5 ms·

Ask HN: How do you justify Google’s SEO policy of not allowing paid links?

• hadoukenio 12y ago
  Google doesn't like it when you cut out the middle man.
• anthony_franco 12y ago
  You're absolutely allowed to pay for links, that's what pretty much all internet advertising is based on after all. Google just doesn't like when you pay for links that pass PageRank. So as long as you do a nofollow on the link, it's fine.
  • pdevr 12y ago
    Copying my previous answer here (and more explanation at the end): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7821157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7821157 Yes, and I think OP was trying to point out Google Adsense allows "paid links" to be displayed on the same website: "You own a website, I own a website, I pay $100 to Google who decides when to show my ad on your website and keep $60 for itself." In other words, if you pay Google (30% more money)[1] to display the links on another website, you are alright. However, if you directly pay the website owners (roughly 30% less money) for them to add a paid link on the same site at the same spot, you are running afoul of Google's rules. So, as a business owner, to be in the good books of Google, you incur 30% extra expenses. I am not trying to criticize Google here (I use multiple Google services), just pointing out how many small business owners see this. More explanation: <a class="rhtitle" href="http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?longurl" http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?longurl" target="_top" title="google.com/Chromecast"><span>Online Content Now on TV</span></a> The code above is an actual Adsense advertisement (I have removed/changed the code and id everywhere). There is no no-follow anywhere there. So, it appears as if it is alright to insert a link with no no-follow as long as you are paying Google. Correct me if I am wrong. [1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
    • sunnykgupta 12y ago
      Exactly my point.
    • phpnode 12y ago
      These ads are pulled in via JS, in an iframe, so it's not quite the same thing - they don't pass link juice.
    • meleva 12y ago
      One reason to justify Google's cut is that on an advertising deal where the Advertiser gets billed for each click (CPC) on his link on someone else website, having a reliable third party to count the clicks is very important. Click fraud is what makes Tier 2 CPC networks really risky for advertisers even if CPC are much lower than Tier 1 (Adwords, Bing). Regarding your Adsense example, was there not a mention like "Ads by Google," "Sponsored Links," or the AdChoices icon ? In that case, it makes clear that it's not a natural link.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• eis 12y ago
  You have to distinguish between ads and links being part of the page content. As long as you seperate ads clearly from the site content and maybe give them a rel="nofollow" attribute, there should never be negative consequences. Paying someone for low quality content around links to increase search engine rankings lowers the quality of the overall web for everyone. Google does a lot of questionable stuff and I personally don't like the power they weild over the web. However, in this particular instance, I can't see anything wrong with this policy.
  • sunnykgupta 12y ago
    How do you specify ads apart from other links. Maybe I'm talking about a product, call it spammy, but I'm all praises about the product. The visitors to my website are actually reading this article, indicating that the article is not boring, badly-written content. At the end of the article I write the line, "If you want to try out the product head over to http://theproduct.com" http://theproduct.com". Why does a multi-millionaire company get to decide that my HTML markup is `wrong` if there is no "nofollow" in my HTML? I know they have the right to decide who gets listed on their search engine and who does not. If that is the case, they should not call their results fair.
    • quonn 12y ago
      > Why does a multi-millionaire company get to decide that my HTML markup is `wrong` if there is no "nofollow" in my HTML? They don't "get to decide" anything. It's just that _you_ don't get to decide either. After all there are many others who also want to be listed at the top for a particular query. Simply, their algorithm works in a particular way. Other tags might also affect the ranking, such as h1 tags, for example. There has to be _some_ mechanism. Why is this so difficult to understand?
      • sunnykgupta 12y ago
        Indicating, that its a shortcoming in Google's search algorithm that makes anybody who wish to get listed on it's index to follow these `Rules`?
• nl 12y ago
  You are completely free to pay for links. Google is completely free to have their algorithm work however they want to provide the best possible results. (Personally I think using paid links as a signal for good websites is unlikely to improve results. You may not agree with this, but that is separate to the issue as to if they should be free to implement their algorithm however they like)
  • pdevr 12y ago
    Yes, and I think OP was trying to point out Google Adsense allows "paid links" to be displayed on the same website: "You own a website, I own a website, I pay $100 to Google who decides when to show my ad on your website and keep $60 for itself." In other words, if you pay Google (30% more money) to display the links on another website, you are alright. However, if you directly pay the website owners (roughly 30% less money) for them to add a paid link on the same site at the same spot, you are running afoul of Google's rules. So, as a business owner, to be in the good books of Google, you incur 30% extra expenses. I am not trying to criticize Google here (I use multiple Google services), just pointing out how many small business owners see this.
    • colinbartlett 12y ago
      I think the biggest difference between the two is that one looks like ads and the other looks like natural links. I'm pretty sure Google wouldn't penalize you for having your own advertisements on your site when they are clearly marked as such.
      • pdevr 12y ago
        Even when they were marked as sponsored links, they were penalized, according to this post[1]. On a sidenote, my post was downvoted by someone even though it was on-topic. I disagree with you, but have upvoted so we can discuss this rationally. [1] http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/why-did-my-pagerank-go-down/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/why-did-my-pagerank-go-down/
  • bowlofpetunias 12y ago
• annacarthy 12y ago
  Paid Ads = OK Paid links that look organic = bad. You are not allowed to pay to increase your ranking. You can buy ads on Google or another site and that's ok as long as they are marked as ads.
  • sunnykgupta 12y ago
    That is what I'm trying to ask, how do you define marking as an Advert? Does every advertisement necessarily carry a 'Advert' banner?
    • lauradhamilton 12y ago
      The definition of "advert" is something that you paid for. If you're asking how does Google know if a link was paid? It has some algorithmic ways, and it also relies on paid link reports from competing webmasters.
• phpnode 12y ago
  I don't think it is justifiable. Google's policies are a bandage for gaps in their algorithms, rather than fix their algorithms (admittedly, this is hard and it's not like they aren't trying) they have reached a point where they can use their monopoly power to dictate how websites act. They punish behaviour which hurts their main business - adwords. I would expect an anti-trust case in the coming few years.
• onion2k 12y ago
  Buying links is fine. Buying links in order to 'cheat' your way to the top of Google's search page, thereby skewing the accuracy of their results, isn't fine. I'd liken it to Ford paying 500,000 people to drive a Ford car and then claiming to be the #1 best selling car in the country. If they did that publicly it'd be ok (and compilers of car sales listings would ignore them). If they did it secretly then it really wouldn't. Tagging a link with 'nofollow' essentially makes it public that the link isn't trying to cheat the listings.
• onion2k 12y ago
  Buying links is fine. Buying links in order to 'cheat' your way to the top of Google's search page, thereby skewing the accuracy of their results, isn't fine. I'd liken it to Ford paying 500,000 people to drive a Ford car and then claiming to be the #1 best selling car in the country. If they did that publicly it'd be ok (and compilers of car sales listings would ignore them). If they did it secretly then it really wouldn't. Tagging a link with 'nofollow' essentially makes it public that the link isn't trying to cheat the listings.
• lazyjones 12y ago
  It's not justifiable. It's just band-aid for widespread malpractice, but as it is now, this just favors paid links that are hidden better, e.g. inside articles, random texts etc. The whole concept of "link juice" is no longer useful. Google should identify and count real humans visiting web pages via GA and Chrome and rank search results based on actual website usage, and not on how well they can cheat in SEO.
  • DanBC 12y ago
    Doesn't that just mean there'll be an underground AmazonTurk for people happy to visit websites to noodle around for a few minutes / hours?
• weavie 12y ago
  The general point of Googles page rank algorithm is to find the best and most relevant content. It's premise is that people are more likely to want to link to good content than bad content. When people start using money rather than quality content to influence the algorithm, it destroys it's premise and thus undermines it's effectiveness.
• arikrak 12y ago
  It's dishonest to your users to display a paid link and and not tell them. Google feels the same way about displaying paid links that they look at. What does that have to do with ads, which you can display from anyone on your site? Also, Google only keeps 32% of the ad revenue not 60%: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
• PauloManrique 12y ago
  My 2 cents: if you pay for Adwords, you'll be on the top of the page, so you can buy from Google your way to the top of search results. Sure some people realize the first results are paid, but still, get a decent title on your campaign and you're on the top of the page. We should also mention that Google tells people to "merge" adsense on the website, so it doesn't appear to be an ad, inducing people to think that it's part of the website. Have you ever been on a download website with ads with graphics saying "Download" right next to the button just to make confusion and make you click on them? Yeah, I see plenty of those using adsense.
  • DanBC 12y ago
    I would have though Google would be strongly against ads like that. Do you (or anyone) have screenshots?
• meleva 12y ago
  Actually it goes like that: You own a website, I own a website. I pay you $100 to show your visitors a link to my website. The link is presented as an organic, non paid link. =BAD You own a website, I own a website. I pay you $100 to show your visitors a link to my website. The link is presented as a paid link, with a no follow attribute. =GOOD On a side note, your breakdown of the Ad Revenue using Google as a middleman is wrong. If you pay Google 100$ (via Adwords) to decide to show ad on my site, I will get 68% of that 100$ and Google will get 32% Adense revenue share: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
• WriteYourRep 12y ago
  If google allowed paid links that passed on page rank, SEO instantly becomes pay to play. Preventing a situation where it only takes money to rank is in Google's best interest because it promotes a healthy internet ecosystem.