Comments on: The Paid Link Debate

By: Darren McLaughlin

Darren McLaughlin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:44:21 +0000

“Popularity is always for sale.”

You aren’t kidding. And if anyone should know that, it’s Google.

By: Unsung SEO Feeds - Project Paradox

Unsung SEO Feeds - Project Paradox — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:46:09 +0000

[...] SEO Egghead by Jaimie Sirovich - When I was writing about the paid link debate the other day, I actually went back to an old post on SEO Egghead for inspiration. It’s not a chart-topper, but it’s managed to avoid numerous feed reader trimming sessions nonetheless. [...]

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:24:09 +0000

You’re entirely right, Jeremy. The concept remains the same, however. Consider Site A and Site B. Site A has great content and solid, natural links from authoritative websites. Site B has mediocre content and lousy links, but decides to buy directory inclusions, paid blog reviews, and text link ads.

Google is afraid of Site B outranking Site A because money should not, in their assessment, achieve rankings. It sends the message that quality isn’t the single end-all, be-all factor of importance that they want it to be, that you’ve got to pay for your ranking advantage. That, I think, is what they want to avoid at all costs.

A better way of phrasing it would have been, “If paid links count, then someone can simply pay to gain a ranking advantage over their competitors.”

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:02:14 +0000

Good post Stephen.

I disagree with one part:

“If paid links count, then someone can simply pay their way to the top of the SERPs.”

Text links alone won’t do it. I could spend thousands on paid links, but if my site sucks, it means nothing.