Article printed from SiteProNews: http://www.sitepronews.com
  HTML version available at: http://www.sitepronews.com/archives.html

Green With Envy in the Google Game
By Bill Platt (c) 2007
Links And Traffic (http://www.LinksAndTraffic.com)

Beginning on April 14th, 2007, a firestorm blew through the
Internet community with the search engine optimization (SEO)
community burning the hottest. The embers were warm and waiting
for a strong wind to blow and kick up the flames, but it took
Matt Cutts, the Google engineer extraordinaire to fire the flames
with an off-the-cuff comment about "paid links."

The flames raged and in most forums, the wind quickly shifted
moving the firestorm back towards Cutts and Google. Thread Watch
offered the most biting rebuttal to Cutts' comments:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13925 and
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13941

Aaron Wall at Thread Watch is a respectable fellow, and he tore
into Google with a ferociousness that I had not anticipated. Matt
Cutts tried to answer some of Aaron's questions, but it seemed
that Cutts' rebuttals only added more fuel to the fire.

I would not have wanted to be in Matt Cutts' shoes that week. Oh
my, it was brutal!

Even on Cutts' own blog where the "paid link" comment originally
surfaced (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/hidden-links/), Danny
Sullivan posted a question that went unanswered, so Sullivan
commented about it on his site:
http://searchengineland.com/070420-111550.php

Search Engine Watch even mentioned this issue and linked to
additional forums where the debate was raging:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070416-020746

What Most Readers Took From Cutts' Comments

There were only a few readers who took Matt Cutts' comments to
be brotherly-advice.

The vast majority of people were screaming that Google intended
to exercise their "monopoly control" over the Internet to run all
of their competitors out of business.

Generally, I am not a "reactionary" type person. But for about an
hour, even I had a ball in the pit of my stomach.

The ball passed from the pit of my stomach when I read a post
that mirrored an opinion I have openly written about numerous
times before: How does Google determine the "intent" of a person
making a link? They can't!

Understanding The Nuances Of Similar Items

Some people suggest that I should be ashamed of myself for
speculating about the future of Google's algorithms. There is
even one clown, who has suggested that I should fear mentioning
Matt Cutts' name in an article, because I am bound to draw
Cutts' ire against me and my businesses. But, I am not worried.

I am simply laying out my "speculative" opinion about what
Cutts' comments might mean to my business and yours. You are
free to use your own brain to judge the value of my words.

Am I playing a double standard when I say that Google cannot
determine the intent of the person placing a link, and then I
comment on how I interpret the future of the Google search
algorithms? I don't think so, and let me tell you why.

Google uses algorithms (software programs) to make distinctions
about what a web page is about, how they value that page, and to
judge the nature of a link.

I use my intellect (or as some would suggest, my lack thereof) to
make a judgment about what Google has told us we should expect
from them in the future.

I trust software to a certain extent, but software cannot always
read the nuance that separates two very similar items. So, how
can the Google algorithm be expected to determine the intent of a
person who placed a link?

It has always been my contention that humans are "required" in
any process that must make an interpretation of nuance. In my
businesses, we refuse to trust computers to make judgments of
nuance, because they can't. That is the reason we employ human
beings to process orders.

What Is Google's Intent Behind The Paid Links Issue?

The whole of Cutts' argument seems to hinge on nixing "paid
links" that are designed to manipulate or "game Google's
PageRank" and to a lesser extent, their organic search results.
Google seems to be really agitated that webmasters are "selling
links based on the PageRank value of a page."

The problem is that webmasters are selling an intangible asset
that is wholly owned by Google and maintained for "Google's
benefit." Webmasters are selling this Google asset, but Google
will not receive any of the proceeds from that sale.

As a result, Cutts suggested that webmasters should use some
method that Google's spider can use to recognize and distinguish
"paid links" from "given links." Since Google's algorithm is
based on the theory that links are given to websites that deserve
those links, the paid links on high PageRank pages can really
skew Google's PageRank values and its organic search results.

Here Is Where It Gets Ugly

Both honest and dishonest people inhabit this Internet.

Google wants webmasters who are selling links to distinguish paid
links from given links, so that Google can ignore "links
purchased to influence PageRank."

If honest people distinguish paid links in a way that Google can
recognize, then the market demand for those links will dry up.
Once the PageRank value of a link is taken away from the buyer,
the buyer will be forced to purchase links based only on the
traffic that the specific web page receives. If all paid link
decisions were based only on a web page's traffic, then the
market value of a link would be decimated.

Once a webmaster tells his link-buying customers that his or her
links will no longer carry PageRank value to the buyer's
website, then the value of that link will drop in most cases by
80% or more. Why would a webmaster want to reduce the market
value of his links by 80%?

Although Google's links do not pass PageRank to the websites
that are in their index or paid listings, we have to ask
ourselves one thing. Would Google be willing to take a step that
would reduce the market value of their own links by 80%? They
certainly would not do anything that would cut their own bottom
line that deeply, yet they are asking webmasters to do just
that.

This is the reason people are teed off at Google. At least 80% of
the market value of a link is driven by the PageRank value of the
web page where the link will be placed.

Dishonest people don't care to play by the rules; they will
continue to sell their PageRank value, as long as they continue
to have buyers. Only the honest will suffer.

Link Buyers Are Green With Envy

Link Buyers are envious of the PageRank value given to other web
pages, and they want a bit of that value passed over to their own
websites.

Link buyers are green with envy, because they can see that little
green bar in the top of their browser that tells them how much
value Google gives a web page in its algorithms.

If Google were to keep PageRank as a private value, known only to
them, then "paid links" would not be an issue for them to
manage.

If the public cannot see what a page's PageRank value is, then
link buyers would not be able to use PageRank to influence their
link buying decisions, and webmasters would not be able to market
their PageRank value to other websites.

How Simple Is That?

All Google has to do to solve this problem of theirs, is to take
away the indicator people use to buy and sell PageRank.

Someone suggested to me that Google would never do away with the
PageRank indicator in their toolbar, because Google feels that it
is the only thing that ensures that people will keep the Google
toolbar in their browser. Personally, I will continue to use the
Google toolbar for my searches, even if the PageRank indicator
was not there, because I like the search results Google gives to
me. But that is just my opinion, and I am only one person out of
millions of Google toolbar users.

What it boils down to is this. If Google is serious about nixing
schemes to buy and sell PageRank, then they should simply take
their PageRank indicator away from us. But will they take it
away? Only time will tell.
================================================================
Bill Platt offers article ghost writing and article distribution
(http://thephantomwriters.com/ghostwriting) services through
thePhantomWriters. He also offers a guaranteed link building
(http://www.linksandtraffic.com) service, utilizing article
marketing as its foundation, through LinksAndTraffic. If you
have any questions about Bill's services, you can reach him by
phone from 9am-6pm, Monday through Friday at 405-780-7745.
================================================================

Copyright © 2007 Jayde Online, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

SiteProNews is a registered service mark of Jayde Online, Inc.