Yahoo's Zawodny Sells Text Links

[rustybrick]

WebGuerrilla has the scope that Zawodny Says No to Link Condoms (http://www.webguerrilla.com/linking/jeremy-zawodny-link-condoms/).

If you go to the well known blogger and Yahoo! employee's blog, http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/ - you will see "sponsored links" in place of his Google AdSense.

WebGuerrilla notes that this can be a major set back for Matt Cutts, of Google, war on link selling.

There goes Yahoo! and Google working together on the nofollow tag and link spam war. :)

[toprank]

I noticed that on DaveN's (http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/archives/2005/12/12/evil-zawodny/) blog today. Here's a question: Which way will Scoble go? Or does that even matter?

[rustybrick]

Doubt it makes much of a statement if Scoble does anything. Zawodny is part of the search team at Yahoo. That says something, no?

[NevDull]

Zawodny also has Google Analytics on his blog. Is the information more valuable to Google than the problem of bought links?

[Phoenix]

Well I guess Zawodny owns his own blog right? So Yahoo has little say in terms of what he does to monetize the site. He does have Google Adsense on certain sections of the site so... this seems like the most logical step people take these days. Adsense -> Sponsored Ads -> Presell Pages

[rustybrick]

Its his own personal blog. But we all know why people read it.

[rustybrick]

Jeremy's response... http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/005874.html

I didn't hide the links. (Remember the WordPress fiasco?)
They're clearly labeled as sponsored links.
They're far less annoying than distracting graphical ads.
I've made it possible for anyone to comment on them. In public. Who else does that?
They don't show up in my RSS feed(s).
I rejected the on-line casino, drug sales, cheap hotels, and really offensive stuff--basically, anything the reminded me of blog comment spam I've bit hit with or that sends me to a sleazy feeling site. No need to encourage 'em.
The links aren't permanent. They go away after a month (see below).

[GuyFromChicago]

I've seen where Yahoo has bought links before too. As an outsider looking in I always get the impression that Yahoo, as a company, seems to have no problem what-so-ever with buying/selling links.

[rustybrick]

And Matt's response to Jeremy : )

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/text-link-follow-up/

[toprank]

There's a good point in the comments of Matt's post:

How does selling links harm the web user any more than selling graphical ads does?

Also Matt seems to say that if you link to someone who happens to link to a spammy site, then that's an issue for you?

It gets more and more interesting.

[rustybrick]

Also Matt seems to say that if you link to someone who happens to link to a spammy site, then that's an issue for you?

It gets more and more interesting.
He does imply that, I wonder if he meant to come across that way or not.

A link to a link to a link can hurt you. :rolleyes:

[Bruno]

Well are they really sure that they can find which links are purchesed? What if they are wrong? Im sure there is some bugs in algoritam and some sites will lose serps for nothing.

[Cameron Olthuis]

I've seen where Yahoo has bought links before too. As an outsider looking in I always get the impression that Yahoo, as a company, seems to have no problem what-so-ever with buying/selling links.

And they shouldn't, as long as the link wasn't bought for the purpose of better rankings. But how can they tell? How can anyone tell? I don't think there's really is a way is there? You can always deny the true reason.

Penalizing for purchasing links is stupid. Some people just want to purchase links to bring in traffic, not boost their rankings. I understand this is why one would use the "link condom" but it's just doesn't make sense.

Not boosting rankings is one thing, penalizing is another.