|
Welll.... can't say I don't have a sense of humor!
Just kidding folks! I just think that the whole profiling thing is a joke! If you didn't
think that has gone on since day 1 then you've been drinking from the cooler
on the GooglePlex marked "Purple Koolaid For SEO's Only!"
|
Today I read with delight that the nofollow attribute of the href element has been added to HTML 5! Something I was adamant about from the day it was proposed by the Search Engines. Search engines shouldn't be telling webmasters/SEOs how to use HTML attributes. This means that Google's guidelines now conflict, to some degree, with the future HTML standard since they only seem to be talking about "paid" links which is just vague enough as to be less than useful to figure it out. IMO, like the paid blogging fiasco whom you have to wonder how could they be so F'in dumb as to think the FTC doesn't step in. They are all a bunch of johnny come lately's who don't understand this shit runs on protocols and standards not search engine guidelines and edicts from the spam crusaders... been there and done that... "I'm the original" and got the lonely guy Tshirt to prove it!
What are link relations?
Regular links (<a href>) simply point to another page. Link relations are a way to explain why you're pointing to another page. They finish the sentence "I'm pointing to this other page because..."
Bold is my emphasis. Quote from The Road To HTML 5 Link Relations by Mark Pilgrim, Google
This should clean up any doubts as to what should be viewed as a "paid" in the Google Guidelines. It is now up to the webmaster to decide what their intent is not the Google guidelines. Google may choose to interpret and take any action they want to if that is what they deem necessary to protect the integrity of their resource (that is always the elephant in the room), however, that shouldn't include the Google bottom line which in these matters is the elephant in the other corner.
"indicates that the link is not endorsed by the original author or publisher of the page, or that the link to the referenced document was included primarily because of a commercial relationship between people affiliated with the two pages." Bold and red is my emphasis. Quote from whatwg.org
The above quote provides a webmaster with the means to indicate transparent intent of the link because that is what the rel attribute is supposed to do for Search Engines. It could become the law if the FTC who, IMO, could use this to indicate commercial endorsements much like financial analysts disclose their personal and company holdings or that their firm provides services to the company. This could be done by using the page properties function in the browser.
A Not For Profit Organization with commercial relationships may not be "affiiliated people" and the transaction may not be the primary reason for the link. For instance a SEO directory should use nofollow if it's all about advertising and the relationship is all about commercial endeavor of one or the other parties. However, even an Organization that doesn't vetted the members should consider nofollow otherwise they could be seen to be endorsing the landing location/page and definitely the person adding the is. Whereas SeoPros through adoption of the OSEOP mandate has a mandate that states first and foremost we're there for consumers. Since the review for the directory is not based on a commercial transaction but rather the Members suitability or a "bonafide endorsement" the $25 review fee isn't the primary concern.
The picture at right was taken a looooong time ago and actually appeared on the front page of my local newspaper in St. Thomas Ontario. Back in those days I was young and innocent with a dream to pull the magnificent blue and white of the Maple Leafs over my head! Much like this picture the indusrtry I've worked in for the last 15 years has a reputation that is weathered and worn. How could this happen so quickly even telemarketing didn't take it on the chin this fast!
Simple... opaque billing so there is no way to distinguish a $300 service from a $3000 service. No bar for professionalism in fact you could say the industry has no interest in setting a bar for professionalism, best practices or business ethics. Nowhere to complain or alert the rest of the public to the snakeoil salesman among us. In fact if you "out" you are villified often with no reason other than you outed a shady service.
Think about it if your telephone company sent you a bill each month with no documentation of the calls would you pay it? Sure but you would also be suspicious of it. Why should SEO be any different? Other than myself I have never encountered another comapny that fully documented what they do with a cost for each task. My clients love it they know what I'm doing, they get all the data and they know exactly what they are paying for. Should a client accept any less from an SEO then they would from a phone company?
I have been around this and can easily say I've almost seen it all from Galaxy to Google and back! I hate to think that this magnificent ride we've been on could be halted by something as stupid as billing and... as we say in Canada... a bunch of hosers who'd likely sell their mother down on the corner for a few easy dollars!