By now, there has been a veritable tsunami of responses (mostly negative) about Matt Cutts' blog entry [http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/hidden-links/] last Saturday regarding the reporting of paid links as spam... and hidden links of course, although most people seem to be ignoring these amongst the general chaos surrounding the paid links issue.
Predictably, this topic caused a certain amount of discussion in the Google Webmaster Help Group, where several good points were raised on the issue.
For instance, one user pointed out via a blog post entitled 'I submitted my Spam Report [http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/]' that, although the fees charged by the Yahoo! Directory are theoretically made to cover the review of a site, not its inclusion in the directory itself, this theory is somewhat compromised by the fact that recurring charges are made annually 'to maintain the listing', despite the fact that $299 per year seems a bit excessive for simple link maintenance.
In addition, Google actually seems to endorse the Yahoo Directory with a statement in the Google Webmaster Guidelines [http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769], advising users to:
"Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."
But, the above paradox aside for a moment, is Google's view of the buying and selling of links really as villainous as most webmasters are making it out to be?
The whole concept of link popularity was initially presented to the public as a 'one site, one vote' means of assessing the relevance and popularity of any given web site on its chosen topic. And whilst the selling of links by 'popular' (high PR) web sites to their less well endowed cousins is of course a natural consequence of this position, if only from an 'enterprise' point of view, it does somewhat negate the natural 'one site, one vote' principle.
This after all is the internet, not a Presidential election, and votes should be cast naturally according to 'personal choice' rather than 'personal gain'.
In any case, the issue seems to be as much about disclosure of the fact that any given link or review is 'paid for' as anything else. It therefore seems likely that Google will target PageRank profiteers selling links solely for their PR value, rather than established and reputable operators such as Yahoo. In this way, the move may even be perceived as an endeavour to level the playing field for smaller operators without their larger competitor's link-buying budgets.
Stay tuned; only time will tell on this one.
What of the post's other subject though; invisible links?
Whilst this topic has most definitely come second to the argument regarding paid links (which actually takes second place in Matt's post), it is potentially the more damaging issue of the two since the hidden link seems to be a far more widespread promotional tactic than its 'bought & paid for' cousin.
Basically, hidden links are invisible to the human eye, blending perfectly into the rest of a page's text and not changing when the cursor hovers over them.
As a promotional method, their popularity increased amongst some SEOs when it became obvious that anchor-text links were vital to site promotion and could be 'camouflaged' by means of CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) so as not to get in the way of 'site presentation'.
Although the hidden link approach was readily embraced by some elements of the search engine optimisation sector as an 'ethical means of site promotion', there have been widespread concerns in the industry about its long-term implications for some time now.
What is more, the comparatively widespread use of hidden links, along with Google's (and presumably other search engines') continuing efforts to detect and penalise them, sets the stage for the next wave of user complaints as web sites previously ranking well will be unceremoniously dumped without notice or explanation.
As is usually the case, it will be the customer who pays the price once the hidden links dam breaks. The problem here stems from the alarming number of online business owners who are not even aware their sites suffer from this issue, since their SEOs or web designers saw no reason to explain the methodologies employed during site design and promotion due to their client's lack of technical knowledge or general lack of interest.
So, as Google's algorithms ready themselves for the move towards hidden link penalties, the web design and promotion industries had better brace themselves for the collective outcry of countless internet entrepreneurs wondering what happened to their businesses.
Paid links may make for a good debate, but hidden links are likely to present the bigger problem for many sites.
Predictably, this topic caused a certain amount of discussion in the Google Webmaster Help Group, where several good points were raised on the issue.
For instance, one user pointed out via a blog post entitled 'I submitted my Spam Report [http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/]' that, although the fees charged by the Yahoo! Directory are theoretically made to cover the review of a site, not its inclusion in the directory itself, this theory is somewhat compromised by the fact that recurring charges are made annually 'to maintain the listing', despite the fact that $299 per year seems a bit excessive for simple link maintenance.
In addition, Google actually seems to endorse the Yahoo Directory with a statement in the Google Webmaster Guidelines [http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769], advising users to:
"Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."
But, the above paradox aside for a moment, is Google's view of the buying and selling of links really as villainous as most webmasters are making it out to be?
The whole concept of link popularity was initially presented to the public as a 'one site, one vote' means of assessing the relevance and popularity of any given web site on its chosen topic. And whilst the selling of links by 'popular' (high PR) web sites to their less well endowed cousins is of course a natural consequence of this position, if only from an 'enterprise' point of view, it does somewhat negate the natural 'one site, one vote' principle.
This after all is the internet, not a Presidential election, and votes should be cast naturally according to 'personal choice' rather than 'personal gain'.
In any case, the issue seems to be as much about disclosure of the fact that any given link or review is 'paid for' as anything else. It therefore seems likely that Google will target PageRank profiteers selling links solely for their PR value, rather than established and reputable operators such as Yahoo. In this way, the move may even be perceived as an endeavour to level the playing field for smaller operators without their larger competitor's link-buying budgets.
Stay tuned; only time will tell on this one.
What of the post's other subject though; invisible links?
Whilst this topic has most definitely come second to the argument regarding paid links (which actually takes second place in Matt's post), it is potentially the more damaging issue of the two since the hidden link seems to be a far more widespread promotional tactic than its 'bought & paid for' cousin.
Basically, hidden links are invisible to the human eye, blending perfectly into the rest of a page's text and not changing when the cursor hovers over them.
As a promotional method, their popularity increased amongst some SEOs when it became obvious that anchor-text links were vital to site promotion and could be 'camouflaged' by means of CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) so as not to get in the way of 'site presentation'.
Although the hidden link approach was readily embraced by some elements of the search engine optimisation sector as an 'ethical means of site promotion', there have been widespread concerns in the industry about its long-term implications for some time now.
What is more, the comparatively widespread use of hidden links, along with Google's (and presumably other search engines') continuing efforts to detect and penalise them, sets the stage for the next wave of user complaints as web sites previously ranking well will be unceremoniously dumped without notice or explanation.
As is usually the case, it will be the customer who pays the price once the hidden links dam breaks. The problem here stems from the alarming number of online business owners who are not even aware their sites suffer from this issue, since their SEOs or web designers saw no reason to explain the methodologies employed during site design and promotion due to their client's lack of technical knowledge or general lack of interest.
So, as Google's algorithms ready themselves for the move towards hidden link penalties, the web design and promotion industries had better brace themselves for the collective outcry of countless internet entrepreneurs wondering what happened to their businesses.
Paid links may make for a good debate, but hidden links are likely to present the bigger problem for many sites.
Source...