Archive for the ‘PayPerPost’ 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….

Does Google Page Rank Foster an Attitude of Entitlement? Alternate view to Wendy Piersal’s Post.

Monday, October 8th, 2007

Recently, Wendy Piersall asked Does Google Page Rank Foster an Attitude of Stinginess? Of course, it very well may foster stinginess particularly on the part of established bloggers.

Today, on my PR0 ranked blog, I want to ask the opposite question: Does Google PR foster a false sense of entitlement on the part of bloggers with brand new, out of the box, PR0 blogs?

Let’s look at the story that moved Wendy, which she summarized as follows:

Lizzie has a brand new blog and wanted to try and monetize it. She turned to PayPerPost as a source of revenue, only to be flatly rejected because of her lack of Google Page Rank. So, in a quest for inbound links, Lizzie found a blogger who did link exchanges :: only to find that same said blogger refused all requests from sites with a Page Rank of less than 3.

Wendy think this is a bit stingy on the part of the blogger who refused the link. Maybe so…or maybe not.

Let’s look at what Lizzie, the blogger who requested the link, really did, and think about what she might reasonably expect.

Let’s fill in the details!

Fewer than 90 days ago, Lizzie started a new blog which appears to fall in the “whatever I feel like blogging about” niche. After fewer than 90 days, and a dozen posts, she applied for PPP, which rejected that particular blog. She tells readers she was rejected because of her PR0.

Lizzy is incorrect: PPP accepts PR0 blogs. They reject blogs less than 90 days old and with excessively long gaps between posts.

However, since her goal is to monetize this brand new blog, she also concludes that she needs inbound links to improve her page rank of zero. She is correct about this — not because it’s required by PPP but because advertisers will pay more for ads and reviews on higher ranked blogs.

So, Lizzie sets out on a link hunt. Where does she go first? Apparently, not to her own three year old blog with linkage!

Lizzie tells us she has such a blog, but doesn’t name the blog. I did run a back link check at iweb tool and glanced at the blogs giving Chipped Polish backlinks. Nne seem to be written by a Lizzy and those that show images clearly don’t match her face in one of her online profiles.

So, while my backlink check isn’t thorough, it appears Lizzie may not link her own PR0 blog from her own, well established higher PR blog!

Instead, Lizzie surfs the “make money blogging” corner, and finds a blog that evidently provides instructions for being added to the blog roll. Lizzy reads the content, and concludes, to use Lizzy’s words ‘it was a little “meh”’ and proceeds to request a reciprocal sidebar link exchange from:

  1. A blogger whose blog Lizzie only read because she was on a link hunt.
  2. A blogger whose content Lizzie thinks is “meh”.
  3. A blogger who has almost certainly never read or visited Lizzie’s blog.
  4. A blogger with a vastly higher PR than Lizzie.
  5. A blogger who is entirely unfamiliar with Lizzie herself and
  6. A blogger who is publicly advertising her willingness to do reciprocal links exchanges for no other reason than to juice rank,
  7. A blogger who, after reading Lizzie’s blog, may have visited it and decreed the content “meh”.

So, in this context, why would Lizzie expect a to get a link? Why should the PR5 blogger give her a link? At least, vis-a-vis Lizzie, the entire reason for the proposed link exchange is to juice Lizzie’s PR rank.

What Lizzie proposes is, quite frankly, an entirely economic exchange. Presumably, under these circumstances, the only reason the PR5 blogger would give Lizzie a link is if the PR5 blogger got something in exchange.

And what, precisely, would that be? A link on the sidebar of a PR0 blog of a blogger with 12 posts in the “whatever” niche who thinks your content is “meh”? That link has little current value as link juice. It probably has little ability to drive traffic. Moreover, if the PR5 blogger is engaged in loads of reciprocal link exchanges done to gain link juice only, there is the possiblity that this particular link exchange would look suspicious to Google.

Still, I guess a case could be made that a link Lizzie’s blog sidebar has future value and so should be granted.

But does it? Lizzie thinks the PR5 blog is “meh”. She is establishing a “made to monetize” blog. Space on sidebars is space where one can advertise. Will Lizzie keep the PR5 bloggers link in place should Lizzie no longer desperately needs the link juice?

We can’t know. The PR5 Blogger can’t know. So, there is little value for the PR5 blogger here.

Does Lizzie recognize the problem and up the ante and offer the PR5 blogger a link to her “meh” blog on Lizzy’s established blog with PR? It appears makes no such offer.

So, unless we think bloggers PR0 Bloggers are entitled to any and all sidebar links they request, why would we conclude the PR5 blogger is ‘stingy’?

Why not conclude Lizzie has a false sense of entitlement?