Michael: I am a long-time advocate for allowing Web sites to link freely to each other for whatever reasons they please.

Google is simply out of line and being totally unethical in its promotion of its standards. Wish I had more time to reply but I have to go.

I do have to disagree with your point of veiw in regards to link exchange. As Adam points out on his post :

“… However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site’s ranking in search results. ”

What I get from this is that if you build link exchange “ONLY” for the sake of getting a good page rank without thinking about the quality and relevance of the content to which you are linknig or getting back link then you will be banned, which I compeletely agree with it.

However if you have link echange page and do consider the quality and relevance of the content to which you are linking or getting a back link then you should not worry about it.

Adam, please correct me if my findings are incorrect.

As an example, I have a palce for link exchange in my portfolio located at

cssfreelancer.awardspace.com

Even though I am not yet linking to anybody in this area but google did not ban me because of the link exchange area that I have specified for link exchange purposes.

However in terms of fighting with web spam, I agree with you and I am sure that google’s policy needs to be revised because they do not necessarily fight with spam efficiently even though my previous site was subject to spam and they did an excellent job fighting with it.

As an example again my portfolio located at the above URL is currently subject to spam by a spammer who created a duplicate of my site and as a result google banned my site in the above URL on Dec 3,07.

This is just obsurd how a quality guideline can open the door for spammers to attack legitimate web sites and use google as a tool for their purposes just because they do not want a web site to exist for whatever reason.

I did report it to google and they did reply to me in a reasonable period of time to fill out the DMCA (DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT) form and fax it to them in order to remove the spammer URLs from search results.

I did reply back to them asking for removing the ban from my site while i do take the appropriate action however they did reply to me and stated they cannot be of any help in this regard!! and that I need to consult the webmaster guildeline and help section of google for more info and that I need to post a message in google groups to get help.

Actually I had psoted a message before they ask me to , however so far no body from google has answered my question.
You might be interested in my thread which the URL is:

http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/b9493f08024daaac#c7ee793c4a1baaed

Btw I already have a yahoo toolbar in my browser ,which is obviously Opera – Cut out the hype and check the reality, FF sucks – that is why it needs Google to promote it, and so is google Search becoming irrelevant day by day. As I say this I have already made four entries into google first page in last one month because what google is encouraging is article spamming. So fill your pages high density of keywords, keyword spamming is good as long as you keep the percentage right and get a few articles to point at it.

And google has failed to mention as to what about those sites which already have acquired high pr based on those link exchanges that google is now frowning at. This statement from google should be read as a statement to mark the doors closed for new websites to acquire high pr. If they really wanted to give away all those web exchanges they should first get rid of PR or atleast stop paying weightage to it. Even a third grade article gets to top position if the home page has a high relevant PR, while your best of article may not be able to do that if you don’t have a good PR. Not to talk of supplementary pages, they are a night mare.

I think all google is trying to do is to BOOST ITS ADWORDS SALE. They are closing in the doors for legitimate SEO processes or search engine promotions to leave adwords as the only option for new websites. Please note that articles that point to your site normally come along with adwords, double benefit for Google. It is simple as that and if google can read this then Google should understand that its equally easy for other people to see these kind of cheap marketing tactics being employed b you. Its only a matter of time before people will start pushing their websites onto other search engines and they will start showing better results.

I know management companies and boards like Google has now will still bet on the time it will take but then that is the reason why all tech companies start seeing a decline after ten years or so. Check out for apple, microsoft, yahoo or any company out there. The moment you start dictating your users, its time for others to understand that your journey downhill has begin.

Your complaints against me are completely without merit (and quite false with respect to saying that I am being misleading). The many people who have found their Web sites lost in the Supplemental Results Index have been pleading with Google to relent for more than a year.

I don’t question Google’s motives. Just the irresponsible tactics your employer uses to drag Webmasters into the effort to manage Google’s index.

Let me know when Google decides to really fight Web spam by stripping ALL sites of the ability to pass anchor text. That is the worst possible measure of relevance anyone could have come up with.

1) You can Just Say No to misleading and link-bait-style headlines.

2) You can speak out when bloggers use words like “segretation” and “apartheid” (one of your current favorites) and “holocaust” / “Nazis” (which I’ve also seen) to refer to Web policies, cheapening the terms which more responsibly refer to the brutal repression and/or torture of people (not search rankings).

3) You can call out bloggers when they persistently exaggerate at levels which call into question their biases, dedication to accuracy, and truthfulness. For instance: “After all, most Web content is now in Google’s hidden Supplemental Results Index anyway.” Blogger, meet boy who cried wolf.

* * *

Like other Googlers, I welcome and encourage feedback… heartfelt, blunt, and thoughtful feedback. But angry clicks, petulant no-follows, and, quite frankly, unbecoming temper tantrums do nothing to help Google help webmasters… or help webmasters help themselves.

* * *

Michael, I’ve sat back while you’ve posted misleading and inflammatory comments, but I felt compelled to speak out at this point. Our supplemental index was created to offer greater inclusion of web pages — pages we wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to crawl, index, and serve — and we continue to increase the percentage of queries showing supplemental results.

With regards to reciprocal linking, you also choose to ignore the rather clear statement prefacing the list (emphasis mine):

Your site’s ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to you. The quantity, quality, and relevance of links count towards your rating. The sites that link to you can provide context about the subject matter of your site, and can indicate its quality and popularity. However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site’s ranking in search results. Examples of link schemes can include: [...]

I’m sorry you question the motives of our Webmaster Central and Search Quality teams. But I urge you to at least get your facts right… and include appropriate context before urging boycotts.