Dear Google: Was I bitchslapped for blogging about PPP?!

Did Google bitch-slapping my blog for just using the words Pay Per Post, ReviewMe, Payu2Blog and other paid companies?!? Even though a blog hasn’t run a single post from these companies? !!!! ??? !!!!

Of course, it’s not as though I can ask Google to tell me. But, from Ted Murphy’s fingers, I learn this:

We now know from some of our friends inside of Google (thanks “bob”) that they are now looking for phrases such as PPP, PayPerPost,ReviewMe, Payu2blog, etc. in the text of your post. For that reason I would suggest refraining from using any type of this text in the body of your posts, sponsored or not. When you disclose thank the sponsor, not PPP.

Not mention these companies names!?

Of course I also mention these company names constantly. I even joined them all. After all, my niche is creating plugins that help bloggers who monetize do so. Joining the programs is essential to developing appropriate tools for these bloggers and understanding which features are useful.

But if Google’s blog could actually detect followed paid links they realize I have none from these companies!

In fact, if the Google meisters had any brains, they’d figure out one of many of my plugins are of inestimable value to their search engine.

Google meisters might ask, like what?

No Follow Old Spam Links:

You know what this does?

If a paid blogger runs paid a paid link, they can automatically no follow them after the contract period expires. That’s right: the links switch “no follow” after a set number of days. (The blogger can pick. I think I set mine to 60 days).

Sure, I know Google might not be thrilled with temporary follows, but sheesh! Your ‘bot is constantly crawling. Don’t you think it can’s see these things go “off”? The two I posted way, way, way back went off long, long ago. (Like earlier than May or at worst June!)

Guess what Google. Other bloggers use my plugin. Their “nofollows” turn on after a number of days.

So Am I supposed to never say Pay Per Post?!

Now assuming I lost page rank for posing the words Pay Per Post. What the heck amd I supposed to do if I want my rank back?

Andy Beard describes how I can request re-inclusion in Google’s ranking system. Evidently, I’m supposed to figure out what I did wrong (by guessing) and then undo it.

So… is mentioning PPP a violation of the guidelines? Am I supposed to delete thoese evil words, promise never to type PPP, Izea, Social Spark, PayU2Blog, ReviewMe or Loud Launch, ever again, and then ask Google if they’ll consider giving me page rank?!
Seriously?!

Oh, and if I can’t say these words, can others? Like, say the guys at TechCrunch, who seem to be permitted to say “Pay Per Post” with impunity?!

Hey, if Google wants to bitchslap me for posting the words Pay Per Post, Izea, Social Spark, or whatever, I guess they can do so. But … well.. sheesh!

Tags:bloggers monetize PayPerPost search engine google ted murphy

Related Posts:

• Do PPP and Google Agree About Something? Contests entry posts are not "free"!
• The Secret to Organizing Posts while Complying with PPP Best Practices
• Warning: Don't Back Date PPP Posts!
• Pay Per Post: No back to back sponsored posts.

Comments

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

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?

Tags:backlinks bloggers google page rank page rank

Related Posts:

• Dear Google: Was I bitchslapped for blogging about PPP?!
• Six Ways to Get More Links: Tips for a Niche Blog.
• Blog Design Bloopers: More Content Loads Last
• Exoclick + Adsense Deluxe= Easy Money.

Comments

Blog Design Bloopers: More Content Loads Last

I think it’s often difficult for bloggers to notice our own template’s defects. We visit our own sites so often we stop seeing issues that might put off a new visitors. “Content loads last” is particularly easy to over look because we bloggers often use high speed connections; visitors may be on lower speed connections.

To see how widespread it wise, I decided to click on some links at at Problogger. I snapped these shots while pages were still loading. Voila!¹

Notice the content doesn’t show on two and barely shows for the other? The CSS files for these themes loads the content (or background for the content) after the ads, navigation and whatnot. I guess if Darren himself makes this mistake, it’s not surprising others do too. (I’m also beginning to think the blogger default template suffers from “content-loads-last”. Advice to blogger: fix that!)

Interestingly, on of the three bloggers describes himself this way at Problogger?

Hello everyone, I’m Matt from NetBusinessBlog.com. I’ve been doing web design and development for the last 7 years but have just recently started blogging.

I’m betting Matt has a high speed internet connection.

Here’s another example of the “content loads last” blooper I found at Health bolt. I broke that image from the pack because Healthbolts’ blooper is probably not the individual blogger’s fault. It’s caused by b5media.