Where to buy PageRank-passing links

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, co-workers and associates, or anyone else. Specific actions, suggestions, and techniques are not necessarily used by or endorsed by my employer, co-workers and associates, or anyone else.

Note: To the best of my knowledge, none of my personal sites have been adversely affected — as of this writing — by any of Google’s recent changes in policies or index. Nor have any of my client sites been affected by penalties or degradations in Google search results, except as may occur in normal index reorganization.

Why PageRank Now Matters

Google’s distasteful and unethical crusade against the undisclosed buying and selling of links (a perfectly legitimate practice that has been in existence since before Google existed) has brought their most glaring algorithmic vulnerability to the forefront of many SEO discussions.

PageRank has always been absolute nonsense. It has never been a reliable indicator of quality and if Google could really make it work the way they think it should they wouldn’t have to bully and threaten Web sites. Clearly, faux science isn’t all it’s cracked up to be but I don’t expect Google to acknowledge reality any time soon.

Still, up until Google implemented the Supplemental Index Penalty — where high-value, unique content pages with insufficient (internal) PageRank are dumped unceremoniously into a pool whose pages are NOT fully indexed and which are PREVENTED FROM RANKING COMPETITIVELY AGAINST PAGES IN THE MAIN WEB INDEX — there really was no reason to agonize over PageRank.

A lot of clueless people have spent years dithering over the Toolbar PR values that, for several years, have only been updated once every 90 days or so. Until October 2007, there was absolutely no SEO value to be derived from looking at the Toolbar PR data but now Google has given us a solid reason to take the Toolbar PR data seriously.

In fact, Google’s decision to practice Web Apartheid rather than focus on building a quality search engine that shows people what they are looking for is an extremely compelling reason for people to buy links JUST to get PageRank. In the past, you only needed to buy links to get anchor text (although, as I have shown, there are other, more efficient, less costly ways of getting link anchor text).

Now, thanks to Google’s inability to operate a competent search service, many people feel the strong need to buy links just to ensure that their sites are included in the Main Web Index.

Google’s response to the problem it created by allowing links to pass anchor text was to divide the Web into those sites that can pass — and apparently receive — anchor text (the Main Web Index) and those sites that apparently cannot pass or receive anchor text (the Supplemental Results Index).

Google’s response to the problem that their Web Apartheid has created is to implement a totalitarian police state mentality where people are EXPECTED to find and report undisclosed paid links to Google.

Last time I checked, Google did not own the Web and Google still does not have the power to tell me what to do either with my Web sites or with what I know about anyone else’s Web sites. Of course, though Google sends my personal network tens of thousands of visitors every month, I don’t need Google’s traffic, which constitutes only a small percentage of my traffic. I’m not lucky. I planned it that way. Google needs my content more than I need Google’s good will.

In any event, now that Google has begun penalizing sites that it feels are buying or selling links, people who formerly had the courage to stand up to Google’s bullying are now caving in to Google’s apparent efforts to restrain trade (of course, I cannot say that is their intent but it certainly has been the effect of Google’s actions).

When Google uses its visibility to tell visitors that “link-based analysis is an extremely useful way of measuring a site’s value, and has greatly improved the quality of web search” without disclosing that considerable research shows it’s not nearly as cut-and-dried as that, Google creates a false impression that there is no moral or ethical basis for buying or selling undisclosed links.

It is an indisputable fact that the undisclosed buying and selling of links predates Google’s existence. Since undisclosed links were bought and sold in the past without consideration for search engines, there is no moral or ethical bar against the buying and selling of undisclosed links.

Now, Google has the right to do whatever it wants with its index. I have said that for years and I will defend their right to do whatever they please with their index to the uttermost end. However, when Google bullies people to implement nofollows they go too far.

Telling a Webmaster clean up your outbound links OR ELSE is in no way just minding your own index. It’s the kind of behavior that leads people to name-calling, and in this case I’m inclined to believe that it’s misguided name-calling only in that what most people perceive to be Google’s arrogance is more like Google’s incompetence.

After all, Google created the problem. Google and Google alone has the power to fix it.

Of course, Google has made it clear that they won’t stick to any plan they announce: We think any piece of software that allows others to add links to an author’s site (including guestbooks, visitor stats, or referrer lists) can use this attribute. Hm. Was automated software all that Google had in mind back then? Now, anyone who makes the conscience decision to place an advertiser’s link on their site is violating Google’s Dictatorial Laws for the Web.

So you can be sure that every hole in the wall we find and share on SEO blogs and forums will be spackled with the Everexpanding Nofollow Promise. It knows no bounds to its reasonableness since Google obviously feels that we Webmasters are responsible for determining the quality of its index by eliminating the types of links Google doesn’t like. This sort of ethnic link cleansing doesn’t stop until people stand up to it, and quite a few people will undoubtedly have to take some hits from Google before they can be stopped.

So, anyway, here is my first list for

Where to buy PageRank-passing links

Yahoo! – Hey, this is a no-brainer and other people have pointed it out. Since Yahoo! stopped promoting its directory years ago, the directory links are virtually useless to anyone who wants Web traffic but they are still value-passing links that you can buy.

Caveat: Not everyone can get into Yahoo!. Hey, no system is perfect but if you have a spammy travel-oriented affiliate site don’t waste your money on submitting the spammy travel-oriented site. Just create a good, advertising-free, affiliate-link free, order form-free content site that Yahoo! (and other Google-approved paid link directories) will love. Get the listing and then pass the PageRank to your spammy travel-oriented affiliate site through clearly visible, on-topic links THAT YOU DID NOT PAY FOR.

DO NOT REDIRECT THE WEB SITE YOU CREATE FOR YOUR PAID LINKS. That would be stupid. Who in their right mind would want to throw away value created in a second domain by redirecting it to an obviously spammy site?

Disclaimer: Googlers may gag on their coffee when they read this post. So don’t be surprised if they start rushing around the Web warning people not to do this, blah, blah, blah.

On the up side: If your site has been hit with Google’s Supplemental Index Penalty, you have nothing to lose anyway. You can thank Google for putting you into that position. Your content is as important as all the pages on CNN (and most likely more valuable than anything you’ll find on Wikipedia).

Business Directories – You know the sites. Goliath, YellowPages, Thomasnet, etc. Once again you want to create a Web site that is suitable for these types of directories. It has to BE a legitimate business site. Put your Contact Info and About Us pages on there. Tell people who you are and where to contact you. Make sure these business directory guys see value in your site. DO NOT USE NOFOLLOW ON YOUR INTERNAL LINKS.

Once you get the listing, link from your directory-compliant travel business site to your spammy travel-related affiliate site. Or link from you directory-compliant real estate site to your spammy real estate site. Whatever. Since you’re not buying the links you give yourself, you can pass the PageRank any way you want.

Caveat: Loren Baker posted a good list of directories in February 2007, but who knows how long Google will let those sites go unmolested? After all, they are selling PageRank and that’s a BAD THING because Google won’t do the right thing and stop using links to judge Web sites.

Disclaimer: Googlers may gag on their coffee when they read this post. So don’t be surprised if they start rushing around the Web warning people not to do this, blah, blah, blah.

Web-oriented organizations – There are thousands of associations and organizations out there that will provide you with links once you pay their membership fees. Create a Web site that is suitable for these types of organizations and get the PageRank they will pass. Then use your association-compliant real estate site to link to your spammy real estate site. You did not buy or sell any links. You get to do whatever you want on your sites. You’re just linking from relevant content to relevant content. Remember, you want to link from your association-compliant travel site to your spammy travel affiliate site.

Why build multiple sites?

Only Google knows what percentage of the Web is in the Supplemental Results Index. My best guess is that somewhere between 70% and 80% of all Web documents are Supplemental. Of course, some slow-thinkers in the SEO community would have us believe these are all duplicate content pages, unimportant “About Us” pages, useless “Contact Us” pages, etc. In fact, the pages are there simply because they lack PageRank.

But Google isn’t entirely cold-hearted. It is possible to get new Web sites into the Main Web Index without buying links. I do that for clients and myself. The problem is that, without links from other sites in the Main Web Index, most of those shiny new pages will fall out of the Main Web Index. You can forestall the inevitable through good linkage. You can also increase the odds of getting your most-likely-to-convert pages into the Main Web Index by fluffing out the site with a lot of content pages that link to those most-likely-to-convert pages.

But that takes a lot of effort. If you just have a 5-page site that is stuck in the Supplemental Results Penalty Zone, it will be easier for you to create a few other 5-page sites that meet certain expectations and buy the links for those sites so that you can have those sites link to your main site.

In fact, since each standalone site has a chance of obtaining and retaining its own PageRank, you now have a compelling reason to operate multiple Web sites. Thank you, Google, for creating yet one more problem for small Web site operators who don’t have the resources to compete with Wikipedia for your love and respect.

What else can you do?

Believe it or not, there are other things you can do to help clean up this mess.

First and foremost, tell your visitors that Google practices Web Apartheid. Put a logo on your site that says “No to Web Apartheid” and link to a page on your own site that explains what Web Apartheid is and why you oppose it. Just give yourself a little more content and one more linking page.

Secondly, use “rel=’nofollow’” to link to any site that has, for any reason, implemented nofollow on its outbound links. It’s okay to mention and link to those sites, as you can still send them traffic. But let’s put nofollow to proper use. Why should we give PageRank to sites that have caved in to Google’s threats? Those sites are obviously not sharing PageRank freely so why should we?

Thirdly, build your traffic through other sources. Don’t be so dependent upon Google that their rules ruin your life. Google is just a Web site. You can get traffic from other sources. Develop those sources. As long as they impose the Supplemental Results Penalty on undeserving sites, Google isn’t doing anyone any favors.

Other things you can do

Explain to your visitors why you are using “rel=’nofollow’” to sites you no longer trust. Since they won’t share their linkage freely, you’re under no obligation to do so.

Tell your visitors that Google is actively seeking to hide relevant, unique content from them by penalizing pages that don’t have enough links (in Google’s opinion) pointing to them.

Post links on your pages to queries on other search engines to help your visitors find relevant content that Google refuses to show them.

What this is really about

“rel=’nofollow’” was never a real solution to blog comment spam. Many of us saw the idiocy in that basic idea when it was first proposed. Google has long since made it clear that they intend to use “rel=’nofollow’” as a means of policing the Web, and they have absolutely no qualms about threatening people with lost traffic if people don’t step in line and do what Google tells them to do.

When people are afraid to post unfettered links on their sites they have lost their freedom of expression. Google’s reign of terror will only worsen because, frankly, the paid linking organizations are going underground.

Paid links are still around and they are not going away any time soon. Google can hurt hundreds of thousands of Web sites in its rankings but, frankly, it cannot efficiently police the Web. That, of course, is why Google is using terror and threats to coerce and cajole people into implementing Web Apartheid on its behalf.

How Google Can Clean Up Its Mess

Google only needs to do two things to make all these problems it created go away:

Stop allowing links to pass value in its index

Allow Supplemental Results Pages to rank fairly and equally against pages in the Main Web Index

A Simple Explanation Of Links For Googlers

Links are connection points, not opinions.

Links are part of the content. Links are not endorsements.

Links tell people that other Web sites may exist. Links are not reliable indicators of quality, completeness, thoroughness, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness for those possibly existing other sites.

Links should be valued for the traffic they send. Links should not be used to judge Web sites for search, since the vast majority of good, unique content is clearly not being treated fairly in Google’s search results.

Google became big only because other people linked to it transparently, unfettered, and without any knowledge of the fact that Googlers can be a bumbling bunch of buffoons who couldn’t find a quality Web site if their lives depended upon it since they have arbitrarily imposed the Supplemental Results Penalty across the Web.

Google does not have the right, the authority, or the moral cause to dictate to people who they should link to or how they should link out from their sites. And Google clearly does not know enough about the Web to be acting like an authority on how people interlink their Web sites. Apparently, all your data collection and analysis through the years hae been a complete waste of time, effort, and resources on your part.

A final word

We’ll return to our regularly scheduled SEO theory posts tomorrow. But as long as I see a need to help people accumulate PageRank, I will — from time to time — share opinions and information on how to increase your PageRank. I cannot guarantee that Google won’t impose limits to techniques I suggest. After all, the fastest way to ruin a good linking technique is to share it. But maybe now it’s time for us to deliberately ruin as many linking approaches as possible. Google’s link-dependent nonsense is just not doing anyone any good.

And I, for one, don’t hold the opinion that just because people don’t know they’re being screwed is sufficient reason to keep screwing them. Googlers seem to me to feel differently, as witness their attitude about favoring Wikipedia in search results.