Over the past few months, Google has been spreading word of its policy to penalize sites which pay for or sell links. Google software engineer, Matt Cutts, started out with a broad definition of paid links, but has been fine tuning the definition to include paid links in “poor quality” directories and lately links in paid reviews or paid posts. These clarifications by Cutts only serve to highlight a policy that is highly subjective and cannot be uniformly applied. To avoid penalty, sites are now supposed to add a nofollow attribute to links which are paid. The nofollow attribute is a signal to the engines not to pass link credit to the linked page.
Sure some paid links have the intent of influencing the search results. However, there are valid business reasons for companies to put a value on the traffic and influence that they send through a link. Last week, Cutts illustrated Google's policy against paid post links by using a brain tumor search example. Yet, paid links in the healthcare space have a very valid purpose that has nothing to do with influencing search results.
When seeking critical information like health care, it is the job of both Google and the consumer to make sure that the source from which they get their information has third party validation. This means that the site has been "reviewed" by medical professionals, their privacy policies are sound, and that the site operates aboveboard in regards to any advertising content. In fact, WebMD.com displays three accreditation badges in the footer of every page of its massive site from urac, TRUSTe and HON. HON appears to be the only program that does not charge for this review. The WebMD profile page at urac has a link to WebMD that is not using nofollow. WebMD is not using nofollow on the outgoing links which confirm the accreditation.
These paid links make complete sense and serve the consumer. Companies that review healthcare websites have a valid business model and deserve to be paid so they can do a quality job on the review. For as long as I can remember, Google has always preached "think of the user." That's why Cutt's brain tumor example doesn't work for me. Accredited healthcare sites provide a better user experience. Does the consumer care if the health site paid for the review or used nofollow?
Outside of the seriousness of brain tumors, paid links can play a valid role in all industries. And that’s the problem. Google cannot define bad paid links in black and white. A policy with this much gray can’t be followed by even the most rule-abiding webmaster. Outside of the SEO community, I doubt many website owners are even aware of the policy. In fact, it's so hard to enforce and detect paid links that Google has coerced the webmaster community to self report via nofollow. The rule followers will fall in line -- losing visibility and more control to Google. The rebels will roll up their sleeves for a workaround and continue business as usual.
Comments