Articles About | Spam
I see that Matt Cutts of Google is calling for link spam reports.
I’m still very troubled by this paid links issue after all these years!
I agree it’s Google’s right to penalise or promote any page/site in its natural listings, which represent Google’s subjective opinion of relevancy.
However, the idea that all paid links are bad/”evil” is wrong in so many ways:
- Paid links pre-date Google.
- There is no machine-readable standard for labelling a paid link. I’ll repeat that – there is no machine-readable standard for labelling a paid link.
- Labelling paid links fails the “Does this makes sense in the absence of search engines?” ethical test. The answer may well be “Yes”. (Where the answer is “No”, I agree paid links are spam).
- Labelling paid links fails the “Would I do this if search engines did not exist?” test. In fact, you have to know that Google exists, and that they mind about paid links, in order to label those paid links in the non-standard way that Google asks you to label them. This is perhaps my biggest beef with Google’s approach to paid links – they actually violate one of Google’s published Webmaster principles.
- What does “paid” mean anyway? An actual exchange of cash? If you look at the top results for any hugely commercial field, say “car insurance”, it’s hard to believe that there is no commercial influence in the results! When all that a company does is commercial, then every link (positive or negative) to that company’s site is commercial in nature.
I understand that a market in paid links arose because of Google’s algorithm.
However, the irony is that in responding to that market by asking all publishers to label paid links in a non-standard way, Google violated its own principles. It started to ask publishers to adapt what they published to suit Google (because Google existed), and called them spammers if they didn’t. That’s the wrong way around. It’s the spammers that do stuff purely because Google exists!
Thanks to Dan Thies for drawing my attention to the latest “mayhem” surrounding Google, rel=nofollow and the FTC. This is an area close to my heart, as my article from 2005, Search Marketing & The Law, made clear:
It would be foolish to expect to be operating in a multi-billion dollar global marketing industry and not expect to comply with marketing laws and regulations in the countries in which you are marketing.
The current confusion stems from Matt Cutts’ blog post on paid links back in April, which called for both human readable and machine readable disclosure of paid links – machine readable first:
If you want to sell a link, you should at least provide machine-readable disclosure for paid links by making your link in a way that doesn’t affect search engines. There’s a ton of ways to do that. For example, you could make a paid link go through a redirect where the redirect url is robot’ed out using robots.txt. You could also use the rel=nofollow attribute.
The problem here is that there is no machine-readable disclosure for paid links. Matt suggests that there a “ton” of ways, but none of these ways mean “this link is paid”, let alone the means, method and motive for payment. This is where the confusion starts.
Matt then goes on to discuss human-readable disclosure:
The other best practice I’d advise is to provide human readable disclosure that a link/review/article is paid.
Here I fully agree with Matt – it’s important not to mislead your visitors. No confusion here.
The real confusion seems to come from the next thing Matt says:
Google’s quality guidelines are more concerned with the machine-readable aspect of disclosing paid links/posts, but the Federal Trade Commission has said that human-readable disclosure is important too:
The petition to us did raise a question about compliance with the FTC act,” said Mary K. Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices. “We wanted to make clear . . . if you’re being paid, you should disclose that.”
To make sure that you’re in good shape, go with both human-readable disclosure and machine-readable disclosure, using any of the methods I mentioned above.
Some people have inferred that Matt is saying that paid links that aren’t labelled in a machine-readable way are contravening the FTC guidelines. He isn’t saying this at all. Read carefully. The FTC is concerned with human-readable disclosure, not machine-readable disclosure. There is no machine-readable disclosure for paid links.
It is possible to place deceptive advertising in search results using various means. But failing to label a link as paid in a machine-readable way is not one of them. There is no machine-readable disclosure for paid links.
I see that Google have added to their Quality Guidelines, including a new, helpful(?) definition of cloaking:
Cloaking refers to the practice of presenting different content or URLs to users and search engines. Serving up different results based on user agent may cause your site to be perceived as deceptive and removed from the Google index.
Some examples of cloaking include:
- Serving a page of HTML text to search engines, while showing a page of images or Flash to users.
- Serving different content to search engines than to users.
That’s fairly clear then. 
My own definition of cloaking is
My rule of thumb is that you should not need to know that a search engine is making the request in order to deliver a response to that request. The obvious exception to this rule of thumb is Paid Inclusion. Paid Inclusion isn’t cloaking. 
