The debate has basically turned into Matt Cutts vs. the "Yeah, let's stick it to Google" crowd. .As far as I can tell, this started with
I don't think anybody is surprised to see Cutts trying to defuse the situation before everybody gets too excited, but of course a topic like this isn't going to be left at that. Debate is sparking up around a variety of popular search blogs. You know Michael Gray for one is going to get involved in a discussion about this, but he swing your PR machine into full gear, shaking hands and kissing babies. Google has a viral marketing and linkbait to start securing links over time. As you start to acquire natural links, revisit your links buys and slowly start phasing them out (ultra competitive and non mainstream topics have different rules). paid link advertisinganythingalready been said . The
writes:Every time paid links is brought up Matt Cutts brings up the FTC’s “suggestions” on bloggers disclosing things they have been compensated for. In no where in these “suggestions” does it talk about paid links. But even if it did they are just suggestions.
They are not law and if Google was following the FTC’s suggestions I doubt Google Adsense/adlinks would be engaging in some of the most deceptive advertising methods I have ever seen on the internet.
He also mentions Google's paying of $66 million to the allegedly non-profit Mozilla to be the default search engine for Firefox. From there a slew of comments went pouring in on Schoemaker's post, bashing Google's practices, calling the company names like "evil" and "hypocrite." Mentions are made of Google's own sponsored results being made less disclaimer-like by the lightening of the hue surrounding them. Eventually, Cutts weblogtoolscollection.com pr6 been selling TLA text links for a long time. Never dinged in google
but look at how easy it is to detect.
<li style="margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; width: 33%; float: left; clear: none; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0pt; padding: 3px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 100%; font-size: 12px; display: block;"> <a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px;" href="http://www.kars4kids.org/">Donate your car</a> </span></li>
<li style="margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; width: 33%; float: left; clear: none; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0pt; padding: 3px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 100%; font-size: 12px; display: block;"> <a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px;" href="http://www.cashnetusa.com">Payday Loans</a> </span></li>
</ul></center>
<!-- End Text-Link Ad code -->
How hard is that to detect?
So of course Google thinks they can detect that... I mean a monkey can detect that. Am I wrong?
Now lets say the person didnt put the footer links like a idiot and didnt include the TLA HERE code in their html.
Its still easy to detect cause you just look for the plugin within the wordpress plugin directory. If its found the server returns a 200 code if not a 404. If its a 200 google knows you have it installed. (emphasis added throughout response)
So basically what Schoemaker is getting at is that if people "randomize the physical name of the plugin" and use some brains when writing the HTML, Google will not be able to detect it. Because as he says, they're "not even detecting the ones that are VERY EASY to detect."
Thanks for the insight Jeremy.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!