• Jericho Barker

    Like they don’t do it in covert way…. Boy … you have a lot to learn about the true nature of the world and its masters.

    For a moment I thought we were having some intelligent conversation here.. instead of jerking-out here and being an annoying smart-ass … go worship the virgin google mother Matt Cutts ..

    And I would love to brake it for ya … but all conspiracy theories come to be a true stories… if you don’t believe it …. learn some history man. And just stop replying on my comments …

  • http://pageonepower.com/ Nicholas Chimonas

    I totally agree that asking for DF credit or post removal is the best and most polite way to go about it.

    I do see where Ann is coming from though – VB agreed to the rules of the community, which stated links must not be NF. Since VB guidelines conflicted with the community guidelines, they shouldn’t have participated in MBG to begin with. That’s why the author was perhaps a bit more aggressive in demanding a DF link as opposed to just requesting the content be taken down.

    And of course, since MBG guidelines apparently became conflicting with the ever changing Google guidelines, here we are today.

  • http://www.netfocusmedia.com/ Jon Payne

    Good point. Agreed that if VB joined the community and agreed to those terms then they should honor them, or not join. I suspect they simply skimmed over those rules, but that’s not really a good excuse.

    Nonetheless, MBG did a terrible job in how they addressed this with VB – just saying “fix it” instead of re-stating the community rules, and then banning VB’s account soon thereafter. Seems too harsh to me. That’s why VB did the writeup.

    That said, I’m sure there is a client situation or two that I’ve handled poorly and would be ashamed about if published too!

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

    Welcome to the Twilight Zone, brother!

  • Kinglouis

    I find this amusing, I did a backlink check on some of the sites by users adamantly licking the boots of Google and I found 75% of their links were followed despite the entire web basically moving towards no follow.

    I found that they had links on some high PR sites and those same sites have links from them. Is that not reciprocation?

    Anyway, I dont see anything wrong with someone having a group that puts together bloggers and writers. It only matters to those that are new or have businesses that they have to devote time running. Now if you CHOOSE to put your product on a garbage site just for the link, that is indeed spammy. If you CHOOSE to accept a post that is garbage, that too is spammy but if you filter your opportunities to make sure the site is set up well, has traffic or at least the POTENTIAL for traffic then I think that should not be considered spam. If you screen the articles to make sure its not dupe content and it is actually helpful that should not be considered spam either.
    It is useful content on a useful site, nothing more nothing less.

    This approach is uncalled for and sends the wrong message which is make it easier for people to collaborate online and you will be punished.

    I wonder what would happen to Google+ if a group formed there to exchange ideas and contribute content to each others audiences? Would they penalize themselves too or would they look into each of these blogs and penalize them on a case by case basis. Which is all really anyone is asking.

    Apparently it is too expensive and/or too time consuming to filter the good from the bad so instead punish the host (MBG) as well as all the users without regard to the practices of the individual user.

  • Kinglouis

    They dont care enough or their algo is not sophisticated enough to do so, which they will never admit publicly but based on their actions is rather clear.

  • http://automanager.com Katherine Tattersfield

    Thank you for this reasoned counter argument. Really demonstrates the depth of your knowledge as well as maturity.

  • http://automanager.com Katherine Tattersfield

    Yes, I know for a fact that the sites who rank for the top terms in my industry bought links and engaged in other forms of manipulation. Yet they still rank while Google goes after MGB. Go figure.

  • https://plus.google.com/+JohnBritsios/about John Britsios

    Ann, the “nofollow” attribute have not been invented by Google. It is a microformat and exists since 2005 http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow. But I certainly agree with you that Google began supporting it, to correct their algorithm deficiency.

  • Kinglouis

    “In other words, it’s perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) that you link
    back to your G+ profile to promote Google, but not to your own site to
    promote yourself.”

    Yep, thats about right but then Google is nothing if not hypocrites.

    Example-
    No ads above the fold- Adwords ads all above the fold and along the side

    No Dupe Content- Google only serves up other users content to its customers

    No paid links- Again, Adwords

    Now No do follow links to your site for your guest post contribution, unless you are linking to your G+ profile.

    Well played, Google, well played.

  • https://plus.google.com/+JohnBritsios/about John Britsios

    And what will happen if too many toxic links will be pointing to our G+ profile? Will our profile get penalized? lol

  • Gabe Gayhart

    I understand the skeptism. Traditionally, a cited source uses a link because its a proper attribution and courtesy. Youre right you dont need a link to cite a source, Traditionally that has been the courtesy for free content or usage/reference of my content. The w3c set it up the application of all links as “dofollows” – which means most times coders use dofollows when using attribution. In 2005 the nofollow was created and adopted by the search engines. In part, related to ‘googlebombing’ and gaming search engines. In which people used phony attribution to pass PageRank and target keywords.
    FAST FORWARD to Yesterday: This smack is intended to change that traditional behavior so even if you take my content or i give it to you for free you are not going to give me a proper endorsement, which i deserve. Its new precedence being established in our community, this goes beyond spam. Either we allow it or we speak up on it. Im just trying to do my part, because someone taught me about the importance of best practices and w3c standards when I started in Digital. Iam simply passing it on – if you guys think iam nut, oh well.

  • http://www.dominiquej.com/ Dominique Jackson

    +1 For this! 100% agreed. And I agree with Kinglouis as well.

  • http://viralcontentbuzz.com/ Gerald Weber

    Please keep in mind MBG is NOT a service. It is a community of guest bloggers and blog owners.

    You are at no point paying for links or paying for a service for link. MBG is a way for guest bloggers and blog owners to connect. There are some tools to help, but there is no correlation between money and links.

    MBG is a free platform by default. The pro version just allows you more access to tools. But it’s not an exchange for links.

  • https://plus.google.com/+JohnBritsios/about John Britsios

    Eric Enge is explaining why Google took that action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MbGqul47H8

  • http://viralcontentbuzz.com/ Gerald Weber

    Yep it’s clear Google took action (unwarranted) against MBG simply because of the popularity of the site.

    A PR stunt if you will

  • MirandaM_EComm

    Once again, you’re personally attacking. My bad marketing strategies? You know nothing about me or the work I do. I came here to discuss the issue from the perspective of a person involved in educating people, creating content and marketing. If you can’t wrap your head around more than one point of view, it isn’t because I’m not doing my job.

  • http://venturebreak.com/ Brad Merrill

    Jon, I already replied to your comment on VB, but I’m going to paste my reply here as well to clarify for everyone:

    There was no policy conflict at the start of this fiasco. Our terms were stated upfront; theirs were not.

    See the MBG ToS here: http://myblogguest.com/forum/tos.php

    In case of changes (for future readers), you can use the Archive.org Wayback Machine.

    In that document there is not a single mention of nofollow vs. dofollow links. In fact, there is a statement that “we do NOT build links here.”

    After I wrote my post in January, they added a checkbox that displays when you accept a guest post that says something along the lines of “I agree not to nofollow any links in this post.” VentureBreak has not participated in the service since that requirement was added.

    I didn’t mention this in any of my coverage, so I wanted to make it clear.

  • https://plus.google.com/+JohnBritsios/about John Britsios

    Like Eric said, they could not penalize someone based on the intent, but they do based on the outcome. So we must look at both sides of the coin.

  • https://plus.google.com/+JohnBritsios/about John Britsios

    I never heard that before. Is that really true?

  • James Norquay

    We took on a client 30 days ago and have completed no link building, the old agency relied heavily on sites like MBG and other low quality guest blogging services. The site was hit with a partial match penalty this morning on all the guest post related target areas. Could be a bad coincidence or a targeted strike by Google on MBG based blogs. To be honest my agency has never used MBG I audited the site 2 years ago and most of the blogs seemed to be dropped domains with poor quality footprints. I do however feel sorry for Ann Smarty and the team quite a harsh attack considering so many others offer similar services.

  • http://www.netfocusmedia.com/ Jon Payne

    Thanks for the reply Brad. To your point then, if their policy was to require followed links then that should have been mentioned in the TOS and also front and center in other places as well so that you (and others) would have known. Sounds like a poor communication job.

  • atentat

    stopped reading at “the web is moving to nofollow” – it really isnt

  • BeryStlap

    Hey here’s an idea: stop being a pedantic asshole that has the world figured out, and telling those of us that haven’t, it’s not that hard. Go F yourself A$$shole

    Couple posts in your comment history you get mad about someone getting bullied – who’s the bully now jerkoff?

  • BeryStlap

    looking foward to the day you get hit – only because you’re such a perfect asshole

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

    Thanks for wasting my time.

    This little comment has been changed since it was originally posted.

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

    “You know nothing about me or the work I do.”

    I know that you’re complaining about a penalty against a link manipulation service. That speaks volumes about you.

    I know you’re posting snide remarks. That speaks volumes about you.

    If you can’t be civil in the first place, don’t expect civility in return.

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

    Go read the VentureBreak article from January about My Blog Guest.

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

    “…stop being a pedantic asshole…”

    Right back atcha.

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

    “looking foward to the day you get hit ….”

    And you think you’ll know about that because…

  • MirandaM_EComm

    LOL because you’re known for your civility, fabulous manners and open mindedness, right Michael?

    I’d love to stay and chat about Google’s action against MBG but so far you’ve only obsessed over me and what I do. So… weird. Later.

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

    “LOL because you’re known for your civility, fabulous manners and open mindedness, right Michael?”

    Absolutely. Just not among people who feel entitled to deliver the snark without receiving reciprocation.

  • http://www.shannonhutcheson.ca/ Shannon

    “You people”? I’m not even going to dignify that comment by responding in kind.

    Publishers DO get to choose what content they do or do not publish by NOT publishing it to begin with lol. Not a single thing is automated. Nothing.

    You think Ann goes around the site threatening to sit on publishers until they accept a guest post? Have you seen her in person? She’s a petite lady.

    In fact, publishers and writers actually talk to each other to discuss changes. People actually talk to one another. Or the potential publisher moves on and looks at another potential guest post. Just like any other method of finding or accepting a guest post.

    I invite you go ahead and *actually use* the free service *as a publisher*, before making incorrect assumptions about it.

    And I’m done responding to you in this regard. I bid you a good weekend.

  • John

    Comment of the day!

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

    “‘You people’? I’m not even going to dignify that comment by responding in kind.”

    And you just did…

    “Not a single thing is automated.”

    And that has nothing to do with what Google might find objectionable in all this; nor does the fact that Ann wasn’t directly facilitating the buying and selling of links.

    “You think Ann goes around the site threatening to sit on publishers until they accept a guest post?”

    You clearly did not read the VentureBreak post. Ann certainly enforced her terms of service. Are you suggesting she would not do that? She has claimed many times to have banned users for violating TOS. Why try to make it sound like she wouldn’t do that?

    Size doesn’t matter in these matters.

    “I bid you a good weekend.”

    Yes, well, apparently I’m enjoying it at a fish market with all these red herrings. Good day.

  • http://localreachlabs.com/ Russell Hayes

    I’ve actually seen people say that doing something against the Webmaster guidelines is something actually illegal. As in breaking some law. haha

  • atentat

    Links drive rank. Get over it already. Its how google works!

  • http://www.digitallawmarketing.com Steve Erlich

    Just want to say +1 to Michael for this comment and many others. We as marketers CHOOSE to rely on Google’s rankings.

    The problem is the marketplace’s understanding of SEO (which is the fault of many of the old grey/black hat practitioners). Clients expect when they are buying your service they are “buying” rankings on Google. “Buy 5000 links for $200 and get page 1 rankings for any keyword you want!” This is the wrong mentality from the start. I spend usually a good week re-educating clients on what SEO means. My goal is to increase targeted traffic to your domain. My goal is to deliver a strong return on investment. My goal is to increase your brand’s exposure.

    My message to the community? Get back to basics. Forget Google exists for a day. If you want to increase your website’s exposure to your target community, where would you go? Who would you post to? How would you target them? If you can’t answer these questions, you are going to have a hard time making it in this “new” market. I put “new” in quotes because it really hasn’t changed. It’s OUR mentality that has changed.

  • pty10

    What about ezinearticles. They still have lots of do follow links on their website but google hasn’t penalized them yet. I’m a newbie in this thing but it could be the case that they are just too big the fail or isnt the case that google hit them a couple of years ago and ezine articles started to make their links no follow?