Shoemoney - Skills To Pay The Bills

Link to ShoeMoney Internet Marketing Blog

Why do some SEO bloggers get away with selling links?

Posted: 13 Sep 2012 07:39 AM PDT

Google makes it pretty clear – buy links and it could get your site banned. And numerous site owners who have done just that have faced the wrath of Google's banhammer. Google wants you not to sell links to manipulate PageRank, or if you do, add a nice and tidy little "nofollow" tag to the links or make it a redirecting link with the redirect link blocked via robots.txt.

Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:

Adding a rel=”nofollow” attribute to the <a> tag

Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file

From the Google Webmaster Tools answer about Paid Links

So why is it that some SEOs who are selling links as "sponsors" have been given a free pass by Google to be spammy and sell links? And what kind of example is it setting for learning webmasters to see their favorite SEO blogs selling links and getting away with it?

Take SERoundtable for example. Barry Schwartz has been selling links for years – and has boasted about not putting a nofollow tag on any of the links he sells. He also claims he IS penalized, but anyone doing any SEO related searches for any newsy SEO story will always see Barry and SERoundtable front and center.

As you can see, I am making a conscious decision to leave the paid links here despite the PageRank and ranking penalty. Why?

I had those links there prior to Google’s paid links guideline

I always clearly labeled them as paid links for humans to see

Google reads this blog, they know about the paid links and I know they discredit them

I am stupid

I am incredibly stubborn, ask my wife

You see, I just don’t want to change. This is how I had it, this is how I want it to be. I know the links do little value to those buying them. I believe, I really do, that the sponsors of this site do it because they want to support the site and the industry. Proof? I am posting this, they can read it and pull their links at any time.

So why won’t I nofollow them then? Because I am stubborn and I am one of the few SEO blogs that decided to not change when Google unleashed their penalty (again, Google has to do it and I commend them for it).

He says he is penalized and will take the hit to do his site his way (and no doubt getting anti-Google fans in the process), but is he really? The only thing noticeable is that his PageRank may be a pretty shabby PR3, but that is still fairly respectable. And you can guarantee those sponsored links just aren't there by the advertisers good heart and wanting to support the industry (really, Barry?) And yet, when he thinks someone is selling links, he has no qualms of outing THEM.

Now, it isn't just SERountable who gets away with it. SearchEngineJournal (PR6) also is selling links – ironically including those to textlinkbrokers and an affiliate link to textlinkads. SiteProNews (PR5) is also selling "Recommended Links" and a slew of footer links. But both SearchEngineWatch and SearchEngineLand are doing it right with nofollows and Doubleclicks ads/redirects on anything that looks like a paid link (although I didn’t delve into blog posts to look for suspicious blog posts).

But this brings up the very real – and scary – question. Should SEO sites that are “big enough” or “newsy enough” be given a pass to sell links and not face a penalty? If Google can banslap a site like Forbes selling links that Barry Schwartz outted, then shouldn’t Barry and other companies also get banned for doing the exact same thing? And more importantly – why aren’t they?

Looking for an SEO service that won’t get you banned?