Here is something no one really talked about at SES NYC. A way to combat Google's assault on paid links.

Most speakers agreed that Google is trying to filter out and even penalize paid links. Most also agreed that this is tricky for their algorithm, but areas in the footer that say "paid advertisers" or "sponsored listings" are dead giveaways.

A simple suggestion to help webmasters still make money and Google go back to the drawing board regarding locating paid links. Obviously avoid the above phrases and similar. If you MUST use one of the above phrases, make the phrase into an image file--then post your paid links.

It's like having a Flash website. Google will never even see it. ;)

I think Google are already far past that point.

My reading between the lines from MC's blog is that the search engine looks at maps of links. If a site links out to unrelated sites and those unrelated sites also tend to be linked to from other unrelated sites (easier to draw than write!) then that suggests link buying and selling.

A key way to work out who is selling links is to work out who's buying them.

Right. But you eliminate the "dead giveaway" and you end up with Google on shaky ground penalizing external links that COULD be natural. Using an image leaves a LOT more for the brainiacs to have to figure out with maps, etc. They don't want to cross the line.

Even with the methods that you mentioned, there is no way Google will be able to categorically penalize you unless you are doing other obvious giveaways.

In my opinion, this completely eliminates their "easy fix" to sniffing out bought links. :cool:

*there is no way Google will be able to categorically penalize you*

Not sure they''re actually looking to penalise link-sellers, they'd probably be happy enough to identify and discount them, IMO.

I don't see Google penalising anyone for inbound links - competitors could wipe out others - but ignore repeated text links at a certain point especially from a unique IP etc.... find a pattern of a buyer and downplay those factors.... maybe.

I sell text links on my site in order to help cover the costs of the server. I would feel that it is a little unfair if Google were to penalise me for doing so - after all Google is also in the ad space selling game.

If Google wants to filter out paid links so that they do not affect the search rankings, then fair enough, but to penalise sites which sell links is just unfair.

Recently Matt Cutts answered the following question in his blog:

Q: “If one were to offer to sell space on their site (or consider purchasing it on another), would it be a good idea to offer to add a NOFOLLOW tag so to generate the traffic from the advertisement, but not have the appearence of artificial PR manipulation through purchasing of links?”

A: Yes, if you sell links, you should mark them with the nofollow tag. Not doing so can affect your reputation in Google.

Google originally advised adding rel=nofollow to links in order to try and combat search engine spam from blog comments, but now appears to be asking for it to be added to paid listings.

In my opinion, this is just wrong. The rel=nofollow in a link is not an official HTML standard, so why should I be forced to use it in order to keep my site safe in Google. Google is getting very above itself if it thinks that website authors should be writing sites with their search engine in mind. If Google want to reduce spam from blog comments and discount paid links, then they should be working on doing this with their algorithms, not forcing people to do the work for them. I know that being in Google is very important to many webmasters, and many will jump through hoops to stay in there, but this is just an abuse of their power. This is counter productive, and could adversly effect Google's results. Consider the webmaster who has no care for coding for the search engines and instead writes content for his visitors. He may have the most authoritive site on a particular subject, which would be of most use to search users, but risks having his site penalised for selling links to support this service which may not survive without the revenue. This in turn penalises the searchers looking for good information, which in turn penalises Google.

Here is something no one really talked about at SES NYC. A way to combat Google's assault on paid links.
And you won't either as there are search engine reps present at these conferences. ;)

These kinds of tactics would more likley be discussed at the bars and in selective groups. :D

And you won't either as there are search engine reps present at these conferences. ;)

These kinds of tactics would more likley be discussed at the bars and in selective groups. :D

You mean you did not attend the "Kidnap a High Ranking Google Rep and Make Them Change the Algorithm" session?

* Not doing so can affect your reputation in Google.*

If I was "suggesting" you use the no follow for paid links and you didn't I'd want some form of sanction I could use.

Easiest thing that wouldn't cause too much "collateral" would be to simply discount ALL the links on that page....

* Not doing so can affect your reputation in Google.*

If I was "suggesting" you use the no follow for paid links and you didn't I'd want some form of sanction I could use.

Easiest thing that wouldn't cause too much "collateral" would be to simply discount ALL the links on that page....

That I would be fine with. It is fair that if you have reason to think that there is something 'not quite right' about the linking on my page, then you should discount those links in order to be on the safe side. I feel that it would not be fair to penalise my page in the rankings though (for having a small number of paid links without nofollow, as opposed to serious link abuse). Now you have re-phrased Matt's comment in this way, it does look more like you are right and the links would simply be discounted.