Google Makes Paid Link Stance Official
November 28th, 2007 by Court
Edit: This apparently isn’t a brand new policy, so contrary to popular belief, Google already has an official position on this issue. They did recently change the wording so that their position applies only to links that pass PageRank. Read on to see how it applies to you, considering current circumstances.
As most of you know, bloggers everywhere are mad at Google because of the recent slappage that Goog laid down on sites that have been selling links.
A lot of the frustration was that people felt like Google wasn’t 100% clear on what they did and did not want. Google has made an official statement on this issue, in their webmaster help center (emphasis added):
…some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.
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
Paid Link Penalties Can Help You To Rank Better
If you read what the statement says, you can see that buying or selling links that pass PageRank can negatively effect the rankings of a site. I personally have been watching the sites that are ranked in front of me for ‘internet marketing’ and can tell you that many of the sites in the top 10 in Google were buying links before this fiasco. Many of those links have since come down, including one site-wide link using ‘internet marketing’ as the anchor from a PR10 site. Tell me that this doesn’t make it easier for me.
Google’s Paid Link Smack-Down Is Leveling The Playing Field
I know that some of you are mad because of this whole thing, and I understand that. A revenue stream that you could once use is pretty much over if you’re serious about your site. On the other hand, however, this will make it easier for you to compete for rankings against sites that have bigger budgets than you.
Help Is On The Way For Link Sellers
If you read the quote from Google, you’ll see that Google is ok with selling links, as long as you use nofollows on them. SocialSpark and other services are being created to allow you to connect with advertisers that want to buy buzz, not PageRank. Google is going to be ok with SocialSpark because you will be allowed to place nofollow on your links.
Let The Negative Comments Begin
Look I know that some of you aren’t going to be happy with this stance. You aren’t willing to accept the fact that this has some positive implications for you because you still have hard feelings. I’m sure that a few people are going to go into a tirade like the last time I wrote about this issue.
I personally think that thinking you can make it without Google isn’t very wise. Most people in this situation will just keep complaining for the next few years - blaming everything on Google. I can tell you right here what’s going to happen to these people - they’re just going to get passed up by the people that realize that Google can help them in a major way. Eventually every person involved with internet marketing is going to have to decide whether they need Google or not.
If you don’t need Google, you are a very rare exception.
Save to del.icio.us
Digg This!
Post to Facebook
StumbleItRelated Posts:
RealRank™ Doesn’t Solve Anything For Bloggers
Everyone in the land has been talking about IZEA RealRank™ lately, hoping that it's a replacement ...
Make Money With Adsense
You experienced 'make money online' veterans might want to take a pass on this post, this one is tai...
New Search Engine Optimized WordPress Theme - Africa Theme 1
I spent some time today to optimize a very unique and beautiful WordPress theme. Africa theme 1 is a...
Revenue Streams
There are plenty of ways you can earn money with a website or blog. Here are some of the ones I'm cu...
How To Get Almost Any Paid Internet Marketing Program For Free
Many of you already know that I don't think that 'make money online' blogs are for everyone. They ar...
Alexa Top 50,000 and Technorati Top 3,000
During this last week CourtneyTuttle.com pushed through two fairly significant milestones. It cracke...
November 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
With respect, Court, this isn’t anything new. Google published this statement back in June.
However it’s interesting that it’s now being picked up by the likes of Search Rank and Search Engine Journal as being new news.
My tuppence, for what it’s worth, is that Google won’t start penalising people in the SERPs until the new year. They’ll want to assess the impact of the PR bitch slapping first before they start implementing the next stage of penalties.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
You’re right that the statement was already up Mike, but if you read the next comment by Gabriel you will see that there is different wording. I personally had never seen the official wording from this section since it isn’t in the Official Webmaster Guidelines.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Court,
Your original comment stating there was a change in wording was correct.
Current wording:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66736
Wording as of July 9:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070709222105/http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66736
While they did have a stance on paid links, they recently made it more exact by stating “that pass PageRank,” not just unmarked paid links in general.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Sounds like I need to do another edit lol, thanks Gabriel. I thought the wording was different but didn’t have a way to prove it until now.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
PR is good but traffic is better.
I got more traffic from Google than anything else. That’s why I add nofollow on 1 Cool File. I don’t want to loose my PR6.
Even my new option to add a blog in the Blog Directory category for free in exchange of a short review now require a nofollow in the review of the blogger. The link is mostly to create buzz and traffic to my site. Plus, I get valuable feedback from users and so I’m making changes every day.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hi Court,
This has been bugging me for sometime. If everyone uses the “nofollow” attribute, does that mean that all the linkbacks that we get will be worthless?
Does that mean, no matter how good our contents are or how many times it has been mentioned or linked by other bloggers, but with the “nofollow” attribute, it will be of no use for Google?
I mean, speaking from the sense of increasing backlinks for better Page Ranks.
I need some clarification over this to better plan my posts.
Thanks!
November 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Hi Costa, this is only about paid links. For links in your posts, you will carry on as usual. There is no need to place a nofollow on any link, unless someone paid you for it.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Costa,
Google wants legit links. What they don’t want is PAID LINKS. The basic Google algorithm is a voting system and they don’t want paid votes. So a regular link to an article of yours will be fine. If you are paying someone to have a link on their site and doing it in a way that GOOG can tell then they will penalize them.
Basically things like TextLinkAds make it so that the GOOG algorithm gives skewed results. Think about an election. Say for instance some James Bond movie Overlord character wanted to run for president and paid millions of people to go vote for him. The results would suck. Instead of a president elected by the people we would have some crazy rich guy that paid for his votes. Google is trying to avoid that. They want natural votes not manipulated ones.
I hope that makes sense.
-Dave
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Thanks Dave.
Sure hope Google has a foolproof way to differentiate between the two kinds of links as I am still linking to others without the “nofollow” attribute.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Hi, Court,
Thanks for your great tips and articles. I have been reading them all this while though I didn’t put down any comments…;D
I was quite down when all blogs were slapped with PR0 2 weeks ago. But,I have already stopped whining and picked myself up again.
I am working on new blogs and trying out Google Adsense and other internet marketing programs.
Thanks
November 29th, 2007 at 3:19 am
All it means that people buying/selling will just change how they do it. Instead of offering links in the side bar (where paid links usually go) people will buy keywords in people’s blogs/articles that link to their website. There is no way Google can detect that unless your are stupid and actively say you buy and sell links.
This move also is slightly confusing as Google itself says submit to Dmoz and Yahoo directory which is paid, and doesn’t use no follow attribute. So they must find that legit because it’s sold as “advertising” Which don’t blogs including yours Court used to do?? But you got Google bitch slapped. I didn’t see the same happening to Yahoo directory!
November 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
There is no way Google can detect that unless your are stupid and actively say you buy and sell links.
Martin please? Are you kidding?
If you have a site that paid for 200 paid post with the keyword “Hello” pointing to httttp://www.abcblog.com dont you think they will not catch 200 licks with the same keyword pointing to the same place not fishy LOL.
Google is not run by idiots.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
if you were paying for links you would alter the anchor text unless you are silly. 200 licks as you put it Vic all with the same anchor text is not a lot if you have a fairly decent website.
Yes I do agree that it would look dodgy as seen on John chow for make money online, but he had over done it on “make money online” But i never said buy 200 keywords from website, i said keywords from articles would be bought. The same amount as if you were buying side bar links but in the article instead.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
It does not matter where you buy the link inside and article or on the side bar a paid link with dofollow is a paid link with dofollow.
An yes even as small as fifty articles with keyword hooks would easily be found.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Martin you’re missing something very big here which is the fact that people you’re competing against can report you for paid links. If this happens you will go into a cue awaiting manual inspection by Google’s spam team.
If you have a campaign of sponsored links in your posts, they will nail you upon visual inspection even if you get away with a small-scale campaign for a while.
Martin, do you really think it’s worth it? You’re trading the future of your site for a few bucks.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Martin Yahoo directory really isn’t paid. You pay them for the right to review your site, and they include you if they want.
Many sites that pay Yahoo never get listed in the directory.
Martin I straight up sold links that passed PageRank - I deserved exactly what I got and knew that I was taking that risk.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Court, I thought you sold your links as advertising and not as passing on page rank. If we take the same business model as Yahoo and say you can pay us to review your site and if we like we will add a link on our site. We would get into trouble and get google slapped. Yahoo doesn’t because of it’s authority.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Martin I sold links that passed PageRank. You think it makes it ok if I say that they are for advertising? Sorry man but that makes no sense.
Yahoo doesn’t get slapped because Google understands what they’re doing and Google has decided that the sites that Yahoo has let in are of high quality.
This doesn’t skew Google’s search engine rankings.
If you created a directory that had the quality of the Yahoo directory and repeated their model, letting Google know exactly what you were doing, you would not be slapped because it wouldn’t give a ranking advantage to lower quality sites.
If you did the same thing and let a bunch of junk sites in you would be slapped because then you would be selling links.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Also, yes Google are very clever. When I was talking about they wont be able to detect that, I was talking about buying keywords in articles. Which it isn’t possible to detect even for Google.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Yes Google bot can detect a keyword hook that is part of a paid campaign. If it is just one time shot they would not know but if it id part of a campaign they would easily know.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Instead of offering links in the side bar (where paid links usually go) people will buy keywords in people’s blogs/articles that link to their website.
That’s exactly what PayPerPost does. Hm, wonder what happened with that?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
LMAO
November 30th, 2007 at 3:05 am
I’m not necessarily talking about PPP, if you approach without using programs such as PPP e.g contact people via e-mail. That is not detectable by Google.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Hi, Martin,
I apologize for being short earlier.
Also, people are already buying links in the way that you state and you’re right. Done privately Google has no idea- unless the link is to a site that has nothing to do with the originating site.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Finally. They should have come forward with this before all the link selling penalties. At least this makes it clear what is and what is not fine with Google.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Sutocu this is nothing new. This is new to you and bloggers because it is affecting them. Over 24 months ago they fell hard on paid directory and paid linked farms yet you did not hear anything from the blogger elite. This is now a story because it is causing problems to some of the blogger elite. It is a cliche but true follow the money
November 29th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I know there are a lot of people upset about Google’s decision. I don’t know maybe they should have eased into it a little more, but ultimately, this is a good decision. Remember, most of the people using the internet are just trying to find relevant information to a particular topic of interest. Google’s decision will help them do that and that’s the bottom line. If your success is built on the manipulation of a search engine to the detriment of the common searcher, then you probably need to rethink your approach anyway.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Matthew is like you say this benefits all of us that can not afford to buy rankings.
There is one thing though that I find funny you mention they should have eased it a bit more.
Court and me where chatting a few days ago and we kind of both felt that Google has been just so relaxed with this. Again this is nothing new to those of us that are SEO “experts” we have known this for years. Personally If I was running the show for Google I would have de-indexed a few sites to stress the point.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I think if you use organic SEO and your website/s provide quality content then you really don’t have to worry what Google is going to do next. Here is a great resource that can help your business to the next level: http://portal-feeder-review.com
November 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Here are the problems I see with their policy.
First, since Google is heavily involved in online advertising sales for them to penalize sites in search for link sales that compete with their ad products is a conflict of interest. This puts them and their stockholders financial interests at risk. They need to clearly and cleanly separate the two enterprises so as to avoid eventual legal action.
Secondly, they have no way to accurately detect which links are paid for and which are not in terms of reviews. While some people, such as myself, disclose and nofollow paid review posts, many don’t. Also I’ve noticed a trend where review buyers are insisting on nondisclosure.
Lastly, I can’t see Google penalizing big sites that sell links to pass PR because it would lead to an invalidation of their search results. CNN, ESPN, MTV, etc. can sell PR passing links like crazy but the small time blogger can’t do it without being penalized. This also exposes them to negative goodwill.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hi Frank,
I respect your honesty and your willingness to share your opinions. With respect, here are the problems I see with your observations.
Your first point: The advertising companies that were hurt by this are PayPerPost and Text-Link-Ads. Both of those ad models were set up to sell PageRank and/or improvements in Google search engine rankings. If this wasn’t the case, both of them would allow publishers to use nofollows. Google rankings are the only thing that is affected by putting a nofollow on a link. Frank this has nothing to do with ad products. Google allows people to use any ad product they want unless it was created to affect search engine rankings. PPP and TLA are search engine ranking products - not direct advertising products. If this wasn’t the case they could use nofollow and end their troubles.
Your second point: Your point proves why Google has to do this. People have been making it harder and harder for Google to detect paid links. If everyone disclosed, Google wouldn’t be in this position.
Your last point: Do you realize that until all of this happened I could buy a 2-year old domain, put up a one page site, and buy my way in front of all of the sites you mentioned? What you’re missing Frank is that much of the spam the comes up highly in Google’s index can be traced back to paid links. There is already an invalidation in Google’s search results.
Do you really think that CNN, ESPN, and MTV sell links that pass PageRank? I’m going to have to ask you to find a paid link on any one of those sites that passes PageRank because I don’t think they’re doing it.
I would love to hear what you have to say about these arguments Frank. I’m willing to keep talking about this as long as the conversation can remain positive.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Court about PPP: The nofollow is optional and can be ask by the advertiser. PPP will make it more visible so that posties can take or not a review.
That’s the answer Peter Wright gave me in a comment on their blog about RealRank.
In yesterday other post: “By weeks end we will roll out a new No-follow option for advertisers in PayPerPost.”
November 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Steve that is awsome, the only thing is you will see pricing come way down. Maybe before you could make $50.00 for a paid post with keyword with dofollow no you will probably see that same opportunity for % dollars.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Any opportunities that have been done this week and prior that have nofollow will be rejected, because TOS right now states that sponsored links have to be dofollow.
Also, it’s going to be harder to find advertisers with nofollow. Even though the guys at Izea say differently, most of the opps I’ve personally seen were SEO based. Why else would we have to add specific anchor text to three different links?
I hope that SocialSpark works and more advertisers come aboard that want word of mouth instead of SEO. There are a lot of folks hurting because of this mess right now.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
On the first point, Google apparently penalized some sites that simply linked to PPP organically, including the blog of someone who worked there. This kind of activity gives their activities the air of conflict of interest, even if their motives were entirely pure. Separation of search and advertising units would prevent this appearance of conflict.
On the second point, all they’re doing is forcing the activity underground, like speakeasys during Prohibition. This will cause more black/gray hatting, not less.
For the third one, see http://espn.adsonar.com/admin/pl/espn/landingPage.html and http://www.cnn.com/services/advertise/specs/specs_all_guidelines.html - no mention of nofollow there. It appears that MTV is only selling flash ad space as best I can tell.
From what I understand ‘real’ blackhat search spammers operators don’t pay for links anyway. That’s why white to slightly gray hat bloggers get a penalty and blackhat MFA’s and sploggers get a front row seat in search.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Frank,
1st point - Google didn’t penalize sites that linked to PPP organically. The lady that worked at PPP wrote sponsored posts. I agree that separating the two would prevent the appearance of conflict. However, if I owned Google I wouldn’t go through the hassle to prevent the appearance of anything. The fact here is that it isn’t illegal in any way, so give a good reason why Google should go through the hassle. Google has given sites a way to sell whatever advertising they want in a way that Google will be ok with.
2nd point - Yes this will force it more underground but makes it much harder to do. This won’t cause more in any way - big sites that can actually make a difference with a link won’t be able to do it. If you want to do it, do it. You will be taking a huge risk that could jeopardize your online business.
3rd point - Neither of those ad programs pass any PageRank whatsoever. Both pass through ad servers that kill link value. If you read my post you will find that this is one of the accepted ways to run legitimate advertising. Google is 100% ok with this type of advertising, even though it competes with Adsense.
No matter what you think Google’s intentions are Frank, at some point you’re going to have to accept the fact that Google is within their rights to do this. They can run their ranking system however they want. This means if they want to ban OpTempo for selling links intended to manipulate their search algorithm, no one can stop them.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
You really got at the problem when you said, “I wouldn’t go through the hassle to prevent the appearance of anything.” That’s probably close to what Google management thinks and it’s the same attitude that got Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil and some others into trouble with the government. When you get that big, you’re going to have governments in your face, like it or not, and you’ll find what’s “within your rights” curtailed by government fiat. Avoiding excessive government hassle is worth the hassle of not having bad appearances. This is just like you having the hassle of putting nofollow on links to avoid the hassle of being dropped in Google search results.
What really concerns me is that it may be paid links and nofollow today but it may be something else tomorrow. Google could say that it’s “within their rights” to deindex you if you don’t kowtow to them over something else.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Frank if Google does something they don’t have to right to do I will speak up and say that they don’t have the right to do it. I have no problem going against anyone - I have always spoken out against what other people think.
The truth of the matter is that Google right now is operating within their rights. This has nothing to do with what happened to those companies Frank.
PPP and TLA set themselves up for this by setting up businesses that broker PageRank. It’s 100% their own faults.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Actually, two of the developers over at PPP had their blogs knocked to 0 and they never did any sponsored posting. All they did was mention PPP in some of their posts.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Lisa if that happened then they can easily get their PR back by doing a request with Google.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Court,
This incident has apparently made some people paranoid. For example, take a look at the “Zerofying PR continues” Blogging Zoom story from andrewooi.com that’s calling PPP “Pee Pee Pee”. People are actually worried that they’ll get a Google slap for just saying that name that shall not be said.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Nice job Court of finding the silver lining in it. You are right that is may level the playing field for those who were not using paid links to increase ratings.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I did PPP for all of 2 months. Or maybe not even that long. I have two blogs that did paid posts (one had 14 and the other had 2) and they both lost their PR. Ok,well one was too new for any, but that’s not the point. My third blog has never had any kind of advertising on it at all, was not linked to the other two blogs, and my pseudonym on that blog isn’t even similar and it lost it’s PR. I’m pretty sure Google caught on because they were all on the same Webmaster Tools, but that’s not the point either.
The point is, they are giving bloggers chances to make amends. They’re saying “Hey, you’ll stay in our search engine if you stop this nonsense now.” Still, some bloggers are saying “Well, I’m still getting their traffic, so…” I think the next logical step is delisting.
SocialSpark is going to give the blogger the option of accepting opps with nofollow or not and I think someone would have to be pretty hard-headed to refuse to do nofollow at this point. At the same time, I don’t think most of the advertisers are going to be paying their money for nofollow links anymore either. They were selling PageRank and now…? Check out what an advertiser said on Izea’s blog today.
Here ya go.
Also, can I ask why none of the advertisers are feeling the effects of Google’s ire? Someone went around and checked a few and they haven’t lost their PR. What’s up with that?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
P.S.
In case it wasn’t clear, I no longer do PPP.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Well I have to say I quite strongly disagree, Court.
I moved from Blogger to Wordpress not long ago (you may recall, I used a theme of yours). All my sponsored posts were on blogger. I did not take them with me to Wordpress. I left them where I had been paid to put them, which was on a blogger URL that did have a PR of 4.
On my wordpress blog it clearly stated (then, I have since changed it because I refuse to be bullied in this way) that any links to advertisers would be made no follow to comply with Google’s terms of service. And on the wordpress blog I stuck to that. There were no paid posts there without the no follow.
Yet, my wordpress blog was penalized. Down to a 0 from a 4.
You say I can ask for reconsideration - why the heck should I? They got it wrong. I didn’t do anything wrong.
Lucky for me Google traffic is only about 1% of what arrives at my site but Court, this is a slippery slope Google have started to make their way down. And yes, in MY country what they have done is illegal. You cannot target another company in the manner that they have targeted PPP and TLA. It is anti-competitive. Google are already being sued by the ACCC over sponsored links. Many of us bloggers have lodged complaints with the ACCC over what Google has done which are being looked into as I type this.
I refuse to be bullied. That is what Google are doing. Do you really think it is ok for them to push people around because they think they own the internet?
The good news for me is, I have not been to a Google site in two weeks now. And I have no intentions of going back to one again. I have discovered ways that I can live without them. Some of the things I found are actually BETTER than Google ever was.
We might have to agree to disagree on this one but consider this for a second Court. What if they next decide to penalize sites who create wordpress themes and link back to their site in the footer?
I give that link back to you because you put time and effort into that template. You deserve that link. But Google could see it as gaming, just like paid links are considered gaming.
Will you then say ok, Google is right, I was wrong to put my link on those templates, I never deserved the link?
Cheers,
Snoskred
November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
If you don’t care about getting their traffic then do whatever you want Snoskred.
I will always be results oriented Snoskred, always. I will do whatever I need to do to get the most traffic.
You can disagree with me if you want, that’s fine. I can’t make people believe anything. I will say that people that do what I say will over time be able to generate and protect their traffic more than people that get mad and try to stick it to companies they can’t control.
My methods are 100% about getting results. I will choose results over anything and if you’re different than that, I’m fine with that. People always try to argue with me about what Google should and shouldn’t do. I care about what is happening and how I can take advantage of it.
I would expect that over time I will have to change my methods Snoskred. People that are resistant to change in this business fail. The fact that I’m willing to change is why I’m still here and will still be here 15 years from now. I can guarantee that I won’t throw this away because I’m mad at some company.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
What just kills me is she gets 200 unique hits a day LMAO. mmmmm if there was ever a site that needed Google is her site. I never understood people that have a site for over a year and with 200 unique hits a day they think they have traffic. I just do not get it. Do people understand that a site with 30k unique a day is still not really an established site. A website with 200 unique hits a day is not even a spot on a spot on the wall in the internet.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
You are right, I can’t control it. But I absolutely am within my rights to make a decision not to support a company that chooses to act in this manner.
I believe what they have done is wrong.
And if they truly are ok with no follows, why on earth did my site get penalized? I WAS USING THEM!!!
You bet I’m mad. You bet my decision is to say up yours, Google. And ceasing to rely on them is something that every site owner should be considering now, because they can turn off that tap anytime they like. You have no control over it. I have no control over it.
Why bother trying to rank well in their search engine when they can rip your site out of it anytime they like? Why not instead choose to focus on other engines and other forms of traffic?
We need a reliable search engine that accurately displays the state of the internet, not one that puts splogs and stolen content blogs AHEAD of the original content blogs. Not one that can wake up one morning on the wrong side of the bed and say hey, you know that Court Tuttle blogger?? I don’t think I like what they posted a few weeks ago. Remove them from our results!
We don’t need to support a search engine that bullies people. Bullies are for schoolyards and they truly shouldn’t be welcome there either.
Cheers,
Snoskred
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Snoskred
You are totally right screw Google please show them who is boss go to Google Webmaster Tools right now and place your site for de-index stick it to the man!
site:snoskred.org
I will monitor your site for the next week it takes the bot to de-index your site after request about 72 hours I am sure in less than a week it will not be showing up anymore. I will then come back here and comment on how you showed Google who is boss.
BTW GOOG went up today 4.74 (0.68%) I am sure as soon as you request a de-index the stock will surely crash.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Noooo! That’s my retirement money. Don’t make it go down.
But, seriously, I don’t want to lose money because the US Justice Department signs on as Google’s personal proctologist either.