• 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.

    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?