____/ Big Bill on Tuesday 11 September 2007 09:36 : \____
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:44:53 +0100, Jez <j.ez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:17:27 +0100, Jez <j.ez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:30:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>>>><newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Google has ads?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do a search for investment property. The entire page, top, bottom and
>>>>>supposedly organic results are all there because they're paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>>BB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do you know that the usually organic ones are paid for Bill?
>>>>
>>>>Jez.
>>>
>>>
>>> Check the backlinks
>>>
>>> BB
>>
>>Bill, do you mean that they are bought links? If not I don't know what
>>you mean.
>>
>>Jez.
>
> Yes.
He's probably right. I've noticed a trend (of which I'm not a part of) where
people buy placements in other sites. Yes, yes, it's obvious and it's nothing,
but the sad thing is that all that gaming proves to be effective. Thus, search
results for many phrases just take you to sites that are most spammed-for.
Cutts spoke about it about 3 weeks ago (I read an article) and -- while it's
nothing new -- he insists that Google ignores (or penalises for) bought links.
How they can tell the difference, who knows...? They talk about relevance to
site, but people buy links from sites whose theme intersects.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: the most popular, but not most widespread
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
