Are Paid Links Evil
I’ll write more on this topic in due course, however Barry has an excellent write-up of the "Are Paid Links Evil" session at SES.
"Matt is up first. Are paid links evil? He says that this is the wrong question. But the right question is - Do paid links that pass PR violate search engine quality guidelines? The answer is yes"
In response, Michael Gray:
"Google developed an algorithm based on links. That is flawed. They expect you to change your business model and implementations to compensate for flaws in their algorithm. Last quarter, Google made 1.12 billion dollars. They want you to sacrifice your profits to keep them profitable. They want you to do that for free….Why Google is opposed to paid links: they work. It’s nearly impossible to rank in any competitive SERP without paid links, except if you’re Wikipedia. Google runs a competitive advertising product and they want to keep it profitable."
The crowd went wild, apparently.
Bruce Clay also has coverage.
Great video, too. Just like being there.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Wish I could have been there for that one. I especially like the fact he stuck in the Wikipedia shot.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
As with so many issues, this one is completely fascinating. I feel very strongly about taking an ethical approach to such matters. Yet, there are some really solid points here. This issue actually reminds much of the music file-sharing controversy (although I’m well-aware that there IS no controversy for some people).
The record companies turn out crap and they were slow on the uptake for getting music out to the masses in digital form and on a per-track basis.
== which translates to ==
Google made the rules. Its algorithm may be incredibly powerful, but there are still tons of no-value-added sites that rank high for no discernable reason.
== and ==
Screw the record companies. I don’t care if it’s theft…and watch me as I redefine theft to mean “you still have your copy, so I obviously didn’t steal it”. And to the RIAA…here I am…come catch me!
== which translates to ==
Link-buying may be evil, but it’s a requirement to be competitive (that’s what SEO folks get paid to do). Until Google fixes the rules, you’ll have to prove that I bought them in order to get me to stop…and no, I won’t help you do your job by self-reporting.
The attitude that underlies such a stance is somewhat troubling, as it feels like “piracy” in both cases (at least as I conceive “pirate speak”)…even if the piracy term doesn’t directly apply to buying links. But the issues that drive this thing aren’t going away anytime soon, or at least not soon enough…and it’s pretty hard to harshly judge anyone that arrives at a different personal stance in a case like this.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Good points, Chazzbro.
I think the record companies and Google have framed some of their arguments in a moral context i.e. good vs evil. It suits their purposes, but we should resist engaging in a battle on their terms.
This argument is not about morality. It’s about money. It’s about competition for advertising dollars. It’s also about giving the search engine algo exactly what it asked for. If the algo doesn’t want to reward a certain type of link, then the algo has to stop rewarding that certain type of link. No amount of finger waving will change behaviour whilst the incentive remains.
I’ll post some more on this next week. Such an interesting topic, eh.