Is PayPerPost haters giving too much credit to PPP in this Google PageRank dropping fiasco?
Yes I did say FIASCO
What is Google trying to accomplish with all of the PageRank drops? Think about it for a minute… what are they doing? I may be wrong but when I sit down and think about it, I feel pretty confident that there is a legitimate reason Google is doing what they are doing. They want to keep their PageRank model relevant. They want PageRank, Search results and everything else to be as organic as possible. Punishing websites that have sponsored links is Google’s way of taking the problem out of the equation. no pagerank = no serp = no sponsored post slipping into search results…The only sponsored search results that should show up are the one’s that Google is selling…Right?
I have always been on the fence about my feelings when it comes to sponsored blog post. My reasoning for being on the fence has nothing to do with the reason Google is punishing Websites. In the beginning, well my beginning, a little over a year ago. A sponsored blog post was an advertisement, a commercial…Someone writes about your product, People read the blog post and like the sound of things and eventually go check out your product. Thats what my interpretation of the benefits of a sponsored blog post use to be. If John Chow writes a review of my blog, Im going to get traffic for days, months even…Traffic from John Chow, not from PageRank. At that point Im not even thinking about Google’s PageRank, I know John Chow has tons of visitors, he has tons of followers, people listen to him. If he talks about me, people will check me out… Through him.
That is organic.
That is how the blogosphere works (my god, I used that word, ugh).
My being on the fence about sponsored blog post actually has more to do with how things fit into your website or blog.
- I want to always let it be known that the sponsored blog post is a sponsored blog post.
- I do not want to lie or be told what to say when it comes to my opinions about a product or service.
- I want the service or product that I am advertising to be relevant to my blog
If I follow those rules. I feel better about writing sponsored blog post. The product or service that I write about when doing something that is sponsored, may be something that I may not have written about on my own. But. Once I get contracted to write that review, Im writing it with my own thoughts and opinions and Im letting you know right in the blog post that it is sponsored. Right then, it becomes an advertisement. As long as you do it in moderation, as I have tried to do, I see nothing wrong with the whole thing.
Organic linking is the key words. Thats what Google wants. Thats what Google is trying to maintain. Im still not completely sure about how this works so correct me if I’m wrong. Google isn’t going to penalize you for writing sponsored blog post if you use the "no follow" tag on the links you are using in that advertisement. It is my understanding that once you use the "no follow" tag, it removes the passing of PageRank and consideration for SERP. Again Im not completely sure about this but it is my understanding on the reasoning behind the "no follow" tag.
Is going after people associated with PayPerPost (now IZEA) organic?
Many people who feel that PayPerPost is unethical thinks so. But why PayPerPost? There are a lot of services that do the same thing, Reviewme.com, Sponsoredreviews.com. When you look around there are a lot of options to advertise in an editorial like manner. Which is what a sponsored blog post is. Just about every podcast out there do a bit advertising. Does that make it more ethical? If I do an editorial-ish advertisement for a service or product on a podcast does that make it more ethical than writing an editorial-ish advertisement for a service or product on a blog?
Think about it.
What if Google started going after people associated with Blubrry or Kiptronics. Ive done those types of advertisements in my podcast and just like on my blog I let it be known that it is sponsored. What I don’t understand is how some can call one unethical and not the other. Yea if your misleading readers, and not saying that you were paid to write that post it is unethical. But if you are disclosing that it is a paid post, how does one persons sponsored blogpost about a CD/DVD swapping service differ from someones advertising Gotomeeting on a podcast.
The problem comes in the form of passing PageRank, which isn’t everyones intentions. If I were to buy a Sponsored review, it would be for traffic. Cause thats what I want. Im at PageRank 4, I know that for that to improve I need more traffic and I need for people to find what I say interesting enough to link to me.
Content builds traffic builds PageRank.
I may have a different mindset when it comes to this than some. There are some that buy sponsored reviews for the shared PageRank. I understand Google going after people that write sponsored post improperly, causing a non organic way of transferring PageRank. But that is separate from ones ethical beliefs. Just because someone doesn’t like PayPerPost, or they think using PayPerPost is unethical doesn’t mean that everyone that uses Payperpost should be banished from the web. Thats silly, Many people are doing the same thing in one form or fashion without PayPerPost. And there is a way to use PayPerPost within Google’s guidelines. People may not have known or taken it seriously in the past, but now they will. And it has nothing to do with PayPerPost persay but moreso the improper writing of sponsored blog post. I don’t necessarily think PayPerPost is "THEE" target and everyone who ever associated with them are in trouble, I just think PayPerPost is the biggest service offering sponsored blog posting opportunities, thus, getting the biggest share of the limelight
Debt Consolidation free quote
Other post you may find interesting



November 18th, 2007 at 2:35 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
November 19th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Good post, and the point about being able to disclose is critical - this move isn’t going to stop paid posts, it’s just going to drive them back underground like they were 2 years ago.
However, thye thought that this is about search results is not necessarily true. Google hasn’t hit SERPs for many of the blogs that were penalized. In fact, I’m seeing improved SERPs on one of my blogs. This seems to be a “toolbar-only” penalty, which means they are denying bloggers who do paid posts the ability to show a 3rd party metric of relevance to an advertiser.
Just my opinion, but if Google is truly serious about killing paid posts/links, they would have zeroranked the advertisers AND blown their SERPs away. I’m not seeing that. They simply went after the bloggers.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
About Zero ranking the advertisers. I kind of feel like that is what Google shouldve done. The blogs that got their rankings reduced worked hard to get the page rank they had (well most of them). Not all were selling page rank, some were selling advertising. The advertisers that were buying reviews just to get page rank should have whatever PR benefit they received from the reviews removed.
Thats a simple naive thought though. and it wouldn’t have got the point across like Google wanted. It would take massive work to do things that way and who’s to say the purchasers didn’t buy the reviews for advertising. but then again, who’s to say the review writers didn’t sell the reviews for advertising.
I know some have seen no change in SERPs since their pagerank drop, for me I didn’t even think to check my PR until I notice a drop in google traffic. just one day out of the blue my daily visits dropped and Live.com was all over my refferers page, more than google. I was checking around to make sure nothing happened to the site, then noticed zero PR (not this blog). since then it google traffic has been creeping back up but I definitely noticed it.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with sponsored blogs. The reader like what they read, they click on it, the advertisers earn and the blogger earns too. So what’s wrong with that?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
1. Google PageRank means Google thinks your site is OK, at least. This is a quick, handy metric for advertisers.
2. PageRank isn’t important at all … Until you lose it.
3. If you want to keep it, don’t link out promiscuously to mediocre and/or unrelated sites.
4. PageRank doesn’t affect SERPs, so it’s not a disaster if it goes down. Just embarassing
December 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
yap, that the one you get, when one big capitalism machine control and dominate all aspect, we even don’t have a choice to sound our disagreement anyway but still humble and crawling googles dime.
I wonder, where these insanity will finally goes, maybe near future, we even will loose our freedom in bogging anymore, just because it is monetize bring no benefit to google..
well Burmas people here we come a board
November 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
55r6vib7q6gerd9k
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
JArmVb hko9E3dnVxga1jOps
June 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Thats a simple naive thought though. and it wouldn’t have got the point across like Google wanted. It would take massive work to do things that way and who’s to say the purchasers didn’t buy the reviews for advertising. but then again, who’s to say the review writers didn’t sell the reviews for advertising.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
hey im rick just wanted to say nice post
thanks a lot!