I found myself reading through a few links Nacho had in his Link Bulding 101 post (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2616) and was going through an article (http://www.rustybrick.com/seo_articles_10.php) Barry (Rustybrick) wrote and came across the following:

Buying links, conducting link exchanges, and performing any linkage schemes that feels unethical, is most probably unnatural.

Thats saying alot.

I dont understand, and have been quoted (http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040618GoogleAndTheBuyingOfLinks.html) as saying so in the past, how buying links or conducting link exchanges falls into an unethical category.

What is unethical about a website that capitalizes on its success on the web and doesn’t give away links? I don’t see how money changing hands makes the practice of linking unethical.

I do not believe that the search engines should scare us away from linking what we want to link to or charging for links. We don’t believe running banner ads is unethical, yet banner ads have HREF tags just as text links do. It’s the same type of business the only difference is now we all know a greater value exists on these links. They aren’t just for funneling traffic from one site to another anymore.

If I want to link to a site that is totally off topic but I think is cool and want to share and ask for a link back why is there an issue? We guard our outgoing links nowadays. If someone were to ask for a link most of us would run all kinds of research on the requesting site. Do they link into a "bad" network? Do they engage in what we personally deem to be high-risk SEO strategies? Are they own a shared IP of a banned site?

Links have become a commodity. And as a commodity they have a natural and inherit value. To say that because we may ask for its value in money or a similar commodity in trade doesn’t make it unethical, but an exercise in ethical capitalism in the 21st century.

Far be it for me to put words in Rusty Brick's mouth, but from your quote he said "if it FEELS unethical."

I don't think he was saying all of those things were unethical, just more if your gut was telling you something didn't seem right about the links you were exchanging or buying or whatever, then you might want to listen to it.

My post is not instigating Barrry nor aimed at him, however his post is what inspired me to post.

I've recently bought a lot of sponsorships for Platinax. The purpose is not actually for ranking purposes - the majority of it is aimed at the directory, to help pass users from one directory resource onto another possibly useful directory resource.

I'm guilty as anyone else, for thinking that the way that the search engines order information on the internet, is one of the best things to happen to the internet for finding specified content.

However, all manner of website linkage is not necessarily provided for SE benefits, but as a natural method of organising similar topic websites together. Webrings are a brilliant example of this - small niche theme sites banding together for easier user surfing.

Yet it would be easy for someone outside of that system to claim that webrings are nothing more than "link farms".

Ultimately, the various issues of collecting links - sponsorships, exchanges, webrings, directory listings, and various other link schemes - are aimed squarely at the surfer. It's an issue of accessibility regarding information on the web.

However, as with on-content SEO methods, it is open to...I'll not say "abuse", as much as "exaggerated use".

Everyone will make their own judgement as to whether a specific link or set of links is useful to themselves or not. But if you only consider SE's, then this can result in harm: not because of SE penalities, but because it is human users who will ultimately judge the usefulness of such links.

Mike Grehan makes a very good point of suggesting that the internet be regarded as a network of communities. IMO, that is a very useful aspiration within link building.

Ethics truly don't have anything to do with it, whether building links or buying links, site wide or not.

Someone offers a service.. another see value in theat service, and if the visitor doesn't see value they will stop coming, eventually the recipient of the service notes there is limited value (or value has deprecated) and discountinues, and eventually the service providers notes that his own value has deprecated and his right something else.

Search engines also view this as value to their users or not and take measures to control if limited value is noted.

Where's the problem with ethics?

It's unethical to provide a service to a market demand?

Far be it for me to put words in Rusty Brick's mouth, but from your quote he said "if it FEELS unethical."

I don't think he was saying all of those things were unethical, just more if your gut was telling you something didn't seem right about the links you were exchanging or buying or whatever, then you might want to listen to it.

Jill has it right. The point of the article was to say, if you buy links, exchange links, etc. and it FEELS unethical when doing so - then it is probably an unnatural link.

Real unethical link building is spammy blogs, log files, forums, and other areas. Of course its the blog owners, log file owner, forum owner's responsibilities to make sure they are not spammed with this stuff. But I feel that would be classified as unethical link building.

Not that I do not respect those people who participate in it. Just that I feel, that I would classify it as unethical. And of course, this is not a debate on if we care about ethics or not. right? ;)

>>It's unethical to provide a service to a market demand?

I don't think that's a realistic corollary, fathom. There are a lot of things out there that there's an extremely high market demand for that shouldn't be sold - but they're not necessarily the same thing as something as simple as links.

I'm with Jill about feelings. I don't judge others, or at least try hard not to. When people are deliberately being harmed, that's a different story - which is happening out there, and there are people who have absolutely no conscience. But it's what "feels" right or wrong to me... repeat - to *me* - that I have to go with.

>>It's unethical to provide a service to a market demand?

I don't think that's a realistic corollary, fathom. There are a lot of things out there that there's an extremely high market demand for that shouldn't be sold - but they're not necessarily the same thing as something as simple as links.

I'm with Jill about feelings. I don't judge others, or at least try hard not to. When people are deliberately being harmed, that's a different story - which is happening out there, and there are people who have absolutely no conscience. But it's what "feels" right or wrong to me... repeat - to *me* - that I have to go with.

Oh I agree as well but there isn't the much between:

Buying a link for PageRank, buying a link for the anchor text, or buying a link for the traffic, or for the brand (e.g. Yahoo). You get the same thing in each instance - with only a change in marketing pitch.

The simple fact is I can buy a link from Yahoo and only consider the PageRank value... and care less are the brand... it is morally the same thing.

The way I see it (me) if one is wrong - they're all wrong.... Including Google's link here at SEW.

Real unethical link building is spammy blogs, log files, forums, and other areas.

There are tricks to every trade, some more visible than others which often times set the "movers and shakers" apart from everyone else. I would agree that spamming message boards with hundreds of "me too" and "I agree" posts with your keyword rich sig and blogs full on nothing but links to one or two sites crosses an obvious line. However, I don’t believe you can look from the outside of a link buy or link exchange and be able to classify it as an unethical practice. Nor should their be a degradation of value simply because site a links to site b and vice versa.

Link exchanges are a natural phenomena and exchanging or purchasing of links (contact information) predates the Internet itself. How many of us ran old BBSs 20 years ago? The only way you found out about another BBS was either a friend told you or you saw it listed on another BBS. Most times you could be mentioned for free, but the really popular ones were worth paying for if had a lot to offer on your board and had paying users. Of course back then paying users paid about $1 a month. After all you needed that 2nd phone line and that 1200 baud modem! :D

However, I don’t believe you can look from the outside of a link buy or link exchange and be able to classify it as an unethical practice. Nor should their be a degradation of value simply because site a links to site b and vice versa.

Nor did I ever say link exchanges or link buying were unethical.

All I said is that if you feel that the link exchange or link purchase is unethical, then its probably not a natural link.

But if my corporate site was to link to my hosting companies Web site and my hosting company was to link back to me, then that is natural. I am proud of my hosting company and they are proud to have me as a client. That is a "feel-good" link.

However, I personally would feel a bit shy about using a bot to send out link exchange requests to anyone. Link exchange software is found on many Web sites.

My post is not instigating Barrry nor aimed at him, however his post is what inspired me to post.

My comments are purely aimed at the SEs and what Im reading appear to be their linking "views", not you Barry. :D

The simple fact is I can buy a link from Yahoo and only consider the PageRank value... and care less are the brand... it is morally the same thing..

That to me is the key point. And the question becomes How will G or Y or MSN or any SE be able to differentiate between between text links that are done naturally and those that are purchased with intent to gain PR -- or will they care to differentiate at all?

If links are viewed as a "vote", I would think the SEs would want to distinguish between a purchased vote and one given freely....

If links are viewed as a "vote", I would think the SEs would want to distinguish between a purchased vote and one given freely....

But therin lies the danger. We let an algorithim make the call. This could quite possibly be Gs eventual undoing. If someone can find a way to create a hybrid of algorithim and human intuition (to make up for the gut feeling that an algorithim cant have or catch the exceptions to the rule) they could usher in a next level of search. This probably wont happen till AI is at a more evolved stage.

Of course then the AI could wind up trying to take over the world and using humans as batteries....you know, that old chestnut. :cool:

Seriously though, how could they tell and why should G or Y! care if I paid for a link from the widget web directory to my blue widget site?

If you follow that idea to its concusion then we would have to weed out most other forms of web advertising. After all the main objective is to get users to your site through a click.