On the eve of the New Year, Michael Gray posted a note on his blog about the ambiguous policy regarding the topic of paid links, which was already pretty much bored.
Michael was particularly excited by the conversation of Ted Murphy from Izea (formerly Pay Per Post) and Matt Cutts at the Pubcon Conference. Here's an excerpt from Ted's letter:
"I explained to Matt that all the sponsored links on the SocialSpark site would have a no-follow attribute. I thought it was a good idea. Matt agreed first, but then stated that ALL links from ANY advertising post should have a no-follow attribute, that is, if Nikon ordered me to review a new camera model and in the review I put a link to a photo site, then I should put no-follow as in the link to the advertiser's site, and in a link to the site of his friend the photographer. Matt explained this to those then if the blog post was not paid for, it would not exist at all, therefore, the entire post should be considered commercially targeted, and no-follow attribute should be placed on all links. ”
And everything would be fine if Google’s “weird” behavior. In particular, Michael drew attention to cases where Google itself violates its “rules.” Here are some of the examples he cited: the official Google Checkout blog (link to Golfballs. Com), the press release about the collaboration between Google and Motorola, the message on the official Google blog about collaboration with Ingram Micro, etc. In all cases, Google employees provided direct links to company websites, and despite Matt’s assurances, they didn’t provide them with a no-follow attribute.
In the comments to this post You can find the answer of Matt Kats himself, where he doesn’t notice Michael’s complaints and repeat There are words that he previously gave in Ted Murphy’s blog: they say, let every blogger do what he wants, and Google “to protect the quality of search results” will do it right.
So now think about who's boss. 🙂