Google - Paid inclusion?

[eragon]

Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo. I don't recall seeing information that supports this. In fact, from the information I do keep up with, I think the opposite is true--that Google is one of the last SEs to NOT offer paid-inclusion in their serps.

So can somebody please confirm which side of the fence G is on regarding paid-inclusion? Thanks!

[AdWordsRep]

Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo. I don't recall seeing information that supports this. In fact, from the information I do keep up with, I think the opposite is true--that Google is one of the last SEs to NOT offer paid-inclusion in their serps.

So can somebody please confirm which side of the fence G is on regarding paid-inclusion? Thanks!

Eragon, I'd be happy to jump in on this - and confirm that no one may pay to appear within the Google search results, nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.

I'm guessing that your contact may have mistaken the paid AdWords ads to the right of (and in some cases, above) the search results for paid inclusion.

(And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results either. No connection between one and the other, at all.)

AWR

[eragon]

Thank you for confirming my belief! I was worried there for a second thinking I had fallen asleep and missed something like this. I hope G never decides to do paid-inclusion. Sometimes easier isn't always better.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.

unless they hire (or are) a competent SEO...or contact a link broker

[rustybrick]

It would be interesting to see Google go the paid inclusion route.


Did I just set myself up to get stoned?

[Anthony Parsons]

Originally Posted by rustybrick

It would be interesting to see Google go the paid inclusion route.


Did I just set myself up to get stoned?

No stoning required!

I think about that myself at times. Yes, without it, Google chooses what is indexed and what is not, and with PFI, well, they lose control of that, and lets face it, once indexed, its open slather for manipulation then. I guess we would have more junk than we do now appearing in top results. It is definately a border line decision though...

[rustybrick]

Originally Posted by Anthony Parsons

I think about that myself at times. Yes, without it, Google chooses what is indexed and what is not, and with PFI, well, they lose control of that,...

This kind of leads us back to a thread Danny started a while back named What Organic Search Support Services Would You Want?.

[AdWordsRep]

nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.

unless they hire (or are) a competent SEO...or contact a link broker

Heheh! I guess I should have said "...nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position" !!

Language. You gotta watch it every second!

AWR

[seobook]

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

Heheh! I guess I should have said "...nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position" !!

Is that an official Google endorsed statement that SEOs can and do manipulate their index?

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

Language. You gotta watch it every second!

just teasing you with word games

[AdWordsRep]

Is that an official Google endorsed statement that SEOs can and do manipulate their index?

Well, no. But it is a personal opinion that SEOs can and do work tirelessly, effectively, and ethically to enhance their client's Internet presence!

AWR

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

Well, no. But it is a personal opinion that SEOs can and do work tirelessly, effectively, and ethically to enhance their client's Internet presence!

AWR

Wow that is quotable.... if the tongue wasn't sticking so far out the cheek!!!

[Nacho]

SEOs rule the Search Engines vs. Search Engines rule SEOs . . . hmmm this calls for a thread:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=1645

Have fun!

[David Wallace]

It is already pretty evident IMO that paid inclusion has come and gone with the exception of Yahoo hanging on to it and even that has been debated whether they made the right move with the PFI program last March.

I certainly don't see Google making such a mistake and letting money having any influence over their editorial results. They still have the largest and most up to date index. Their AdWords unit is still extremely profitable., they are now public. Why mess with all that?

[jan]

No one may pay Google to appear within the Google search results, nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position.

Excellent strategy. Keep editorial and ads separate. How would you like it if your newspaper were mixing up these two? Or CNN? That's exactly what I dislike about the Yahoo directory...

[NFFC]

>Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo.

That someone was wrong.

In general they do an excellent job in putting a "chinese wall" between the paid ads and the real results. Having said that they are a business not a non-profit, they will be influenced by the $ in one way or another.

For example we have a thread here about Microsoft cloaking, will they ban Microsoft? Of course not. If say Ebay or Amazon were having a few problems with getting pages indexed do you think they would get a little Google help? Of course they would.

Thats all just normal and good business. To me the grey area comes from statements like;

>And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. If I were a big spender I would maybe expect a little advice if I had a problem in the real results [no direct intervetion though] but the fact that spending big is the primary decider on whether you can get that advice sticks in my throat a little.

Still you can only judge people by their peers, in that respect they are streets ahead. Still doesn't mean they are whiter than white though.

IMHO.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by NFFC

>Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo.

That someone was wrong.

In general they do an excellent job in putting a "chinese wall" between the paid ads and the real results. Having said that they are a business not a non-profit, they will be influenced by the $ in one way or another.

For example we have a thread here about Microsoft cloaking, will they ban Microsoft? Of course not. If say Ebay or Amazon were having a few problems with getting pages indexed do you think they would get a little Google help? Of course they would.

Thats all just normal and good business. To me the grey area comes from statements like;

>And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. If I were a big spender I would maybe expect a little advice if I had a problem in the real results [no direct intervetion though] but the fact that spending big is the primary decider on whether you can get that advice sticks in my throat a little.

Still you can only judge people by their peers, in that respect they are streets ahead. Still doesn't mean they are whiter than white though.

IMHO.

Any suggestions I get I pass along here... so it pays to read the forums, as others also do the same.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by NFFC

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.

I only recently found out about the "engineer consultations" and I have had something like a half dozen people confirm it within a few days of hearing it.

economical indeed.

Originally Posted by AussieWebmaster

Any suggestions I get I pass along here... so it pays to read the forums, as others also do the same.

while it is still helpful, that is still not the same thing. I spoke with a search engine engineer for a couple hours not that long ago and it means more when you hear voice inflections from the original source rather than reading second hand what is passed along.

as sources become more anonymous eventually statements get blurred and lose accountability. you can bet if I am getting advice and am spending a few million dollars a year that the advice is going to be more customized and correct than what I get for free second or third hand.

As google is now a publicly traded corporation, that has to answer to it’s stockholders, I predict (I even have my tin foil hat on) that as soon as their ad revenue stops increasing or drops google will start paid inclusion.

<edited for spelling>

[seobook]

Originally Posted by lots0

As google is now a publicly traded corporation, that has to answer to it’s stockholders, I predict (I even have my tin foil hat on) that as soon as the ad revenue stops increasing or drops google will start paid inclusion.

that is a bold claim...they would lose a bunch of credibility with a move like that.

I don’t think what I said is a bold statement at all, I think it is just a matter of time, sooner or later the profits will slip and then we’ll see...