5 ms·

Now could they penalize all the paid links that are 'sponsors'? Apache Foundation and many others are even in on it. They specifically say they are selling a d

• 2_listerine_pls 7y ago
  What do you mean by paid links?
  • dstick 7y ago
    Company X that wants to rank high for a keyword pays Company Y with a highly trusted website (in the above example, Apache) to place a link to their website with a variation of the keyword as the anchor text. They pay for the link, Google's algorithm boosts their position in the search results for the targeted keyword.
    • iampims 7y ago
      Not too dissimilar from google’s business model…
• dazc 7y ago
  In the UK, there are thousands of local sports clubs that have links to their sponsors. You can buy these links for small sums of money. This is the same as your apache example in theory but the intention is different, it's a clear attempt to manipulate rankings while the apache links are just a side benefit. I doubt microsoft and such would care either way?
  • ohashi 7y ago
    I doubt the ones at the top are doing it for SEO. The bottom row of 'do follow' links filled with hosting, gambling and vpns? Absolutely is SEO to manipulate rankings.
• troydavis 7y ago
  For others who want to learn more about this, here's an excerpt from https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html. They really do sell "follow" link treatment as a standalone sponsorship upgrade, which explains the "sponsors" ohashi pasted. > BRONZE > Donation level: US$6k/year > Text mention on our ASF Thanks page with 'nofollow' link > Text mention location: lower section of page > -> Alphabetical placement > -> Shared row > -> “Follow” link with multi-year commitment > Use of the ASF Bronze Sponsorship logo for your site > Listed in ASF Quarterly + Annual Reports
• lewiscollard 7y ago
  Wow, I'm rather shocked by the Apache Foundation doing this. It seems far too sketchy for a respected open source foundation. FWIW, though, Google can/does penalise such links. From their list of things that can negatively affect ranking: > Buying or selling links that pass PageRank. This includes exchanging money for links, or posts that contain links; exchanging goods or services for links; or sending someone a “free” product in exchange for them writing about it and including a link https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en
• namirez 7y ago
  Is this problematic because of the links? Because FOSS is funded by donations and it's common for non-profits to acknowledge their sponsors. For example EFF does the same thing [1], but FSF displays only the logos with no links [2]. Are you advocating for the FSF version? [1] https://www.eff.org/thanks https://www.eff.org/thanks [2] https://www.fsf.org/patrons https://www.fsf.org/patrons
  • troydavis 7y ago
    > FSF displays only the logos with no links [2]. That's why FSF's listed sponsors actually care about sponsoring the FSF. The ASF "sponsors" pasted by the first comment and many of the listed EFF "sponsors" aren't donating money because they care about the foundations. They're purchasing links in order to rank higher[1], and a link just happens to require donating. [1]: EFF uses rel=nofollow on all links to sponsors, so a listing on this page probably doesn't actually do what the buyer intended. Google covers this in https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en. In a sense, EFF gets free money from people who think they're buying better ranking but actually aren't. OTOH, ASF's decision to specifically sell rel=follow links - which do pass PageRank - is surprising.