money. Many of them are probably blissfully unaware Google even publishes webmaster guidelines and an even larger percentage have probably never heard of Matt Cutts.

To punish them because they don't know they should be reading what folks like Matt and Danny have to say about the issue is beyond ludicrous. As such, I had a hard time buying into the idea that Google would ever penalize the sites selling ads or links without using nofollow.

But then word came down that John Chow was given a Google slap for aggressive link building and things started getting a bit more hazy. What John was doing basically boiled down to a reciprocal link plan with targeted keywords in the anchor text. A penalty for that seemed more than a bit harsh, but it appeared to be what was happening.

Then Danny Sullivan posted last Friday with official word from Google:

Google said that some sites that are selling links may indeed end up being dropped from its search engine or have penalties attached to prevent them from ranking well.

Suddenly it didn't matter what any of us had seen or experienced in the past or what we believed would happen. This was Google dropping the implications and "warnings" and flat out saying "refuse to nofollow and we reserve the right to drop you out of the index.

While many have said Google warned us this was coming, I'll argue until the day I die that Google is out of line if they start removing sites from the index for failing to nofollow paid links.

Just Because You CAN Doesn't Mean You SHOULD

Anyone who has read or watched Spiderman has heard the line "With great power there must also come great responsibility." I'll boil it down even more simply using a phrase my mom taught me.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

I'll be the first to admit Google is a private company and has the right to do what they wish with their algorithm and their index. I've heard quite a few people claim the government should get involved or that someone needs to sue for those lost rankings.

I don't buy it. In my opinion, the day the government opens up the doors to sue Google for lowered rankings is the day the search industry goes belly up.

That said, Google doesn't HAVE to penalize or drop sites to deal with this problem. Google's engineers are intelligent folks. I have full confidence they could adjust their algorithm to find and discount the greatest majority of paid text links online today. If they can find them, they could simply discount those links. It would be the sensible thing to do.

Instead, they seem to be actively focusing on PENALIZING sites for these links. It's so much more in your face. "We're Google and we'll do what we want!"

THAT, my friends is what has me up in arms.

Removing a site's ability to pass link juice on those paid links makes perfect sense. Removing sites from the index instead of simply removing link power? That's when I started believing Google was far more interested in sending the message "we will destroy you for daring cross us" than about protecting the quality of their search results.

Before you call me naive and point out that discounting those links would simply drive link buyers and sellers underground, let me make it clear I know this. On the other hand, Google's staff has had a few too many special brownies if they don't think penalizing sites will send buyers and sellers deep underground even more rapidly.

But That's Not All

It's a lot to digest, but this still isn't the full story. Tomorrow I'll explore the question many Google supporters are asking: "If you aren't selling PageRank, why not just put nofollow in place?"

October 10, 2007

Jennifer Laycock is the Editor of Search Engine Guide, the Social Media Faculty Chair for MarketMotive and offers small business social media strategy & consulting. Jennifer enjoys the challenge of finding unique and creative ways to connect with consumers without spending a fortune in marketing dollars. Though she now prefers to work with small businesses, Jennifer’s clients have included companies like Verizon, American Greetings and Highlights for Children.


Good point about Google penalizing instead of just removing the ability to pass link juice. And yes with great power comes great ... ego. ;)

Its more than ego, this monarchy needs to be be-headed!

Throwing parties for SEO's does not make up for this kind of behavior.

They are drunk with power.

Great posts. Looking forward to part four.

I love this line "a few too many special brownies". Google forgets that they still don't own the internet. Also if Google is editing the SERPS then how can we trust the search results any more. I might not care for John Chow and his blog but if I type in his name I expect to find his website. Google's results are no longer reliable and trustworthy.

I know I have talked to many bloggers and they all say the same thing about Google. They are all afraid of doing the wrong thing to make them mad. They are a powerful company that can do anything they want and are doing whatever they want. But will we ever see it change? I hope so because so many people drop out of Google Adsense because of their fear.

I think Google has too much power and its getting to their heads.
Maybe they should publish Google wiki listing all dos donts and associated penalties.

Excellent post. Good point about many web site owners are just out there making a few dollars on the side and not even know they are doing something wrong in the eyes of Google.

Why doesn't Yahoo have this much power over the internet? Their Alexa rating is higher afterall. :)

Actually, they are not private...they are a public company...

David, despite the fact that the allow the public to purchase shares of their stock, they are still a "private" company, in that they aren't owned and run by the government.

Google is accountable to their shareholders, NOT to the general public. Even then, as long as Google execs own a majority share in the company, they still have the right and ability to do anything they darn well feel like doing, so long as it's within the bounds of U.S. law.

Heck doing a search for Pajama Mommy i'mn not even on the first 3 pages. Yet every site you see is about my website.

I find that kind of odd. But I guess I pisssed off google again,

Brilliant title! Brilliant post! I couldn't agree more with this being a FUD campaign.

Even the comments are great:

Throwing parties for SEO's does not make up for this kind of behavior.

A thumbs up and a bomb pop for you sir! :)

after all these weeks of seeing the doffy banner on chows site, now is that i decided to click. glad i did.

If Google removes sites from their database it only makes them look bad.

If Google wants to get rid of the incentive to sell links than they should publicly get rid of Page Rank. they can keep it for private uses but let no one know about it outside of Google.

The way I see it Google is an advertising that uses search to sell ads. If webmasters are selling their own ads than Google sees it as lost revenue. What really ticks them off is seeing that they (via PR) are helping these webmasters sell links!

Page Rank is entirely Google's toy. They can do whatever they want with it. Delisting a site from their search results is stupid. If I search for "John Chow" his site should be the first result. Anything else tells me the search engine is broken.

Ok, so I have been following this from the first post...and I am really beginning to get frustrated. Are we still supposed to be striving for Page Rank? Are we supposed to be telling our clients that they need to learn "natural" SEO practices?

From reading these posts, it seems that the "already listed and ranked sites" are getting the goldmine while the "little newer sites" are getting the shaft.
(To paraphrase and oldie but goodie), and since I am someone who trains SEO personnel it makes me boil.

I think it is about time Google came down off their high horse and thought about their way of doing business. What goes around comes around...I have been online long enough to know that Yahoo was once on top. So anyone can and will fall if someone else comes along and gives the people what they want!

What a great series, Jennifer, and I can't wait for #4. Thank you.

Perhaps I'm being naïve, but wouldn't removing the visible green PR bar pretty much take care of the whole problem, at least for a while?

If the PR bar were gone from view (even temporarily, while the engineers came off the volleyball court to work on filtering improvements) then the paid link market would naturally come to a screeching slowdown, wouldn't it?

If you don't want someone to sell something, then stop telling people how much it's worth...

If I have a great website, that is useful and easy to navigate for site visitors, why is it wrong to try and rank well for its relevant keywords? We are a relatively small company and work hard to make our site better then our competition, which for the most part are much larger companies that I know are using paid link building. How else would we compete so that people actually find our website? There is a definite hypocrisy here. I say that if you put equal emphasis on creating a great website and promoting it as best you can (using paid links and other link building sources) getting penalized is cruel and unusual punishment...

I believe the latter is more correct. Where google just don't pass link juice or pagerank. Also, base on my experience, links pointing to my blog seem to have been decreasing. (according to technorati but it's another issue)

The whole move from simply plugging the flow of link juice to outright banning from the index is what sickens me. It's pretty clear that the decision behind this is based purely on Big G's advertising revenues rather than providing a quality index.

Well Google will get caught someday. And that will be good. I have a client who's #1 competitor has over 1,900 back links in Yahoo. Only 24 in Google. They rank #2 for a very competitive term, equal to mortgages, dui lawyer, etc. A year a go, Google showed them with 500+ links. No way does this web page rank #2 with 24 links in Google. I asked a trusted adviser about this. He simply said: Google lies. And they do.


Great write up - now i will go read 1 and 2.

SEO folks:
Why not recommend to your clients that you begin optimizing for Yahoo search instead of Google? And begin recommending Yahoo searching instead of "Googling" to your friends, relatives, etc.?
Google is getting an inflated ego, it needs a truly competitive opponent to shake the corporation back into reality, so why don't we all start pushing an alternative search engine?
Granted that right now, Google is the 800lb gorilla...but that can change if *we* choose to do so.
This whole issue has missed what I think is the real crux of the rankings game: link-backs are not the real measure of a site's relevance. Content relevance is...and is the ONLY truly accurate measure. Google is missing the mark in its effort to utilize link-backs to measure relevance. Search engine algorithms that use this are merely crutching, using a poor model for a task when their energies would be much more effectively spent elsewhere.
Convince your associates and neighbors that Google has lost its relevance, suggest a viable alternative, and let the sparks fly. Out of grass-roots efforts like this, I'm sure we will remove Google's gleeful attempt at policing the Web AND move Search Engine Engineers back to their real task. Link-backs will become less important to SEO while content management once again becomes - who'da thought? - the key issue.

Personally, I couldn't give a **** what Google thinks and does. Seriously, it's just the most awkward thing to see all of these techno-geeks reacting to every little Google bowel movement as if every last drop of testosterone had just drained out of their system.

Where are the marketers, bloggers and whomever else with balls?

When Google behaves as you've described, they ENCOURAGE and EMBOLDEN black hatters. Think about it. Who the heck wants to get a nice little, well-constructed white-hat empire going, with a nice new car in the driveway, a new spouse, a new house, and a "little blogger" on the way and then, suddenly, Google does its "oh that?" dance in regards to "Do No Evil." and suddenly you're back to being a lonely geek in your parents house except now you have alimony and child support.

Thanks Google!

Who wants to sit around and wait for that BS to happen?

Therefore, I recommend everyone have MULTIPLE irons in the proverbial fire. On one hand, be a good little doobie and do what Google asks of you but, on the other hand, be prepared for the day they feel a new kind of pressure where they have to choose between "Do No Evil" and survival.

Ok, I'm done now. ;-)
Sam Freedom's Internet Marketing Controversy Blog

Well I'm a bit sceptical about all the claims of being affected by some type of Google penalty.

take 'Pajama Mommy' , I put it in Google and your web page is No.1 in the SERPS, explain to me how you have been penalised?

I'm sure some have been , such as John Chow, but automatically assuming you've been hit by some G! penalty might stop you looking for the 'real' reason your site has taken a dive and doing the right thing to resolve it.

Just coz there's a bandwagon, doesn't mean you have to jump on it!

This is distressing for small business owners. We are not SEO experts. You could be doing something totally innocently and not realize it is a problem.

And pu-lease, don't anyone try the holier-than-thou routine and say that business owners should know better. That's easy to say if you are sitting on years of SEO knowledge, but most small businesses don't even know where to look for that knowledge, let alone understand stuff that SEO experts can't agree on.

I have a major problem with the idea that we have to read some Google employee's [yes, I mean YOU Matt Cutts] personal blog [yes, I read your disclaimer and you say your blog is personal] to figure out a multi-billion dollar company's policies.

Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous and overbearing in your life by a giant company? Go ahead - beat up on the little guy some more, Google.

To Anonymous Above, agreed. In fact, Google never asked us if they could use our web pages to make money but since there was money to be made by site owners with some know-how, silence meant compliance.

And now it's something with which we all have to deal on an hourly basis. ;-)

It is pretty telling that this MASTODON of a company keeps trying to put on a personal face and communicate with "everybody" but the "everybody" they communicate with are what they conceive of as the end-user... when, in fact, it's EVERYONE who has a website that wants visitors! The majority just haven't spoken up yet and, so far, it seems Google has done nothing to reach out to them.

Many of them just show up to the big Google fire circle all dazed and confused to find out just what the hell came and ****ed them in the middle of the night!

Sam Freedom
ps. This pretty much sums it up... Get Out Your Vaseline, Folks..

Nice article.. Would be interesting if you could add your comments on todays changes (massive PR update with lots of sites downgraded).

I apply with hope on your tender hearts!
A little girl needs your help, she has a cancer.She is just almost 1 year old, now she has treatment in an oncologic institute every month.
It is necessary to do an expensive operation quickly!
Her mother is in difficult financial position, she educates her daughter by herself, as girl's dad left them, when he found out about the daughter's disease. They will appreciate any your financial help!

WMZ for helping: Z109187995692

Comments closed after 30 days to combat spam.

Search Engine Guide > Jennifer Laycock > Part Three - NoFollow is for Blog Spam...no Paid Text Links, wait...Paid Ads...Aww Heck, Just Stop Linking and Let Calacanis Decide the Rankings