Try Again Later Ñ‚ãâ²ãâ¸ã‘‡ Ãâºãâ°ã⺠Ãâ¸ã‘âãâ¿ã‘€ãâ°ãâ²ãâ¸ã‘‚ã‘å’
Online marketing information can alter chop-chop This article is 16 years and 41 days old, and the facts and opinions contained in it may be out of date.
Proverb, "ownership links may not help your website" is much different than saying that "you shouldn't buy links because information technology may hurt your rankings". I think the tendency is towards the former, but I think the latter should exist avoided for a scattering of different reasons. Telling people not to purchase links may scare off some folks who haven't figured out that relevance is the SE's primary agenda, but in doing then may amerce many more people in the process, and potentially damage brand reputation.
The Indifference Principle
When I talk near SE'due south…in this instance, most of y'all know which one I am referring to. One of the big differences betwixt M and Y, is that Y tends to observe the indifference principle. Thou folks…if you're listening…it's time to get a couple Economic science P.h.d's on staff to aid make some of these very difficult decisions you have to make. Y'all are defining our culture and an entire economy (beyond simply the text link micro economy) with your decisions. I'one thousand not saying I envy you a bit, or know anyone that could practice it whatsoever amend…just saying that they are important decisions to make, and economists tend to accept some pretty good perspectives on things.
Back to the indifference principle and how information technology affects buying links – The indifference principle is a probability-based principle used also in economics. Most economists would cull that SOMEONE benefit from whatsoever given situation where there is equal probability of upshot versus no one. While this sometimes contradicts some folks moral rationale, I find economic science theory to exist much more logical, rational, and overall benign than emotional human logic based on religion or other belief structures in the majority of instances.
The "Principle of insufficient reason" was renamed the "Principle of Indifference" by the economist John Maynard Keynes, who was careful to note that information technology applies but when at that place is no knowledge indicating unequal probabilities. –
Principle of Indifference at Wikipedia
Then how does this apply to buying links yous may ask? Well, people are GOING to buy links considering they are given incentive to do and so. Why is this a problem for SEO'due south and link sellers to benefit from a market that was created? I really don't see how RELEVANT link purchase creates relevance problems in search engines. The deed of condemning link buying is no different than the corporate schlubs from fedex who got upset with the guy who built furniture with their boxes, or whatsoever other such sit-in of corporate cluelessness. In their case, they even had an opportunity to BUILD their brand and blew it. The engines are only hurting their supporter'southward and themselves by insisting that no i benefit from a market that was unintentionally created. Have the market place, or argue a losing battle, but the marketplace volition be.
Misinformation threatens credibility
By spreading misinformation or peradventure even enforcing non buying links through temporary penalization, the smaller naive business organization owners are the ones that are hurt. These business organisation owners nourish a conference and believe everything that the search engine representatives say. Not but are engines fighting a losing battle, they are tarnishing their credibility with those that believe what you take to say. I may have a adequately vested interest in this stance, since I would be the one to stand and contradict the "don't buy" policy, but my statements just upshot my own credibility, coming from the search engines it would impact the entire brand. Yes, link buying is but a pocket-sized microcosm of the search space, but information technology is also an area occupied by many folks that understand search all-time and are the "sneezers" to other folks that just don't get it. These are the folks that are going to DEFEND the logic when times get tough…why would engines want to alienate them? Why else would engines throw big parties for at that place seemingly adversaries if they didn't want to court them to their own line of thinking?
Wasted Resources
Combating purchased links is a temporary fix to a temporary problem in the same mode that buying links is. The difference is, buying relevant text links does no damage to relevance…combating relevant purchased text links simply creates new bug. Buying links raises the competition level in a given industry to a point of diminishing returns when all the folks in the tiptop ten are spending the majority of their profit on retaining their rankings. Combating paid links may serve to level the playing field…in the same way communism does…past removing competition. It removes the competition, which is worse for the consumer because as a monopoly builds that ability may be abused through excessive price gouging, discrimination and the similar unless it is regulated (which brings a whole host of other problems). If link popularity is part of the rules of the game, paying for link popularity should not exist an upshot (Is it all that different from political lobbying).
Why waste the time and energy on brusque-term transmission removal or promoting fear and doubt when that same energy could exist put into finding culling positive solutions and letting the market exist? Does buying RELEVANT links really effect search relevancy that detrimentally? I guess nosotros could try to practice abroad with all advertising, merely that wouldn't be the greatest statement for any of us to put up I don't suppose.
Capitalism Drives the Advancement of the Spider web
For all it's faults, capitalism has been proven as a pretty good system imho. I'm sure their are some kinks that will work themselves out in the next few millenia, but I certain hope I don't accept to alive in a communal utopia someday soon. I love geeks, dorks, computer nerds, engineers, scientists, and many of the same things that they do. They CREATED the web for altruistic means that have created a wonderful infrastructure for something much bigger. The unproblematic fact is that it wouldn't have advanced and improved it wasn't for the propensity towards commerce. Capitalism and commerce have driven the advocacy of the spider web, and should be considered when making decisions of relevance. It was a simple decision to take into business relationship economics principles into relevance that led Bill Gross to the vivid solution of pay-per-click. Considering the commercial nature of the web actually INCREASED relevancy to users. Acting like there should exist no market for meridian organic rankings will not become rid of the market that has been created.
Problems caused past lack of consideration for the commercial web:
-Alt tag spam
-Dorsum link mining
-Buying erstwhile sites to bypass the age bulwark to entry
Sometimes the solutions to these problems were valid ones, and sometimes they take changed the entire face up of the web (*cough* nofollow). I'll go out those for you to determine. Information technology'due south much easier to arraign the people that exploit the system, than it is to blame those that design it, but the naivete in design tin can't be ignored.
Buying links is Advertisement. Wasn't it the commercial nature of the web and the monetary value of the marketplace involved what gave that trivial idealistic search engine startup and then much power in the get-go place? Why should link communism now exist promoted for the sake of preserving the "not-biased editorial standards of algorithmic search results"?
While it is nice and piece of cake to place well-nigh the blame on those that pushed the limits of what is adequate by search engines, it was besides their limit pushing that spurned the search engines to meliorate. If it weren't for the commercial biases of the web, search retrieval probably wouldn't have evolved much further than meta tags because at that place would be no incentive for anyone to "optimize" their meta tags.
A few notes:
Incentives are the best determinate of man behavior. In that location are exceptions to the rule, but on a mass scale incentives provide the most reliable data for prediction models. If people are going to be incentivized to buy links, they are going to buy links, until the risks are substantial enough not to do so, or there are no rewards to do so.
What practice yous view every bit the primary differences between ownership a text link on a RELEVANT or fifty-fifty general topic site for search engine rankings different than buying say radio advertizing that may push button visitors to a website?
New media companies like Google and Ebay often get caught up in the ethics of "removing friction in the marketplace". While this is an beauteous goal, the ends sometimes don't justify the means. There will always exist "friction" in a marketplace, and short term opportunities. Fighting the curt term opportunity seekers with short sighted solutions will merely create more long term problems.
Viva la link revolution!
Yes, people buy and sell text links for the sole purpose of influencing search engine rankings. It is non an verbal science. Information technology is a response to the marketplace created by the monetary value of high rankings in a search engine. Remember, that algorithm based on link popularity that made anybody in that location rich and famous?
I am not a link communist. I freely buy and sell links based solely on their value to search engines. The marketplace for search rankings is a valuable one that will not disappear anytime soon, and I hope to continue to take advantage of information technology while the opportunity remains. Competition, contracts, property rights, appropriate incentives, and market place forces serve u.s. well, and I remember those principles of capitalism should be observed and respected rather than decisions that cater only to fear, dubiousness, and doubt for short term solutions.
Link buying exists because of the high margins created by ranking loftier in natural search engine results. These margins requite merchants the power to use their adspend on areas that will increase their likelihood of top rankings. The competition will fuel itself to a point of saturation and diminishing returns. At this point the "problem" will cease. By allowing the market to run itself, resources volition be allocated more efficiently. (invisible hand…yadda yadda).
Another topic worth checking out is the "efficient markets hypothesis" which supports the idea that the more information SE'southward make publicly bachelor the less valuable SEO services would be (which seems to back up Y's direction).
In that location are many moral philosophies to choose among, and I believe that economic reasoning is the nearly powerful tool we have for evaluating their merits.
Related threads:
Nofollow Nastiness – Webmasters afraid to requite link credit
Paid links are advertising
Buying links is BAD
Source: http://www.stuntdubl.com/2006/04/06/buying-links/
0 Response to "Try Again Later Ñ‚ãâ²ãâ¸ã‘‡ Ãâºãâ°ã⺠Ãâ¸ã‘âãâ¿ã‘€ãâ°ãâ²ãâ¸ã‘‚ã‘å’"
Publicar un comentario