There’s a Ladybug in my tea
I wonder does she think it’s a sea?
Can Ladybugs swim?
Was it just a whim?
That got a Ladybug in my tea.
There’s a Ladybug in my tea
I wonder was it just for me
Or was it the scent of Earl Grey
That enticed her over that way
And put a Ladybug in my tea.
There’s a [...]
My my! There are so many people out there wanting to label PPP (or IZEA) a big evil-doer because it hooks up advertisers with bloggers.
They all have this same, recurrent theme that PPP (and by association, the bloggers who write for them) are all Google-spammers who want nothing more than to devalue page rank for the rest of the “pure and innocents” who (also) sell advertising.
Sounds like a bit of jealousy to me.
Oh and let’s not ignore that the Google PR adjustment also affected THEM as well as those who work for PPP!
I have said before (more than once actually) that it’s very assuming on the part of everyone to think this way. In my humble opinion, Google saw an error in their algorithm that computes page rank and adjusted it. PERIOD. Yes, the adjustment was to take out of account links within websites that are there for nothing more than to generate “link juice” for the advertiser. But people, let me tell you something — those ads you have in your sidebar and between your posts — disclosed or not — if you DO NOT HAVE A NOFOLLOW TAG ON IT are also being discounted by GOOGLE — they have to be or Google will lose all credibility for PR.
Advertisers need to suck it up and accept that paying for links on sites that are inappropriate to their product is going to result in Google ignoring that link.
The example used by Kevin Burton was that of a recent campaign sponsored by Washington Mutual to generate interest in their free checking account. Well, if WM allowed PPP (and by the way, Kevin, PPP wasn’t the only ad merchant who had a piece of that campaign — you need to get ALL your facts), or any other ad merchant to put those links on sites that were not financial or banking related, then those links deserve to be discounted by Google as they are clearly there for only the attempt at garnering SEO.
Oh, and Kevin — since YOU linked to the same site using the same keywords, didn’t you just do the same thing you accuse others of doing???? How much did you get paid??
è¿é
Post here
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Great post. And…as mine was the first site he linked to I also responded to his mistake about which company I posted for.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Like most companies, once they reach a certain size and market dominance, they show little care for those that got them there. This is the logic of history. What also follows is there will always be something better that comes along in a few years. Then Google will shape up when they are challenged and people stop using them as much as they are now.
Pay Per Post is a wonderful service and I’ve hired now over 300 bloggers from this great service to help get the word out on various projects and websites that I have. I’ve also used Smorty, and just thinking about punishing these people is so insane that it makes my skin crawl.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
And let’s face it, they are ginormous (no, that’s not a real word, but it’s descriptive). They own Page Rank, see it as something that has value and decided that the value was lessened by people including links to sites that had no relevance to the one linked from. Since PR is derived from linking, they adjusted for these.
We who work for PPP, PU2B, Smorty, et al, just need to get on with our lives and our work. PPP, PU2B, Smorty need to give their advertisers the heads up that the ball is now in foul territory.
It’s going to take some months for the dust to settle.
Meanwhile, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
è¿é