Wrong Techcrunch Reaction On Paid Links?

I think this is one possibly for the water cooler on Sphinn, because I find it comical in a sad kind of way.

Ted Murphy

As an example, almost every time PayPerPost was discussed on Techcrunch , either Text Link Ads or their ReviewMe service was also mentioned but rarely other services such as Sponsored Reviews who haven't got the same advertising budget.

Buying advertising seems to generate a lot of goodwill.

If Techcrunch regard them as advertising, what reason would they have to not include a nofollow on the links? Advertising has very little if no editorial value.

I get a penalty because I sometimes spend 10 HOURS writing a review of a company for a measly $130, but then I also get other revenue, it is more additional compensation and a discount on what I could charge for consulting for having it public, much like you can get building work cheaper if it can be a show home.

All these advertisers have done is paid Techcrunch money.

The juice Techcrunch passes might be worth 100+ paid posts.

Why Such A Strong Reaction?

So today Duncan trys to

No, because if Google closely examined Techcrunch in the same light as paid reviews, they would probably find that these "thanking the advertisers" links are distorting their rankings more than paid reviews from D list bloggers.

Techmeme - It Seems Techcrunch Have To Link To You To Be News

The news is actually 2 days old already, and Techmeme have only picked it up because Techcrunch linked to them.

This story was news 2 days ago.

The problem is that anything related to Google is technology news, and their primary focus is their search engine and things that have an effect on it.

It seems Techmeme place a very small weighting on search marketing blogs, despite them having more historical knowledge of Google than many of the tech bloggers, and thus can provide more detail and historical context.

I suppose I should be grateful to