• http://anthonypensabene.com Anthony Pensabene

    like some link anchor text, seems using verbiage like, “link was bought” on a mainstream public platform like Twitter is not wise. Nineteen-eighty-fourteen

  • http://www.localseostar.com Kristopher Starliper

    It’s funny reading their (Web Design Library) timeline because it appears as if they’re trying to renew existing paid link subscriptions, as well as “cold-calling” companies to offer their service.

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    What a waste of a perfectly good domain name. :(

  • http://www.jlh-marketing.com/ Jenny Halasz

    Saw that one coming from a country mile.

  • http://cory-howell.com/ Cory Howell

    Seriously… WDL gets dinged, but T-Mobile comes out unscathed (so far)?

    I can point out a lot of other Fortune 500 companies, but I will not.

    Big business’ for the most part has utilized paid links FOREVER and it’s the publisher who is responsible? Afraid not… Both parties should be punished in this case.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    You’ve got one party clearly admitted to selling links. That party was punished. You’ve got another party that might or might not have been buying them. I mean, for all we know, “Vince” made it seem like these companies all bought links in the past, then calls out to them in hopes of getting them penalized. I’d say Google made the right call in this particular case.

  • http://cory-howell.com/ Cory Howell

    That’s a good point; innocent until proven guilty. In this case, I would have to say other sources/knowledge influenced my comment; not the tweets alone.

  • Durant Imboden

    Or, for all we know, Vince might have been trying to sell a “renewal” of something T-Mobile had never bought. (That’s a pretty common scam, along with sending bills to companies for imaginary purchases and hoping someone will approve payment.)

    Side note: A drop from 8 to 48 seems for a competitive term like “Web design” is an awfully mild penalty, under the circumstances.

  • SEO

    If people would host actual content instead of making a mess of the web we wouldn’t be here. Bring back 1998, bring back pages with content.

  • Shawn

    matt cutts eyes in his post says it all

  • Ruben

    Let’s imagine your site is dependant mostly on content, and you know your competitor has been selling links or -at least- he has included some suspicious links on his site. So, you decide to take action on that and start tweeting as if you were the content manager asking to your clients to renew those links.

    This guy could be the dumbest one ever… or a genius. This would be the most effective way of getting a (probably well deserved) penalty for competitors selling links.

  • http://www.netbuilder.com.my/home/SEO+Malaysia/q?m=article&article_id=24 Danny Cheng

    Looks like the big G means business. Just a week ago it was guest blogging and Ann Smarty’s “my blog guest” and now this.

  • Jean-Christophe Gomez-Lavocat

    Negative SEO/SMO maybe ?

  • http://www.e-wali.com/ Ahmad Wali

    Everyone wants to earn more and more! And I think selling links is not a crime because people earn money from it. It is Google why they are allowing “link” to play a role in rankings. I see so many big companies buy links on blogs for rankings! Blog owners get paid and they want to cover their expenses.

  • http://www.joshz.net/ Josh Zehtabchi

    Now, this… This was an entertaining read. The nail that sticks out, is the one that gets hammered.

  • Thomas

    thanks Pablo, but i only have a laptop :(

  • Bob L

    Why aren’t more people talking about the issue of T-Mobile selling a LOT of Android devices? A decision by the webspam team to penalize T-Mobile will likely cause an eruption in the Android division. These conflicts are going to become more and more common.

  • Joel K

    What most people seem to be missing is that the reason T-Mobile isn’t being penalized is because someone already has been: iAcquire. The link was bought by iAcquire prior to their own Google ban – proof of this lies in the full conversation on Twitter where the seller admits iAcquire bought the link. It’s perfectly understandable, then, that this link would have been disavowed or accounted for by iAcquire as they made their clean-up journey years ago.

    In other words, there’s no reason to penalize T-Mobile, because it was an agency who bought the link well over two years ago and already paid the price.

  • Joel K

    Because T-Mobile didn’t buy the link (iAcquire did, and paid the price almost 2 years ago with a ban of their own). Inferring that Google won’t penalize t-mobile because they sell android devices is kind of insane, since Google has penalized themselves multiple times in the past.

  • Durant Imboden

    First, there’s no proof that T-Mobile did anything wrong.

    Second, if you’re going to use that logic, you’ll also have to wonder about Bing giving preferential treatment to sites that use Windows servers, or punishing sites that don’t. (Where do the conspiracy theories stop?)

  • Marcus Aurelius

    Curious if you see what they did as immoral? I like to remind people on occasion that Google does not make the laws here in the US and their guidelines have no legal bearing IMHO. Technically, when you sign up for GWT you do have to agree to abide by their webmaster guidelines so if you really wanted to skew things that way, you could say that buying/selling links puts you in violation of an agreement that you digitally signed and that would be a tort prosecutable by the US common law system, but i mean, common now. Seems more like you are out there to take bread off of other people’s plates while you reap some sort of benefit.

  • http://www.erikeric.com/ erikeric

    OR Vince is really Google’s update of the same name become sentient and knows that because of the Google update named after him, T-Mo won’t be penalized. Think about it…

  • https://plus.google.com/+DannyPardoe/posts Danny Pardoe

    I think this is awesome. I don’t use paid links and some of my sites get owned in Organic because of other’s using them. Good work Matt, I specifically like his tweet to Vince! ಠ_ಠ

  • Jason Brown

    It doesn’t look like they were slapped by Google at all. They are cloaking their url and have replaced it with a bitly link. They do show up on page 3 for Web Design Library but its with the bitly link. There was talk of an update rolling out the same time, they would have made the url switch. Hard to say which part is affecting the serps rankings. If they did get penalized, I doubt they would be in the #1 position for their name. Only Goolge will know, but we know they won’t tell us.