<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More TLA trouble</title>
	<atom:link href="http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/</link>
	<description>A collection of my thoughts and other random stuff I found interesting.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8891</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8891</guid>
		<description>Yeah, if that's really from T-Mobile, then I'd say they're definitely taking a big risk. 

My first suspicion was that it was paid for by a black hat SEO company/person that wants to mix in "legit" site links into these link buying schemes to make it more complicated for Google to detect and crack down on them.

However, after following that link to the main T-Mobile page and seeing their other obvious SEO attempts (like the keyword overloading in the title), I suspect they hired a SEO service provider who is trying all of this stuff, some of it falling into the "black hat" category (buying PageRank via TLA).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, if that&#8217;s really from T-Mobile, then I&#8217;d say they&#8217;re definitely taking a big risk. </p>
<p>My first suspicion was that it was paid for by a black hat SEO company/person that wants to mix in &#8220;legit&#8221; site links into these link buying schemes to make it more complicated for Google to detect and crack down on them.</p>
<p>However, after following that link to the main T-Mobile page and seeing their other obvious SEO attempts (like the keyword overloading in the title), I suspect they hired a SEO service provider who is trying all of this stuff, some of it falling into the &#8220;black hat&#8221; category (buying PageRank via TLA).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DC</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8795</link>
		<dc:creator>DC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8795</guid>
		<description>You know what's crazy? There are some very big companies using TLA now, look at my "Cell Phones" link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know what&#8217;s crazy? There are some very big companies using TLA now, look at my &#8220;Cell Phones&#8221; link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Choo</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8002</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Choo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-8002</guid>
		<description>Google is not against paid links per se. They are against links that are sold for the purpose of boosting PageRanks. Their aim is to protect the integrity of SERPS, not hurt the paid links market.

If all TLA links contain rel="nofollow", then they'll not be worse off. However, prices will surely fall since these links cannot be counted on to boost SERPs, but only organic traffic.

It is for the reason that all links sold with WP Text Ads come with nofollow by default, although it can be turned off (not recommeded.)

http://www.wptextads.com/blog/2007/05/17/does-google-hate-paid-links-not-really-says-matt-cutts/

Alex</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is not against paid links per se. They are against links that are sold for the purpose of boosting PageRanks. Their aim is to protect the integrity of SERPS, not hurt the paid links market.</p>
<p>If all TLA links contain rel=&#8221;nofollow&#8221;, then they&#8217;ll not be worse off. However, prices will surely fall since these links cannot be counted on to boost SERPs, but only organic traffic.</p>
<p>It is for the reason that all links sold with WP Text Ads come with nofollow by default, although it can be turned off (not recommeded.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wptextads.com/blog/2007/05/17/does-google-hate-paid-links-not-really-says-matt-cutts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wptextads.com/blog/2007/05/17/does-google-hate-paid-links-not-really-says-matt-cutts/</a></p>
<p>Alex</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7998</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7998</guid>
		<description>I'd agree that it's always the individual site owner's decision to make, and I won't even really try to convince anyone that it's an ethical issue either, even though I think it is.

Just to clarify, I don't necessarily have a problem with people taking advantage of an error in the PageRank algorithm in and of itself; my issue with it is that it's intentionally skewing the search results that are useful to other people, and those people are the ones who loose out.

I think I've probably covered this one enough, but for me (even outside of the ethical matters) I wouldn't be willing to risk a permanent ding on my PageRank just for the sake of making a few bucks.

Since I do believe that Google is likely to close that hole and penalize (potentially without warning) those who are exploiting it, I think it's just wiser not to take that chance. Anyone who waits until that happens will have waited too long, because the damage will have been done and they won't be able to undo it at that point.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d agree that it&#8217;s always the individual site owner&#8217;s decision to make, and I won&#8217;t even really try to convince anyone that it&#8217;s an ethical issue either, even though I think it is.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I don&#8217;t necessarily have a problem with people taking advantage of an error in the PageRank algorithm in and of itself; my issue with it is that it&#8217;s intentionally skewing the search results that are useful to other people, and those people are the ones who loose out.</p>
<p>I think I&#8217;ve probably covered this one enough, but for me (even outside of the ethical matters) I wouldn&#8217;t be willing to risk a permanent ding on my PageRank just for the sake of making a few bucks.</p>
<p>Since I do believe that Google is likely to close that hole and penalize (potentially without warning) those who are exploiting it, I think it&#8217;s just wiser not to take that chance. Anyone who waits until that happens will have waited too long, because the damage will have been done and they won&#8217;t be able to undo it at that point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7994</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7994</guid>
		<description>FYI: I'm on the fence because I'm not overlooking anything. And I do feel differently from you because I do not think this is an ethical decision. IMO it's a decision to take advantage of a hole in the PR and until that hole is filled and TLA users are penalized (if or when that ever happens) it's a decision for those people to make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI: I&#8217;m on the fence because I&#8217;m not overlooking anything. And I do feel differently from you because I do not think this is an ethical decision. IMO it&#8217;s a decision to take advantage of a hole in the PR and until that hole is filled and TLA users are penalized (if or when that ever happens) it&#8217;s a decision for those people to make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7987</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7987</guid>
		<description>Ah, I didn't overlook it, I just don't see those because I use ad blocking.

I don't know about their relationship with Google as an advertiser, but I do know they've already been penalized in the search index for their own site.

As for sitting on the fence, I don't think that's a good position to take. Even if you're willing to overlook the unethical nature of the foundation of their business model, you also have to consider that Google is under no obligation to notify you  before penalizing your site. AND once that happens, it can be very difficult or impossible to unravel, as you and others have already found in dealing with them on other matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, I didn&#8217;t overlook it, I just don&#8217;t see those because I use ad blocking.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know about their relationship with Google as an advertiser, but I do know they&#8217;ve already been penalized in the search index for their own site.</p>
<p>As for sitting on the fence, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s a good position to take. Even if you&#8217;re willing to overlook the unethical nature of the foundation of their business model, you also have to consider that Google is under no obligation to notify you  before penalizing your site. AND once that happens, it can be very difficult or impossible to unravel, as you and others have already found in dealing with them on other matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cameron</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7985</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7985</guid>
		<description>I don't think he's going to respond to anything, especially since he is close to TLA as a developer and an advertiser unless it's in clear defense. But I think everyone that knows the issue including AK would be on the fence and probably will just ride it out until the decision is made, I know I am. 

The link is correct, you just overlooked that Google Adsense is advertising TLA on that site and many others. So, if Google decides to penalize TLA it should at least stop advertising whether or not TLA is paying for the ads. I'm sure it's in their TOS to not support backhat SEO services.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s going to respond to anything, especially since he is close to TLA as a developer and an advertiser unless it&#8217;s in clear defense. But I think everyone that knows the issue including AK would be on the fence and probably will just ride it out until the decision is made, I know I am. </p>
<p>The link is correct, you just overlooked that Google Adsense is advertising TLA on that site and many others. So, if Google decides to penalize TLA it should at least stop advertising whether or not TLA is paying for the ads. I&#8217;m sure it&#8217;s in their TOS to not support backhat SEO services.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7984</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7984</guid>
		<description>PS - based on a couple of Alex's "around the web" links this week, it seems like he's at least aware of the issue. It will be interesting to see what he decides about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PS - based on a couple of Alex&#8217;s &#8220;around the web&#8221; links this week, it seems like he&#8217;s at least aware of the issue. It will be interesting to see what he decides about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7983</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7983</guid>
		<description>I'm guessing you pasted the wrong link in there, because I don't see what the Sandbox theme has to do with text link ads.

I can only assume that you're talking about the fact that Google sells "text link" ads through their service, but it's completely different, because they're all nofollow, and do not affect PageRank. Ads from TLA (the company), on the other hand, are exclusively sold in order to game PageRank, so it's about as opposite as can be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guessing you pasted the wrong link in there, because I don&#8217;t see what the Sandbox theme has to do with text link ads.</p>
<p>I can only assume that you&#8217;re talking about the fact that Google sells &#8220;text link&#8221; ads through their service, but it&#8217;s completely different, because they&#8217;re all nofollow, and do not affect PageRank. Ads from TLA (the company), on the other hand, are exclusively sold in order to game PageRank, so it&#8217;s about as opposite as can be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cameron</title>
		<link>http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7982</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freepressblog.org/blog/2007/07/29/more-tla-trouble/#comment-7982</guid>
		<description>Google is going to have to start dropping the &lt;a href="http://www.plaintxt.org/themes/sandbox/" rel="nofollow"&gt;TLA ads&lt;/a&gt; before they start doing anything. Otherwise it's not going to look good on their part.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is going to have to start dropping the <a href="http://www.plaintxt.org/themes/sandbox/" rel="nofollow">TLA ads</a> before they start doing anything. Otherwise it&#8217;s not going to look good on their part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
