• http://twitter.com/saidpurtown Ebrahim Shah

    i maintain new algorithm of google getting good pagerank is not tough for legit site

  • Vic

    Google is upset and with good reason! Only Google can make money selling links and by making ads seem like editorial content. Shame on newspapers.

  • http://automateeverything.tumblr.com/ Adam Buchanan

    It looks like they’re in clean up mode. Most of the links have been removed from the examples.

  • http://www.inbound.co.uk/ Nick Pateman

    Perhaps Forbes.com and The Huffington Post will be next; ‘quality guidelines’ mean nothing when money is involved. I’m sure the first two links in this article are totally legitimate…

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/05/is-using-bitcoin-the-way-to-play-online-poker-in-the-us/

  • Guest

    I feel like the “Why does Google have the right to penalise people” argument is getting a bit tired and old. I understand that it can be frustrating, but hear me out.

    People are free to sell links if they want, but if they do so with the intent to manipulate Google’s results by willingly buying/selling links that pass pagerank, then yes, Google has every right to penalise them *within* their own search engine.

    Google doesn’t own the internet, but they do own Google. And they can do as they please within their own search engine (they own it after all).

    The elephant in the room here, is that these followed links are 99% of the time sold with the intention that they will artificially boost search rankings. We’re all SEO’s here, and we all know what’s up – let’s be honest.

    If you want to buy ads for user traffic, then there are loads of way to do this without stepping on Google’s toes.

    Now, people may come back with – “Well, why should I always have to worry about Google! Does that mean I have to nofollow everything because Google says so!?!”.

    Well no, you can do whatever you like; but if you goal is to rank highly in Google, then yes, you will have to play by their rules and do LOTS of things specifically for that purpose. Do you think that setting your title tags and headings to be optimised is an example of Google going too far? Most people don’t, but that’s almost the exact same principle as no-following sponsored links.

    If you want to completely ignore Google and do as you like, then that’s fine, you are of course free to do as you please, just don’t expect to rank very highly in their engine.

    Simple as that.

  • http://twitter.com/anirudhbargotra anirudh

    earlier it was link building, then quality links, now buying links, i think it is high time the small and mid companies should start thinking beyond google..

  • Alan

    Good use of Irony and Sarcasm both of which will be lost on most Google engineers. I often wonder if the Googlebot personality was based on the engineers that made it.

  • http://twitter.com/alexofharford Alex of Harford

    The Interflora advertorials still exist but some of the links to the Interflora website have been removed already – fast work!

  • BDH

    Some folks have taken the author of this article to task for linking
    to his pal’s spamtastic site as an SEO expert:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kernlewis/2013/03/29/with-seo-linking-strategies-gaming-the-system-is-so-last-decade/

    Earlier this week, another SEO article cited Rand Fishkin, but then went on to
    include some low-grade internet marketers with no credibility.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhall/2013/04/09/what-every-leader-needs-to-know-about-seo/

    It may not be Forbes policy, but it sure looks like the writers are getting paid, doing favors or are just dumb.