Filed under: Search Engine Marketing, Search Technology, Internet
Comments by senior Google engineer Matt Cutts often spark discussion in the webmaster community, and particularly among search engine optimization folks, but I can’t recall ever seeing a reaction like the one he created with his call for webmasters to identify paid links. While discussing hidden links, Matt suggested that webmasters needed to identify paid links on their own sites, both for human visitors and robots (e.g., with a “nofollow” attribute). Just in case all site owners didn’t immediately implement this suggestion, he further recommended that webmasters should report any paid links they found on other sites to Google. There was no real carrot associated with helping Google in this way, but the implied stick was that a site that failed to properly identify paid links might have all of their links discounted by Google. Since link juice is the lifeblood of the Web, losing a site’s linking power would be a bad thing indeed.
Reaction has been fast and furious. Aaron Wall at SEOBook thinks that the real problem is that Google doesn’t sell social ads, and that social campaigns are more cost effective than Adwords for reaching some consumers, particularly early adopters. A lengthy and informative post, In Links We Trust - How Google Reshaped The Web, by our buddy DG describes the history of Google-driven link strategies (and countermeasures), and concludes that paid links are fine with Google… as long as Google is selling them. Sugarrae has an interesting post pointing out the vague and confusing nature of trying to sort out paid links on someone else’s site. I could go on listing the many provocative posts on this topic… the outpouring of opinion and, in many cases, emotion, has been quite amazing.
Having some publishing (the old-fashioned paper kind in addition to what I do today) in my background , I view Matt’s comments with mixed feelings. My first reaction is that if Google’s algorithm is screwed up by paid links, telling web publishers they have to increase disclosure or face penalties is an outrage. If Google has a problem, Google should fix it without resorting to blackmail, or employing strategies that risk penalizing innocent sites.
Upon further reflection, though, I think that Matt highlights a problem that has always existed but is growing in importance: a lack of editorial integrity on the part of Web publishers. On one hand, we hear that bloggers are overtaking traditional media as important sources of news and opinion. On the other hand, we see not just sloppy or biased reporting with none of the checks and balances of traditional media, but we see a complete blurring of the line between paid and unpaid content. Pay-per-post schemes that reimburse bloggers when they create a post about a product or site are springing up, and at least some bloggers are responding. Other bloggers may not compromise themselves to that degree, but may link for pay to other sites without disclosure. Information sites other than blogs engage in the same kinds of activities. A naive visitor may be unable to distinguish any difference between paid content and links, and even sophisticated web pros may not be able to tell the difference.
This is happening not just on the Web, but in all media. Product placements in television shows and movies are rarely, if ever, acknowledged in any way. Magazines run “advertorials” featuring glowing praise for their advertisers’ products, often with little or no identification as advertising. Even daily newspapers, long a bastion of clearly defined advertising, often run special sections with articles custom-written for advertisers. That “pay for display” content and links would saturate the wide-open web publishing world should come as no surprise.
I realize that the concept of editorial integrity is a concept dismissed by many web publishers who consider a website nothing more than a vehicle to generate profits, and I don’t think it really applies to clearly commercial sites. If I see an article or a link on an ecommerce site, I expect that there is probably a profit motive behind it. On a product review site, though, I’d like to think that the review content and site recommendations are unbiased, and that sponsored content and links are identified as such. Ditto for news and opinion sites.
That doesn’t mean I like Google telling the world how to behave so that their search engine works. Over the years, Matt Cutts has given bushelfuls of helpful advice to webmasters. If you’ve encountered him at a Pubcon, for example, answering questions like, “Dude, why can’t I find my site in Google?” for the hundredth time that day, it’s clear that Matt has the patience of Job and enjoys interacting with both large and small web publishers. This effort to expose paid links, though, with the attendant dangers of false reports and sabotage, may be a little too much help.
Add this post to: del.icio.us - Digg it - Stumble it - Furl - Yahoo MyWeb 1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This is the best discussion of the topic of “paid links” I have come across. Angst runs rampant. In the end it is really Google’s problem. How they address the problem carries significant consequences both for site operators, and the Google empire itself.
Comment by Willy B Friendly 04.24.07 @ 12:16 pm