The Summary of Discussion 2: People Ignore Google own Rules About Backlinks of Guest Posts being Unnatural! u/sydney-not-cindy
Why doesn't Google like guest posting?
Google has made it clear that they don't like link-building schemes, including guest posting, because the links are "unnatural". But why? In the real world, "links" are how you build popularity. It's not like Conan has someone on the show but then says 'But don't remember who this is and don't go see their movie!' And it doesn't bother us as an audience. We expect people to do that. I expect to see Tom cruise on Conan or Elon Musk on The Verge or LeBron James on First Take. That's how you build popularity and authority. Do I care if it was the actor who reached out to Jimmy Fallon or the other way around? No. It doesn't feel unnatural if an actor's agent asked if he could be on the show. Why is Google so weird about that? I just don't get it. /end rant 58 💬🗨
mickmeaney Bit of history… Years ago Matt Cutts said guest posting was a legit way to build links. "Marketers" started doing stupid shit like linking to non relevant websites to pass link juice. So Google changed its mind and to prove they were serious, they put a manual penalty on the biggest guest posting website, My Blog Guest. Not only that, they also went for sites using MBG. That was deeply unfair, because in my experience everything there was done ethically and in line with Google Webmaster Guidelines. To me and others at the time, it was a bullshit move. Now, is guest blogging dead? Nope. It just has to be done in the right away and links need to have editorial merit. E.g. If you're a health expert don't publish guest posts on, or link to your site from non relevant blogs Disclaimer; I was part of the mod team at MBG so my opinion might be biased. I never saw anything shady.
sydney-not-cindy ✍️ But even all of that doesn't make sense from a real world point of view. Who in the world cares who is on Jimmy Fallon or First Take or Dr. Phil or some random news show on MSNBC? Now, maybe their audience is wondering why Bill Simmons is on Dr. Oz, but if they make it work, great! Maybe Bill Simmons got a disease or something and he's gonna talk about it. Either way, those shows don't get PENALIZED for having guests on. I mean, we're not like 'Hey you can't promote your movie on Jimmy Kimmel! That's cheating! All you're allowed to do is make a really good movie that people want to see and hope someone finds out about it.' That's ridiculous. I get that Google has rules, but why is that a rule? It doesn't follow real world logic.
TheRealBobbyJones It's about quality. Jimmy Kimmel cares about the quality of it's show and as such does their best to produce quality content. Stuff people want to watch. Guest posts created purely for the purpose of link building generally are complete junk. sydney-not-cindy ✍️ But then wouldn't Google's quality guidelines catch that and not give the piece enough love to do any good as a link? Why is no one allowed to do it, even the right way? TheRealBobbyJones You are allowed to do it all you want. Google just won't make ranking so easy for you. Which is in Google's rights as a for profit company.
laurentbourrelly Cool to read someone who remembers Matt Cutts :-) Google is abusing its power by imposing rules on links. Presse relations existed before Google. Guest blogging is similar to press relations. From what I can gather, if you are careful to match the target with your topics, it should be fine. If you are careful to guest blog with real blogs, instead of blogs that smell SEO from miles away, if should be fine. One way or another, you buy a link or setup a scenario to get a link. Not promoting your content, will not bring results. It's an illusion. Modern googlers don't even know what it means to create content that deserves links. Matt Cutts was a different breed. I miss him.
Viper2014
Google is abusing its power by imposing rules on links.
SEO people abused the knowledge given by Google years ago. Now it's payback time :) laurentbourrelly What knowledge? ClickedMarketing PageRank.
LopsidedNinja
Not only that, they also went for sites using MBG. That was deeply unfair, because in my experience everything there was done ethically and in line with Google Webmaster Guidelines.
I dunno what MBG you were using but me and all my seo friends were using the one where you upload some barely legible content in exchange for links. It was clearly taking the piss as far as the rules went. It was good while it lasted but the hammer coming down on it was well deserved. Describing it as ethical and within Google rules is just laughable.
mickmeaney Give over, Ann Smarty is one of the most ethical SEO users on the planet, there's no way she'd let that kind of shit fly on her site. We did get lots of shitty submissions that were rejected for the exact reasons you state. LopsidedNinja Maybe my definition of shitty is different from yours then. The vast majority of the content on there was just not very good. All weak outsourced turds, written by someone with no real interest in the topic at hand. And when you see the same accounts uploading dozens of posts in the one day its pretty clear it was all just a giant pagerank abuse scheme. Saying the owner of it is 'ethical'… another laughable comment. She was making money from breaking the rules. As were all the people like me on the other side of the transactions. I was happy to do it cos it was easy and profitable but lets not revise history and pretend we weren't all knowingly breaking googles rules for the money lol.
TheMacMan Because people abused the living shit out of it. 99% of the time it's garbage. Articles made solely for the purpose of trying to get a bit of SEO benefit out of them, rather than providing any benefit at all the to reader. This is the answer to most everything that Google doesn't like but used to allow. It's always because it's abused by marketers. They're out for their own benefit, and not the searchers benefit. It's stupidly simple to understand why. Google makes their money because people come to them to search. Why? Because they provide the best answer. When you search, you expect Google to return the best answer. If they fail to do that, you will go and search somewhere else. So if they allow me to drop hundreds of crap guest posts and point them all at my total piece of shit article and they rank that as the best answer, people get that as the answer and they're like, "This isn't even close to the right answer to my question." They stop using Google, and Google loses lots of money.
sydney-not-cindy ✍️ But Google itself has said links are only 1 of hundreds of ranking signals. If quality really is the most important thing, then that crap post won't rank, no matter how many links it has. In fact, Google would know those other posts are crap too so they won't have much SEO power to pass on, which means they definitely don't help rankings.
stillyoinkgasp Whether or not the guest post ranks is irrelevant. That the post is placed on a high-authority blog/site and passing along authority is where the post derives its value. RE: devaluing links in guest posts algorithmically, that's kind of the point of recent (and numerous past) algorithmic updates mate. Consider what you just said; perhaps guest posts linking authority being devalued is a way of, oh I don't know, algorithmically expressing a dislike for a particular practice… no? lol sydney-not-cindy ✍️ Devaluing links from crap guest posts, not ALL guests posts. stillyoinkgasp Sounds like you're splitting hairs to me. Remember, we're talking SEO here. Not marketing. These are not always the same things, especially when guest posts are the topic of the day. sydney-not-cindy ✍️ I think it makes a difference though. Is it a site killer if you can't do guest posting? No, certainly not. I've had success without doing it at all. But Google's solution doesn't entirely make sense to me, even though I understand the issue they're trying to solve. stillyoinkgasp Well, you've sort of indirectly touched on it. What Google doesn't want is people placing guest posts for SEO value. What Google does want (and encourages) is a natural exchange of value. The kind you get when you do proper marketing/advertising. If I understand correctly, this is effectively what you're advocating. However, it isn't necessarily easy to differentiate between a legitimate advertisement and a guest post, especially if neither use rel sponsored/nofollow. Google also doesn't necessarily want a "pay to play" culture for Search Engine Optimization (SEO), as that has been proven to hurt the overall quality of their results. So, as an SEO, your challenge is to figure out how to satisfy both parties without violating the terms of one while delivering value for the other. BTW, if you dig through my comment history, I talk a lot about this (not a flex, but may be helpful if you want to see context surrounding my Point Of View (POV)). ClickedMarketing Yes, 1 of hundreds of ranking signals, but not all the signals are weighted equally. Links by far are the #1 ranking signal. And you absolutely can rank crap content with enough good links. People have done it. Kyle Roof did a public experiment last year where he ranked a mage that was 95% Lorem Ipsum content. sydney-not-cindy ✍️ So it sounds like there is a flaw in Google's algorithm and until it's perfect, they just don't value guest post links. Not entirely fair, but I guess I'm too old to complain about or expect things to be fair. ClickedMarketing I don't know that I would call it a flaw. The whole philosophy they started with of using links compared to what search engines were using at the time is pretty sound. As is often the case, there is a bit of a disconnect between what Google says and what they actually can enforce. If you are putting guest posts on sites that advertise "guest post here" or "write for us", you are taking a bigger risk. Outside of that, it is a lot harder for them to identify what is a truly organic link and what is a guest post.
countxero Because, back when they made that statement, what was passing for Guest Posting wasn't the spirit of the idea. Your metaphor for the situation doesn't really line up with the situation. Guest Posts are more like writers (or non writers) making special appearances in magazines or newspapers (or in the case of the internet, scientific journals) rather than an NBA star stopping in on the morning show to demonstrate his favorite way to make eggs before a game to make him seem more relatable after his 5th DUI charge (or, you know, whatever). Guest posting was truly supposed to be more like the VP of Marketing for a well known company writing for an industry journal about how he turned his company around during an economic downturn. Instead, cheap SEO companies were writing crap content and getting it placed on irrelevant websites with a decent Domain Authority (DA)/Page Authority (PA) to fool their clients into thinking they were making progress. Google was the first to really bring links into the equation when it came to ranking algorithms, and their thinking was based on the early internet and scientific citations. That concept worked well with a more commercial internet because companies were supposed to take the spirit of traditional public relations methods and obtain links from relevant publications to relevant content, but SEO users screwed that up as well. Now we're back to something more akin to the vision (Public Relations (PR) style inbound links), but most SEO users like to look at things as an equation where you can adjust variables rather than the spirit of the system, so Google ultimately tells people that guest posting as the black hat concept it was being used for isn't kosher, but if you're doing it right, it's not going to nail you. Anytime you look at SEO has some sort of hack these days, you're off track. AdorableFlight I honestly think there is no way Google can know what a natural link is or what a guest post aimed to pass link juice is Here's how I make sure • I'm a service based business, I don't link to my home page, if I do it's a branded or naked link. • I link to my blog articles with random anchor text, I include 3-4 other links in my article. I use exact match commercial based anchors for one of the links (usually for someone on the second or third page)and the other 2-3 links are to authority sites. • Use surferseo to make my guest post the best content for that keyword possible. well_shoothed
They put a manual penalty on the biggest guest posting website, My Blog Guest.
Let's be real here: public company or not, Google is ostensibly a utility. If it were a utility, there would–and indeed should–be an oversight board to which manual penalties cases like this could be appealed. When you're 100% playing by the rules, it's not your fault if the ones who make the rules don't like how you've played their game. As such, an independent oversight body could be appealed to in cases like this and could then when in the presence of sufficient evidence overturn Google's manual penalties. It's utter bullshit that people's livelihoods are decided with the click of a mouse. Even more so that for 99% of those who're affected by said mouse clicks, there's ZERO opportunity for appeal, much less to have that appeal actually upheld. Edward_Morbius It's reality time… Google doesn't give a crap about anybody's links or websites or schemes or Search Engine Optimization (SEO) or anything else. These are all the raw materials. They care about providing relevant results to the users so the users will use Google and see and trust their ads, which means the advertisers will spend more money with Google. Everything on the internet that isn't a user or an advertiser, is just "raw materials" like the cows McDonalds uses for burgers. Google is doing their best to pick out signals that match what the users want. That's all there is to the whole thing. Google continuously changes what they like as they tune their algorithms over time. Make content that people like and trust and you'll do well. Everything else is just turd polishing.
sydney-not-cindy ✍️ This I get. And I don't really have a problem with that. Google is out to help searchers, not marketers. But I think good-intentioned marketers are out to help searchers too. My conclusion is that, just like with most things, a few people ruined it for everyone else. This is why we can't have nice things. Lol
Drawing a Line in the Sand: Google Must Stop Trying to Regulate the Internet.
Today John Mueller said:
The part that's problematic is the links — if you're providing the content/the links, then those links shouldn't be passing signals & should have the rel-sponsored / rel-nofollow attached. It's fine to see it as a way of reaching a broader audience.
My answer to him: Absolutely not. You are attempting to take away the editorial control of the site that is hosting the content. If they want the post to pass link equity over the links that are with in the content, then that is up to them and not Google. A reminder: Google has no authority to regulate the internet. 95 💬🗨
Eklundz I think you are missing an important part here. You don't have to follow Google's guidelines if you don't want to. It's not the law, it's just their preferences. However, you can't expect to be featured on Googles curated top list if you don't play by their rules.
sydney-not-cindy That is completely true, but this is also why industry regulations exist. Yes, all stores could say 'we only sell food injected with cyanide and if you want to shop here then that's what you have to buy', and that's why there are regulations on food quality and standards. That's an extreme example, but you get my point. Google is the largest search engine. That much power is usually regulated. I think they've done a fine job so far, but assuming they somehow turn evil, then just shrugging and saying 'well you're the boss' is probably not the best idea.
NakedAndBehindYou Google's instruction for links being marked as sponsored is intended to make search results better by preventing people from being able to spam their way to the top with paid links. There is a lot of Google behavior to complain about, but this is not one of them. Nobody wants to live in a world where search engines are useless because spammers dominate every top ranking. sydney-not-cindy It sounded like he was talking about guest posts. "If you're providing the content and the links…" It's possible I misunderstood though. The point about some regulation is in response to the idea that Google should be able to do whatever they want with their product. the-rude-dog That's what I thought to, although rel="sponsored" would be wierd advice for guest posts, as legit guest posting is earned through editorial quality, not through payment. Also, there was talk last year about rel="ugc" (User Generated Content (UGC)) becoming the default link type for guest posting, but I've not heard or seen anything about that since. I have been doing Search Engine Optimization (SEO) for longer than you, and I have never seen any of these regulations. sydney-not-cindy Well, yeah, that's my point. I said 'generally that much power is regulated'. I don't see them for Google either and I think they've done a good job on their own so far. But there's always the potential for things to go bad. In that unlikely case, regulations would help. It's an illustration. You don't take every point of an illustration literally, it's meant to explain a principle. Like the tortoise and the hare. We're not literally saying you shouldn't run fast. It's the principle that's being communicated. maboyles90 Dude. "Forced to eat poison" is not a related principle. It's a gross extrapolation comparing Google's guidelines to a restaurant forcing you to injest a poison. It's a shitty analogy cause you can't build a business based off feeding cyanide to your customers. Unrelated note: The Tortoise and the Hare is about not getting cocky. sydney-not-cindy It's not an analogy. It's an illustration. They are different. I mean, we disagree on the principle, which fine. That happens. But let's not argue over how I explained my point of view. I'd rather hear you're point of view and how you feel about Google's guidelines. maboyles90 To be honest I don't fully understand what the original quote is saying. I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic. Any opinion I typed here, would probably showcase my ignorance. From the comments, it seems like people are confusing Google with the government. sydney-not-cindy
From the comments, it seems like people are confusing Google with the government.
Lol, that's possible. That wasn't my intent, though I can't speak for everyone. My point was that I don't think Google should be allowed to do whatever they want with what they created and especially because of how powerful they are. Taking SEO out of it, that just doesn't sound like a good idea. Was this hill the one to plant that flag on? Maybe not, but I think the principle I'm trying to communicate is valid. RabidJumpingChipmunk Side note, can I just say you are the most zen person I may ever have seen on the internet. In this thread you responded to at least two fairly rude/hostile comments in an incredibly calm and productive way. 👍👏 sydney-not-cindy Lol, thanks! I think the other guys (or girls) responded well too. It helps that I'm 32 and have had time to learn from my mistakes of debating on the internet. This thread was great though. I disagree with some of the opinions, but I guess there are bigger things to worry about at the moment.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
I think you are missing an important part here.
You're not understanding that JM's statement, which is likely inaccurate as I find it extremely hard to believe that it would be Google's actual policy, is an extreme over reach.
However, you can't expect to be featured on Googles curated top list if you don't play by their rules.
First of all, Google is a search engine. They are given certain exemptions to things like copyright law because of the nature of the technology. That does not mean that Google has the legal authority to control what is effectively other's speech. seoconspiracy There are 2 sides to the coin. We can agree that Google helped out the Web to be less of a mess. Websites are better now than when I started doing Search Engine Optimization (SEO) in year … Google has no small part to play in this fact. However, they made tremendous mistakes along the way, and some will be impossible to repair. For example, rel nofollow is the condom of the Web. Precious juice is wasted for everybody. Another big fail is the rel next prev. Google told everyone to use it, and one day, on a random tweet, some random googler states that they were never able to implement it efficiently. Moreover, the whole "build a great website, and the rest will follow" advise is bullshit. Googlers suggesting to be awesome were never able to produce anything worth mentioning on their own. They don't know how to create great content. Also, producing great content worth getting links is for the top 1% of the content creators pyramid. Of course, it's possible, but it's only for the top 1%. The threshold imposed by Google to be "awesome" is a trap. 99% of website owners will never even come close to reach that requirement of "quality". Also, if you work hard to be the best of what you can be, it won't bring results. Results will never be up to your expectations. Btw my opinion counts since I'm an SEO consultant since 2004. I'm also a content producer and keynote speaker since 2004. I'm also a Black Hat SEO since 2004. I know what's the deal from both ends of the spectrum. I've achieved a high level of success by doing excellent content. I've also used algorithms flaws extensively to rank first on Google. I've done it for myself and for clients. It's a fascinating topic, but we need to understand the whole picture.
secretagentdad So ignore them lol. You're free to just completely and totally ignore Google as a channel.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
" They've literally given me a fantastic easy remote life style where I wander around doing what ever the hell I want "
Not true. You can not do "what ever" you want. If you want your website to be visible in Google's technology, then you can't violate their guidelines; almost all of which are common sense, and would be interpreted as "preventing harm to their technology," except what John Mueller just said of course. If it is your will or "your speech" to allow link equity to flow over links that exist in editorial content that is provided by a writer outside of your organization, then according to what John Mueller just said, your website may lose visibility in Google. Sorry that's not up to Google and it's wrong for John Mueller to suggest that it is. secretagentdad Any private company can arrange their lists in any order they want with what ever criteria they want. That's what freedom is. You're free to REE REE about it. They're free to ignore you. Why do you think you should have a say in how they do things? They're a private company with a defacto monopoly they got by being hella good at solving really hard scaled out problems. I would agree with you if they were being super shitty and anti competitive or were a natural monopoly, but they're not. As far as big tech companies go they're even rather well behaved. Actual__Wizard ✍️
You're free to REE REE about it.
I thought we were having an adult conversation here. I apologize for wasting your time.
Why do you think you should have a say in how they do things?
I'm just pointing out what John said isn't consistent with the laws in many countries, including the United States. boycottInstagram I am sorry – wtf laws do you think it is inconsistent with? He isn't saying that you are not free to write or do whatever the f*ck you want on your own site. He is asserting that Google is also free to do what they want, and their terms of service for crawling, indexing, and serving your site to users is… dun dun dun!… don't use spammy tactics to try and manipulate the rankings. None of that is inconsistent with any laws I have heard of PogueMahone88 You're getting "google" and "the internet" mixed up. They're two separate entities entirely. If you want to rank, play by their rules. If you don't, go find visibility on another search engine. Simple. Why do you have a problem adding nofollow or sponsored to links anyway? If you're not building spammy/affiliate links, you wouldn't need to do this. Build natural links like actual SEO users do, stop taking short cuts.! Actual__Wizard ✍️
If you want to rank, play by their rules.
No. I'm not going to follow their rules if they are in bad faith. That's not a valid expectation.
Why do you have a problem adding nofollow or sponsored to links anyway?
Google doesn't have the authority to mandate that I must do so.
If you're not building spammy/-snip- links, you wouldn't need to do this.
That would be manipulation and is already not allowed for common sense reasons. PogueMahone88 Never heard someone complain so much about Google punishing them for spamming. Actual__Wizard ✍️ None of my personal websites or websites owned by my company are "punished" and I do not participate in spam. Your statement is false.
boycottInstagram I think you are missing the point that "nofollow" is a directive specifically for search crawlers. So including it or not is an editorial choice based on whether you want to have a better chance at appearing in search. Google is saying "if you wanna appear in our Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs), we recommend that you don't guest post in exchange for links – that is similar enough to buying a link with money, because we understand that links are like currency for some SEO users". They have terms of service for appearing on their site, it is as simple as that. If you don't wanna appear on their site, you don't have to follow the terms of service.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
I think you are missing the point that "nofollow" is a directive specifically for search crawlers.
I fully understand that it is.
Google is saying "if you wanna appear in our SERPs, we recommend that you don't guest post in exchange for links – that is similar enough to buying a link with money, because we understand that links are like currency for some SEO users".
On the flip side of that, they're also saying "if you're a quality publisher and accept editorial content from external authors, then you must nofollow any links, or we may reduce the visibility of your website, even though you are not participating in any kind of spam or manipulation."
They have terms of service for appearing on their site, it is as simple as that.
Sorry there's a lot more to this then just their Terms Of Service (TOS). They must still operate their search engine in good faith.
BlakeWritesBlog
On the flip side of that, they're also saying "if you're a quality publisher and accept editorial content from external authors, then you must nofollow any links, or we may reduce the visibility of your website, even though you are not participating in any kind of spam or manipulation."
I don't think that's actually the case. There's a difference between publishing content from external contributors and leveraging guest posting to build backlinks. This is actually pretty consistent with Google's operating in the past in which folks would identify something that was a strong ranking signal and exploit it, leading to search results with low-quality content. As of right now, Google has positioned it along the lines of: • Publications that accept submissions and have an editorial review process that determines that content is valid and aligned with their target audience can continue to do so. • Publications that accept and send out dozens upon dozens of guest posts to build up backlinks for the purpose of ranking are going to be more easily identified as such. That said, I also completely understand your concern– perhaps the most important aspect of the conversation is that Google hasn't given any clue as to how they'll distinguish between User Generated Content (UGC) and Editorial content vs spammy guest posts. I think once there are more guidelines there, I'll feel more strongly about sounding the alarm or not. Keep in mind that they've done similar things in the past with tactics like keyword stuffing. As a general rule of thumb, Google's algorithm and ranking changes are designed to return better, higher-quality results for users. Creating content that focuses on user experience, and not link building or keyword stuffing, generally creates a strong system for weathering rank signal changes. Actual__Wizard ✍️
That said, I also completely understand your concern– perhaps the most important aspect of the conversation is that Google hasn't given any clue as to how they'll distinguish between User Generated Content (UGC) and Editorial content vs spammy guest posts. I think once there are more guidelines there, I'll feel more strongly about sounding the alarm or not.
My concern is that there is a private company that is directly in control of a substantial portion of the entire global economy that is creating guidelines in the first place. This situation is a good example of why. This is yet another case where Google can pick financial winners and losers by saying "well you accepted a guest post and didn't nofollow the link, so you're penalized now and we warned you. Now your business is screwed and you can't get the penalty off. Have a nice day." Google is already picking too many financial winners and losers, enough is enough. boycottInstagram Does Google have a monopoly? Broadly yes (outside of China and Russia). Does that mean they should not be allowed to choose whos content they broadcast? Your whole argument is about editorial freedom. Well, Google is expressing editorial freedom to choose what they are willing to put on their site. It's like a site owner choosing to remove a user's comment because it goes against their policies. That's fine. That is their right as the owner of that site. Actual__Wizard ✍️
Your whole argument is about editorial freedom. Well, Google is expressing editorial freedom to choose what they are willing to put on their site.
Google is a search engine, which is a specific type of service. Their is no expectation that Google or any other search engine behave in a manner that one would consider to be editorialized. They use an algorithm to return search results based upon the content they crawl, that is how they work. An editor is not sitting there evaluating each link. There is also no expectation that they arbitrarily choose what sites to include or exclude. There must be a valid and understandable reason as to why they would exclude a website. I have yet to encounter a single website that was excluded from Google's search results and there wasn't a good reason for it. In many cases I have strong arguments as to why Google shouldn't have removed the site, but the site technically does violate the guidelines. Devaluing a website that doesn't nofollow the links in guest posts is not similar to that. It's not justifiable, it is arbitrary, and it doesn't make sense at face value. Google's attempt to remove incentives for people to do guest posting is actually what is in the wrong here. Quality content is expensive and if people want to contribute it to a site to gain some minor exposure, as long as I have full control over what I am linking to, if I do choose to keep any links they included in the content, then they've earned them and my site is effectively endorsing them… That's how the algorithm should work… boycottInstagram I mean… It is justifiable in the same way. They wouldn't have made the rule if people weren't overwhelmingly using guest posting to go against the rules. John even says it in the tweet FFS! If you wanna contribute content and get a link for exposure that is fine. If you are doing it to get a link to manipulate the algorithm… Then that is unnatural and goes against the guidelines. How do you tell the algorithm that you were just doing it for exposure? You put a nofollow on it 😂 they are giving you the tool to tell them what you've just said you are trying to tell them!!! Also, if you have experience with g and how they treat links – they ignore them for the most part when they are unnatural … If you do it enough in a clearly manipulative way, they will give you a MA. John is clearly just stating that those links are not natural links. Guest posting is fine for exposure, guest posting for links is not within Google's guidelines. Actual__Wizard ✍️
They wouldn't have made the rule if people weren't overwhelmingly using guest posting to go against the rules.
The guideline is: "Large-scale article marketing or guest posting campaigns with keyword-rich anchor text links." I agree 100% with that guideline that it's clearly manipulation, but I disagree with what I am said. That's wrong and now many people who worked hard to land a very weak link from a website that does endorse them are going to find out that they've been nofollowed.
If you are doing it to get a link to manipulate the algorithm… Then that is unnatural and goes against the guidelines.
First of all, how does getting a link from a guest post constitute manipulation in the first place? I'm not going to repeat what I've said elsewhere in this thread, but the link is still earned. It's not like it's a comment or something, there's still a process involved and there's no guarantee that I will accept somebodies guest post or that a site accepts my guest post. There seems to be a fundamental gap between what JM thinks occurs and what actually occurs… Most people aren't going to be able to get more than a handful of guest posts even if they pay for the placements and if it's a niche that's toxic like magic pills, then it's going to be basically impossible.
John is clearly just stating that those links are not natural links. Guest posting is fine for exposure, guest posting for links is not within Google's guidelines.
Yes they are and that's not what the guidelines say… There's a gap now. JM is saying one thing and the guidelines say another. boycottInstagram Just flat out .. "a link earned". Just ask yourself. What is the purpose of that link? Is it to manipulate the algorithms or is it for exposure? If it is just for exposure, then the nofollow doesn't Matter The words "hard earned" inply that the link was the goal of the exercise. Which, gosh, means that the link wasn't a natural mention. 😲 It's not a hard concept. Google isn't policing the internet, they are trying to make their SERPs better. If you don't wanna be part of that game, then don't work in this industry. Tbh, if you think getting a links from guest posts is a game changer in this industry, you probably shouldn't be in it in the first place Actual__Wizard ✍️
If it is just for exposure, then the nofollow doesn't Matter
Don't you think that visibility in search engines is exposure if it's earned?
Which, gosh, means that the link wasn't a natural mention. 😲
Natural does not necessarily mean passively earned.
It's not a hard concept.
Well, you don't seem to understand it so…
Google isn't policing the internet, they are trying to make their SERPs better.
So are SEO users…
If you don't wanna be part of that game, then don't work in this industry.
I own a company that manages multiple websites…
Tbh, if you think getting a links from guest posts is a game changer in this industry, you probably shouldn't be in it in the first place
Considering that it's basically impossible to get organic traction in 2020 with a new domain with out doing some form of link building, this absolutely is a game changer. Now, there's no way to do it that's both purely white hat and doesn't involve spamming. The techniques discussed on the "guru" sites are absolutely a violation of CANSpam. I don't know what John Mueller is thinking here, but all his comment is going to do is lead to more spam and more manipulation. There's no avenue left for purely ethical SEO users to earn links to brand new domains. So we've gone from the quality guidelines saying "Have relevant websites link to yours" to "guest posting is blackhat." Google needs to stop with this. It's explained on Google's our story page that the algorithm uses links, this is not some kind of secret or something.
boycottInstagram You are also missing the really crucial bit here… the statement is regarding whether Google will be unhappy (i.e. give a manual action to your site) if you try to use guest posting to manipulate the rankings. saying that again – if you are trying to manipulate the rankings by using guest posting to get links Do it all you want, just understand that it might work, it might not, and you might get a manual action, and you might not.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
if you are trying to manipulate the rankings by using guest posting to get links
I don't see how the context of the statement is specifically "manipulation." Manipulation is not allowed so the statement would be extremely redundant. I've reread John's statement several times and it does not say what you are suggesting. It is regarding all "guest posts." To be clear, a guest post is nothing more than an article contributed to the site by an external author.
boycottInstagram It's in the context of SEMrush selling linksm those were unnatural links. He then was asked about guest posting in general, and said that guest posting is fine with Google, but the links on the page that are put there should be no followed. Why? Because SEO users use links as currency. It's not rocket science to extrapolate that he is referring to guest posting for links. Google has reiterated this multiple times a year for a long time. Actual__Wizard ✍️
It's in the context of SEMrush selling
First of all, SEMrush was not selling links. I do feel that an SEO data company offering a guest post placement service could easily be interpreted as manipulation.
Why? Because SEO users use links as currency.
So what? What is the difference if I write a post and link to it, or if I accept a post with a link in it, and choose to publish it? I am still choosing to do it. I do not have somebody controlling me like John Mueller is suggesting that I nofollow the links. If I felt that it was wrong, then I wouldn't publish it, or if I felt the link was "self serving" then I would nofollow it. Your explanation is basically equivalent to saying that because people use lighters to use drugs, then all lighters should be illegal. No and I should not be forced to nofollow all links in a guest post on my site if I want to maintain my visibility in Google…
It's not rocket science to extrapolate that he is referring to guest posting for links.
Even if somebody is guest posting for links, it is my choice to allow my website to link to them… Not John Mueller's or Google… This entire concept of Google trying to control what or how I link to something on my website is absurd… boycottInstagram Right, I'm not saying it isn't their choice to do it! It is also Google's choice to say they might not wanna rank your content if you do it. I'm struggling to see the issue? Do it if you want, and you've been told what might happen. If I owed a restrurants, I can choose to serve whatever food I want. I then choose to invite a food critique, who has stated clearly what kind of food they like and don't like, to my restrurant (hoping to get more business from their recommendation) … And then I choose to serve food they have said they don't like… Then I might not get a recommendation from that critique, and my restrurant may not get more business from that source. Site owners choose to set up a business in which the main source of income comes from Google's recommendation. I'm free to publish or do what ever I want with my website… But if it isn't to googles taste (after being clear for decades what their taste is) … Then they shouldn't be surprised when they loose traffic Actual__Wizard ✍️
I'm struggling to see the issue? Do it if you want, and you've been told what might happen.
They crossed the line. Quality standards and guidelines make sense. This is not that. boycottInstagram What line! What imaginary ethical line do you think is here? They did nothing illegal. They asked publishers to clearly state that a guest post link was intended to provide exposure (ie the purpose of a guest post) . They provided the tool to do it. If you are trying to manipulate with that link, they are clearly saying 'nah pal, we ain't ok with that' Which has been the case for over a decade. Again, if you think getting that kinda link is Search Engine Optimization (SEO), then you are not doing SEO well Actual__Wizard ✍️
Again, if you think getting that kinda link is SEO
It absolutely can be in certain situations.
kurtteej What they are regulating is their search engine. You can in fact do what you want to do (in this case i assume) not indicating that a link is sponsored. That's your choice, but it's in their discretion how that use that within their product/service, which they have complete control over.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
You can in fact do what you want to do (in this case i assume) not indicating that a link is sponsored.
Uh, not in the United States, there is a regulation (as far as I know), that requires me to disclose when links are sponsored. This discussion is about whether Google should be allowed to effectively mandate that I be required to nofollow them as well. Also, sorry; Suggesting that I have a choice and I can comply with their mandate or just go out of business is not an argument in good faith. No judge would agree that Google has the legal authority to bankrupt businesses over such a bad faith policy that does nothing to prevent manipulation. If a publisher chose to publish a guest post with a link in it that is followed, then so be it, that is their will. Edit: I would also strongly argue that the algorithm is designed to include followed links in guest posts and value them. If whatever the guest post linked to was toxic or spam, then no website would host the content, and no one should be expecting the publisher to give up editorial control, even for a fee. Some companies have built multi-million dollar businesses on the back of a guest posting campaign and they were not penalized. So what JM is saying is that they were allowed to, but now companies are not allowed to? I'm sorry that's a double standard.
bikegremlin My thoughts on the topic (deals with guest post links from what I've gathered): One thing is if a guest post includes a link to content that is relevant to the topic, so that I would link to it within the post any way. Like: regardless of whether it is a guest post, or not. In that case – it makes no sense making the link nofollow. Different matter are the links that aren't like that – like the "post author's website" (more often – the website of the company that had hired the author to write guest post for them, "for SEO"). It makes sense having those links nofollow – since it's just "advertising" ("SEO"), not really helping the visitor. Practical example: a) I wrote a post that explains how to store a bicycle indoors – showing all the different solutions for hanging the bikes so they don't take up too much space, for various home/garage configurations. b) Now, if I were to write a guest post on how to prepare a bicycle for Winter storage, I would naturally link to the above mentioned post that explains storage options in more detail. In order to not make the winter preparation post too long – so I can stick to what needs to be lubricated and how, whether to inflate tyres etc. It would make no sense to have link to the post a) a nofollow one. It does provide useful info (and helps the reader). But it would make sense having the link to the "author's website" a nofollow one – since it's just an advert ("SEO"), not really useful for the topic explained. That's how I see it at least.
Actual__Wizard ✍️
That's how I see it at least.
To me, you are a normal productive human being trying to go through life. Based upon applying John Mueller's logic to what you said; you are an evil spammer that deserves whatever hell Google decides is "warranted" for you. Hopefully some court or rational person reigns in on this out of control company.
bikegremlin I'm not sure of whether Google (or John Mueller) disagree with your first sentence – if used as explained in my post (though I would argue about the "normal" part :) ). I suppose the quoted statement from Mueller is aimed towards the links that don't provide value (author's home page, or links that are used just for advertising, without adding real value/explanation to the topic of a post). Asked John to clarify that on Twitter. If it is a "blanket" nofollow for any links related to any of the guest poster's website(s), it would really make no sense (at least in my opinion). But from the quoted text, I'm not 100% sure it is intended that way. Actual__Wizard ✍️
I suppose the quoted statement from Mueller is aimed towards the links that don't provide value (author's home page, or links that are used just for advertising, without adding real value/explanation to the topic of a post). Asked John to clarify that on Twitter.
Well, if that's what a rep from Google means, then that's what a rep from Google should say. bikegremlin They did clarify on Twitter – saying they do mean all the links from the post creator's website. With another Twitter member explaining (quoting): "(From a Google perspective) a dofollow link is considered as a vote for a website. Obviously if webmasters start to vote for themselves making guest posting, there is an issue here for Google. It's not about relevance or topic. That said, i really agree with what your wrote Thumbs up" • This does make (some) sense – judging to which degree guest posts were (ab)used by various "SEO experts/agencies". Actual__Wizard ✍️
"(From a Google perspective) a dofollow link is considered as a vote for a website. Obviously if webmasters start to vote for themselves making guest posting, there is an issue here for Google. It's not about relevance or topic.
That said, i really agree with what your wrote Thumbs up"
Well, that's nice they clarified that part about it, but they are still being intellectually dishonest. That's not how guest posting works. Somebody approaches the publisher with an article and the publisher chooses to host the content. The publisher is the one that is "voting" and if the author wants credit for their work, then an attribution link as credit is due. If fees are involved, the publisher is not charging for a link, they are charging for their time. There is no valid expectation in the United States or any other country that I am aware of, that I be required to donate my time to somebody else. The publisher still has to verify any claims made in the article or any other standards created by their editorial process. Once the guest post is published, the author and the publisher now have a relationship, which has to be maintained in the case the author wants to remove the post for whatever reason, as they still maintain their copyright. It is completely absurd that Google is trying to pry the powers of publishers away from them. I want to be really clear about this: If people are using guest posts to manipulate Google then that's Google's problem. Google telling me that I have to change something that I do as a publisher because Google has a problem is wrong. This to me seems like JM is conflating paid posts and guest posts. bikegremlin Playing the devil's lawyer a bit here. To avoid any misunderstanding – I do think that "legit" do-follow links for guest posts are a good thing. That is: any links that I consider good/useful for the visitor are made do-follow on my website(s). Except for product links (affiliate sales) – because Google says they should be no-follow (otherwise, I wouldn't try to "hide", either from visitors, or the search engines where those links lead and what they are). However, the way I see Google's point of view: it is my understanding that guest post are probably abused a lot, so Google wishes to prevent them from sending false ranking signals. For example – I get a lot of guest post offers on my website(s), with people sending low quality articles (so I don't publish them – up front about that – will publish good quality content for free, but nothing else). It's mostly SEO companies/experts, rarely website owners/authors. From the other angle – as an author. My logic is that by making good quality articles and publishing them on other people's websites, I might get some short-term ranking benefits, but in the long run, it is better to post all the good articles on one's own website. So I see both the pros and cons. Pros being fewer "SEO expert" (poor quality) guest posts. Cons being no "reward" for making really good guest post content. Actual__Wizard ✍️
However, the way I see Google's point of view: it is my understanding that guest post are probably abused a lot, so Google wishes to prevent them from sending false ranking signals.
I am confused as to why though. I've sort of come to the conclusion that John Mueller believes that guest posting works similar to how paid posting works. I fully understand that people are incorrectly describing a paid posting service they offer and I have zero issues with Google penalizing sites that participate in that, as what they are doing is manipulation. The thing is, I strongly feel that legitimate guest posting is extremely valuable and the control of whether the links in those posts count should be up to the publisher and not Google. Something tells me that this is nothing more than false consciousness anyways. Large companies buy links by the thousands and Google does nothing as long as that company is doing it quietly. They don't screw around asking for a guest post they just flat out offer money for links. Worrying about getting penalized for failing to nofollow a link is just something that the plebs have to worry about.
