Google Buys Links with Hidden Anchor Text
I was awestruck today when I noticed that the perhaps most important German blogging conference re:publica sells high PageRank links.
Paid links are forbidden by the Google Webmaster Guidelines since 2007
and Google has repeatedly asked webmasters to report paid links aimed at manipulating Google’s PageRank algorithm over the recent years.
The more astounded I was when I discovered that
Google itself, Google.de to be more exact buys a link on the same page.
It’s right there on the homepage. It has PageRank 7 and the links are easily identifiable as sponsors.
I took a look at the source code and was quite sure that I overlooked the obligatory “nofollow” attribute you have to add to sponsored links to stay within the Google Webmaster Guidelines.
I mean after all, these people, the blogging elite of Germany are Internet savvy professionals. They have to know it.
The more I was dumbfounded when I discovered the actual source code. In it you can clearly see anchor text that doesn’t show up on the page itself. It’s hidden.
You can see images only that is the logos of the companies buying links at re:publica. In the source code it says though:
<ul class="sponsors kooperationspartner">
<li><a target="_new" href="http://www.sony.de/" title="Sony">Sony</a></li>
<li><a target="_new" href="http://www.google.de">Google</a></li>;
among others. As you these are not only paid links. This site and with it Google itself violate the Google Webmaster guidelines by using hidden text as well.
It’s one of the oldest spam techniques there are on the Web. Here the site uses CSS to hide the text.
What does this mean? Has Google revised its stance on paid links, now the it buy links itself?
I don’t know what to believe by now. In the past Google departments all over the world have been caught buying links but in most cases they a good excuse.
What’s the excuse here? Will Google.de and re:republica get penalized by Matt Cutts? We’ll see.
This blog is probably not important enough to make Google.de and the German blogging elite revise their site so I hope some more important publications cover this story as well.
As far as I’m concerned I don’t think it’s OK to force the little guy with a blog to remove a few paid links on a blog that make a bit extra money while allowing huge corporations like
- HP
- Sony
itself to buy links with hidden anchor text to manipulate PageRank and search results.
It smells like double standards.
Btw.: re:publica sells links all over the site, not just on the homepage. There are dozens of them. It’s not just one of two.
Of course you can become a cynic and consider site that sell links to Google as a save haven from now.
Whenever you want to buy links on high PageRank sites make sure to do it on sites that sell to Google as well.
P.S.: The webmasters of re:publica know what nofollow is. They have links on the homepage that use nofollow. They use nofollow on links from Twitter updates.
Those links aren’t paid for. The guidelines at http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736 say nothing against event sponsoring without link condom. #semantics
So what does “sponsors” mean these days? Showing off logos for free?
I’m all for outing Google where possible, but I think you’re over-exaggerating a bit here.
It all drills down to intention. Now if Google would’ve sponsored the event just to get a link, which had ‘search engine’ or something similar as the anchor text, I’d agree with you. You can’t possibly disagree with me here that the link wasn’t the sole purpose for becoming a sponsor.
From Google’s 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.” Not much manipulation going on here, imho.
[…] Mehr dazu auf meinem englisch-sprachigen SEO blog. […]
Wiep! Advertising is fine, no problem with that but don’t you think ethically the links should be no follow? Google itself said:
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 tag
Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file
Just a thought!!
The preacher shouldn’t walk around with an open bottle of wine if he wants anyone to take his temerence sermons seriously.
Maybe the webmaster just forgot to put a nofollow on it :)
I’m going with Moosa on this one. Google and ethics? hmmm always have been a big questionmark.
Please note that while Google has an algorithm to determine placement of sites they will never place another search engine over their own so they do not need backlinks.
Also there is nothing wrong with having sponsored links for traffic, its when a link has the sole purpose of link juice or increasing their rankings that G has an issue.
So did you report Google to Google?
I agree with Wiep on this one. It’s not like they need to rank for the word Google. It’s not, like Wiep said, like they sponsor the event just to get a link.
so now we can put a link Google for our SEO techniques?
The anchor text isn’t really deceptive or a misrepresentation of the image.
If the link was paid for, regardless of deception, it does go against policy, but how can you be sure it was paid for (as other comments have pointed out).
If they are pulling this double standard crap, it should be addressed for sure. Hopefully someone like TechCrunch or Mashable acts on it.
This is a really controversial issue. They may did right or wrong,But I think there will be no effect on “Big G”. Because They control the market policy, They made the rules, it’s their algorithm policy..what ever.But the question is if “G” is making all the rules..are they above it??Or we can see an old say ..”The rules are made to be broken”.
Whether their intentions were good or evil, really does not matter. I think they have a responsiblity to “set the example” and as such, would think Google wants to avoid even the slightest perception that it might be a paid link.
Although technically this may not be enough evidence to convict them on, it certainly opens the door to speculation and casts shadows of doubt over Google.
In some ways getting “organic” links from unrelated sites could be seen as a sign of stand-out content, since it has sparked interest from outside the niche.I got a good boost to one of my sites (although a temporary one) from getting onto the top commenter links on a number of totalyy unrelated sites.
Reminds me of when BMW had all that white text in front of their white background at the bottom of the page to hit as many of their and their rivals key words as possible. Go hidden links!
The thing is Google don’t need to buy links for any other reason than to advertise, they have no need to manipulate search results with links as I’m sure they already put themselves top of any relevant searches in their engine anyway.
still cant believe this, if they realy doing this as webmasters what must we do than? i am speechless.
Although the hidden text could make an argument that it is a little bit of a gray area; there certainly shouldn’t be anything wrong about linking a bunch of sponsorship graphics. And as for Google being on the page, it’s certainly very doubtful that this had anything to do with trying to manipulate search results.
I am stunned. Literally, stunned.
Not at the hypocrisy, which I expect, but at how blatant it is.
I think it was not intended at first by google. It was the initiative of the organizer since google is sponsoring the event.
Google don’t require any links to buy since the algorithm itself made by them.
I believe it was not their intention to pay for the backlink. Because Google sponsored the event, they received the link back. This was of the benefits of sponsoring the event, but was not their reason for sponsoring the event.
I think that is the way Google trade/deals business “kooperationpartner”. I think it’s their strategy on
online marketing. Anyways, we have different techniques to follow.
There’s a difference between buying links and being a sponsor who also benefits with a back link to their site from a logo in the footer or wherever it may be.
And to be “real” about it, do you think Sony or Google actually need another back link to boost their rankings? Absolutely not.
King Rosales: What exactly IS the difference?
You must be pretty naive assuming that corporations like Sony and Google themselves don’t practice SEO. Just recently a headhunter from Microsoft has approached me.
Google even has special guides for employees how they can improve the SEO of Google projects.