• http://www.adjuice.co.uk/seo-company/ Ewan Kennedy

     Hi @SEObuilding:disqus

    I agree. The real victims are the clients.

  • http://www.linkworxseo.com Link Worx Seo

    A company I work for uses their services and gets paid for specific links and has been doing so for about a year now. In turn iAcquire pay’s us directly on a monthly basis. Although the links these other sites are relevant, they are still bought. As a few months ago I wrote about Why Buying Links are bad for Your Business. This article goes right along with Google’s policies. I figured it would not be to much longer before Google decided to crack down on some of these companies. There is another company as well that I wonder if Google will ban. Back Link Builder is another company you can buy links to achieve higher ranking’s. In the grand scheme of thing’s Google is really making sure no bad practices should be taking place. A lot of the time they even warn you before they make the changes or ban a site. It has been evident that Google is trying to clear up the black hat and spam.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    “Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.”

    That’s from Google’s guidelines. It doesn’t say you’re excused from a possible penalty just because you might buy the links from others.

    In addition, there’s some pretty strong evidence that iAcquire wasn’t just buying links for a client but is running a link brokering operation.

  • Durant Imboden

    Why all the hostility toward Google? Put the blame where it belongs: on companies that get paid to manipulate search engines’ results, and on the clients who hire such companies.

    What I don’t get is why Google doesn’t stop publishing PageRank numbers. If link buyers were forced to buy links blind, the value of purchased links would plummet–or, at the very least, buying PageRank would become far less efficient (and therefore less cost-effective).

  • Durant Imboden

    First, you’re equating advertising with the buying and selling of PageRank. That’s simply incorrect.

    Second, you ignore the fact that Google doesn’t object to links that don’t involve the buying and selling of PageRank (e.g., “nofollowed” text links or the kinds of links used by ad servers). 

    The reason for the iAquire penalty is simple: Google wants to protect the quality of its core product, Google Search.

    Look at it this way: Would YOU send free traffic to someone who was trying to corrupt your site and trick your users?  

  • http://twitter.com/Im_Andy_ Andy Lackie

    Why put a footer link on your client sites?  1. It is a form of advertising and therefore should be NoFollow.  2. You haven’t earned it through merit or great content, just designing a site.

    I have loads of sites, is it ok for me to just add my links to all those sites in an attempt to manipulate Googles search results?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QPDU4ZBPKVAHJAR4OVCGKY24XU Gary

    I guess Google’s corporate motto suggesting “do no evil” stands slightly
    amplified for SEO’s now …

    1. Generally, Do No Evil, but when you have
    no other way, declare your deeds with a “nofollow” attribute.
    2. Don’t fall
    prey to the link selling networks. I guess that was pretty shady for ever, as if
    Google’s powerful robots wouldn’t ever be able to see the entire linkgraph one
    Gary Lawrance from http://www.webstarttoday.com

  • http://www.actividadeseconomicas.org/ economicas

    come on google dont be evil…

  • http://www.danielhaim.com/ Daniel Haim

    Good example or a bad example? iAcquire was a cool agency but focus on making a good product and don’t manipulate search engines to give you love. It was always obvious that these things would eventually happen. Whale update incoming.

  • http://twitter.com/lordofseo Lord of SEO

    Goolge big joke, find another search or use more sources. FTC or EU will most likely bring corrupt Google down. Their ‘spam’ team are a big joke.

  • NoPaidLinksHereHonest

    “Put the blame where it belongs: on companies that get paid to manipulate search engines’ results…”
    What… all SEO companies?  

  • http://www.seopackages.net/ Harry Watson

    I think Google is preventing t

  • http://twitter.com/Im_Andy_ Andy Lackie

    Seems like footer links aren’t acceptable after all

  • http://twitter.com/ajmihalic AJ Mihalic

    All commerce is an exchange of value. Google makes links valuable, then says trading on that value is not allowed, and then doesn’t define trading. If you’re in a competitive market and Google is returning crap, is the suggestion to these businesses “just be patient” (and lose out on Google traffic until Google cares). I think it is to “help them” return reasonable results. The debate about “how” is superficial. How you rank is controlled by Google. Anyone who is bitching about tactics that work, should be complaining to Google, not anyone clever enough to take advantage of it. 
    It also is NOT within Google’s Guideline jurisdiction to penalize a site that isn’t violating those guidelines. Hopefully, they are penalizing iAcquire for some legitimate problem with iacquire.com. Sure, they can do whatever they want, but if so let’s be clear about why iAcquire has been de-indexed. Google controls a large marketplace (and profits heftily from it). If there is business ethics at play, ethically they have some responsibility to return good results, but not to punish people who also play in the world they created. They can choose to do so, and that may be the way they like to do it, but I don’t see how that makes it OK for someone else to tell Google to penalize some site based on their practices. Besides, who cares about linking practices. All that SHOULD matter is relevance, right? If it’s relevant (and quality), Google should rank it well. Why make more to the story than that? Spam should be irrelevant results, not results with “funny looking ‘link profiles'”. Link profile shouldn’t even be a meaningful word to Google. I don’t understand the self righteousness around complaining that someone is using signals that are Google’s own criteria for ranking in Google. If you call yourself an SEO isn’t this just laziness to not be figuring out what works (and doing it)?Is Matt Egan’s site about “San Antonio SEO” or is that title designed to get organic search query traffic? Seems like his site is only about one San Antonio SEO firm…his. Just saying….seems manipulative…I don’t know…I wonder if an SEO can take credit for “white hat cred”? Sounds like that is just following the guidelines, which pretty much any webmaster can do. Beyond making your site “crawlable”, “white hat SEO” doesn’t exist. Either you care about Google traffic or you don’t. You either publish like users matter and Google does what it pleases or you attempt to make Google find your site for relevant queries (SEO). 

  • http://www.adjuice.co.uk/seo-company/ Ewan Kennedy

    @AJ Mihalic. One vital distinction between link buying and some other practices you have mentioned e.g. optimising title tags is that the former contravenes Google’s rules and the latter is not only within the rules but actively recommended by Google. Poles apart. Google is entitled to set the rules governing the use of its own property and rules have to be enforced if they are to be effective.

  • http://www.itmasterservices.com/ Reno Computer Repair Services

    Wow this was an interesting read to say the least. I have to agree with others that the intent is the key! If you are gaming the system then you will pay!

  • http://www.itmasterservices.com/ Reno Computer Repair Services


  • Jas10

    As for paid links, Google has a two-tier policy:

    — severe penalty for some operators

    — no penalty at all for some other operators:

    Look at the only commercial site that has links in the institutional UNESCO world heritage site. It paid $1,5millions for  thousands high PR, permanent, do-follow links. No penalty at all.

  • Jas10

    As for paid links, google has a two-tier policy

    — severe penalty for some operators

    — no penalty for some other operators.

    Look at the only commercial site that has got do-follow links from the institutional UNESCO world heritage site. It paid $1,5 millions and got thousands high-PR, permanent, do-follow links.
    No penalty at all.