Archive for the ‘Monetize’ Category

Funny Google PR Fallout: Advertisers Requesting Posties To REMOVE Links.

Monday, October 29th, 2007

In the unexpected danger category: If you pay for links, you may find a few link sellers will refuse to remove them even if you ask! Seriously, the Postie Board thread started by SeeKim, a postie, who writes:

I just got an email from an advertiser wanting me to remove a post from September 13.

1. What would be the logic behind that?
2. Can I delete posts, and if so, how old do they need to be?

Why ask to remove the link?

Theoretically, the advertiser was walloped by Google for paid links, and is trying to correct the issue. They are now writing posties asking them to remove posts, as required to get Google to consider re-inclusion in search results.

Will Posties remove the links?

Probably. Few want to screw over their paying customers.

Still, the responses can be a bit funny. Here’s a tongue-in-cheek quip:

“*chuckle* . wonder if they would pay you to remove it Wink”

Ouch! And who is to say it’s entirely unfair?

Here’s a refusal:

[...] the say they don’t want links from blogs anymore. Well………..I’m a tough love bitty, and my post is good and I don’t delete content.

So, I guess if you pay for links in content, you may loseWeight Exercise control!

Two other posties suggest additional evil spins on the request:

A funny/evil thing to do would be to change the links to a competitor!

That would be a smarter choice, because if I was an evil competitor, I would nicely start emailing all the posties to get rid of the post of my competitor Twisted Evil

Which prompts at least three Posties to point out that such requests should be funneled through PPP. After all, how is the Postie to verify who is asking them to remove the links?!

Presumably, PPP will figure out a procedure to deal with these novel requests. Who’d a thunk this would happen? :)

Do PPP and Google Agree About Something? Contests entry posts are not “free”!

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

Yes. It appears the Pay Per Post and Google may very well agree about something! They may end up using different words, but when it appears they both think that posts written in order to gain a chance at winning a valuable prize are not freely given links.

In the case of Google: The blogger who offers the prize could get a severe Google penalty.

In the case of PPP: A blogger will not be paid for any PPP post flanked by the “contests” post.

So, yep, PPP and Google agree! These posts are kinda-sorta “paid”, “sponsored” or “not freely given” and will be treated as such. Now, for some details!

Pay Per Post’s Reaction to Contest Posts

Recently, PayPerPost rejected a post written by Joanna, of Nanashi-inc.net. The reason? Her PPP sponsored posts was placed next to a post that contained a link to a contest for an IPOD; the link served in place of an entry fee.

The problem? The PPP TOS prohibit posting a PPP post next to any sponsored post and PPP considers these “contests entrace fee” posts sponsored.

Google’s Reaction to Contest Posts

A short while back, Dave Airey decided to run a blog contest. He offered a prize; the entrance fee for the contest was a blog post that linked to Dave’s blog.

Soon after, Dave noticed he’d suffered a severe Google penalty; Matt Cutt’s mentioned the contest when explaining the penalty.

Luckily for Dave, he was able to ask his readers to delete the links. After they did, he regained his Google rank!

Similarities!

Notice the IPOD contest run by It’s Write Now Dave Airey’s contesnt. To enter the contest, both require a blog post with a link back to the contests’ blogs.

So, it would appear that both Google and PPP consider these sorts of “contest entry” blog posts with their links to be motivated by some sort of reward, bribe, or what have you. Of course, each business responds differently.

PPP accepts sponsored posts as an entirely valid option for blogs. However, they prohibit bloggers from placing these sorts of contest posts adjacent to PPP’s clients’ posts. So, PPP’s response is to not pay the blogger for the invalid post.

In contast, Google doesn’t like sponsored posts at all. If they detect the contest, they will apply a Google penalty to the blogger who runs the contest. We don’t entirely know whether they will penalize the bloggers who enter the contest. But since Google seems to see these links as unnatural, it seems there is some risk Google might do so.

The irony

If you read the IPOD contest rules carefully, you’ll notice I just wrote a post that qualifies me to enter the contest! Would PPP consider this post sponsored? Would Google? Hmmmm….

Five Ways Google Should Know My Posts Do NOT Contain Paid Links

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

Google seems to be stomping on the blogs carrying paid posts. I think in many respects they appear to be making mistakes and lowering ranks of posts that searchers find valuable; in that regard, Google may be cutting off its nose to spite its face. After all, if a high Google PR becomes un-correlated with “trustworthiness” from the user’s standpoint, and Google still gives “low PR” sites high ranks for competitive search results, who will believe the toolbar PR tell us anything about worth or trust?

Still, to protect my highly coveted PR of 0, I’d like to tell Google how they can tell my blog is not chockfull of what they consider to be paid links.

So, to help Google out, I’ll list five features that indicate “no paid link” with near certainty; others are just “strong hints”. Here go:

  1. Google Adsense in post content: The TOS of most paid posting companies and link selling services generally forbid inserting Adsense in the content of a paid post. Adsense, Adbrite, or obvious banner ads in content means no paid links. (Of course, normal visitor know these are only here to make me money. But whatever.)
  2. Kontera Ads appear in content after five days. The TOS of most paid posting companies and link selling services generally forbid inserting contextual ads by Kontera, Intellitext or any other service. If you see these in a post, you can bet dollars to donuts there are no paid links.
  3. Links to a several domains in one post. The TOS of most paid posting companies forbid adding links to anyone other than the paying customer. If I link to Sebastian , Sephy, WebGrrrl, Steve Cronin, Untwisted Vortex, Blog-op, Great Video Clips and Re-emergence, I may have linked for no other reason than because they appear in my Bumpzee widget, but you can be sure they didn’t pay me. (Meanwhile, as I write, I noticed Slevi stopped by.)
  4. Not an un-ending series of 50 word long posts. The TOS of several companies require 50 words surrounding that dropped link. Others require interim posts with at least 50 words. Loads and loads of 50 word posts often mean lots of paid links. Few generally means no paid posts- though there are exceptions.
  5. Few inexplicably link to words having nothing to do with the main topic. Like… for example, “mail boxes”. Ok, I just threw that one in after I intentionally visited a blog that I know works for PayU2Blog. The blogger seems to believe those links “blend”.

    But, I ask you: Who links the word “mail boxes”? Ok, I could see linking it if you’d just finished an arduous day of shopping for mailboxes, and found an online source. But who links it in an article about- hypothetically- taking her daughter to the ER, and having to deal with doctors bills? PayU2Bloggers do, that’s who!

There’s an incomplete list for Google. I’m sure anyone who visits can now see that I don’t run paid links!

As an added benefit, I bet I’ve opened the Google engineers’ eyes and they’ll now get cracking on new algorithms based on my incomplete list.

Oh… you think engineers with Ph. D.s working on this issue might have figured these five signs out already? I have a Ph.D. in engineering too! And guess what? I think except for precious few bloggers, I’m pretty sure Google already knows how to find most paid links using an algorithm.

That’s why I’m wondering why they keep yammering on and on about how we should add “rel=nofollow”. Sorry, but, can’t you tell?!

Could paid links be made non-obvious? Yep. I don’t happen to run them, mostly because my blog launched after the last toolbar Pagerank update which means no one wants to pay me to linke them. But you know what? If the SEO’s go underground, the way Michael Gray suggest they will, Google will have a very hard time finding paid links.

What’s even more true is this: If Google doesn’t figure out how to detect underground paid links algorithmically they will never detect them manually. Cuz’ let’s face it: Ain’t no-one ever gonna “nofollow” those links!