Comments on: Oh Geesh, So You Think You’ll Win TLA? http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/ Carl Ocab Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:20:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Property Pundit http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6732 The Property Pundit Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:29:05 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6732 Haha- great post Carl. Nice job setting him up! Haha- great post Carl. Nice job setting him up!

]]> By: John http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6558 John Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:48:38 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6558 Under the "Google Police" concept, we are trusting a large corporation to provide a neutral internet search experience. The problem is they have a vested interest, because they are advertisers in ensuring that they rules are skewed in their favor. If you want a good system, you don't have the police making the laws they are going to enforce and that's exactly was google is doing. Even though google uses javascript for their ads, did you ever check to see the html it throws off? I notice that for Google Ads.... it doesn't include a "nofollow" tag. It would seem that what's good for one should be good for the other regardless of form. If the principal is paid advertising should have a "nofollow" then google should generate "nofollow" on their advertising. Otherwise, google's argument rings false about delineating the difference between "paid" links and natural links. One last thing, the bad guys like the spammers and hackers will never be really be impacted by google because they don't do business in the light of day. Just like most laws, policies and regulations.... they mostly impact the law abiding population.. in this case, websites that actually try to do things right. Under the “Google Police” concept, we are trusting a large corporation to provide a neutral internet search experience. The problem is they have a vested interest, because they are advertisers in ensuring that they rules are skewed in their favor. If you want a good system, you don’t have the police making the laws they are going to enforce and that’s exactly was google is doing.

Even though google uses javascript for their ads, did you ever check to see the html it throws off? I notice that for Google Ads…. it doesn’t include a “nofollow” tag. It would seem that what’s good for one should be good for the other regardless of form. If the principal is paid advertising should have a “nofollow” then google should generate “nofollow” on their advertising. Otherwise, google’s argument rings false about delineating the difference between “paid” links and natural links.

One last thing, the bad guys like the spammers and hackers will never be really be impacted by google because they don’t do business in the light of day. Just like most laws, policies and regulations…. they mostly impact the law abiding population.. in this case, websites that actually try to do things right.

]]> By: ny seo http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6374 ny seo Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:01:36 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6374 I am glad they are standing their ground although it might be detrimental to their bottom line. And I have been cutting back on the many paid links I had with them for the past 6 months or so. Now I am at zero, but they sent me & my clients an enormous amount of link juice. I am sad to see them go, but there are alternatives... textlinkbrokers dot com (who hides urls) I hope TLA's new products can balance off the losses. And the "google police" better be causing this much turmoil with sites that actually pollute the search results, and spammers, and hackers and botnets.... they are like Bush on a wild goose chase... retards I am glad they are standing their ground although it might be detrimental to their bottom line.

And I have been cutting back on the many paid links I had with them for the past 6 months or so. Now I am at zero, but they sent me & my clients an enormous amount of link juice. I am sad to see them go, but there are alternatives… textlinkbrokers dot com (who hides urls)

I hope TLA’s new products can balance off the losses.

And the “google police” better be causing this much turmoil with sites that actually pollute the search results, and spammers, and hackers and botnets….

they are like Bush on a wild goose chase… retards

]]> By: Michael VanDeMar http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6296 Michael VanDeMar Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:25:47 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6296 No, nor should you. It is fair compensation for someone offering you their time and effort to provide them a clean link back to their website. If you trust their content on your site, then you should trust it on their own site as well. The problem with the line of bs that Google is trying to get people to buy is that they themselves stated, at the inception of the whole nofollow introduction, is that the attribute was a way to protect you from linking to bad neighborhoods that you couldn't vouch for, in situations <i>where you had no editorial control</i>. It was a measure to control comment spam, nothing more. By penalizing people for selling TLA's, Google is in effect trying to say that webmasters no longer have the ability to choose who they link out to, that the entire internet is populated by people who will link to anyone for a buck. This just isn't true, and it is in no way, shape, or form Google's job to make that assertion. Patrick is dead on in holding his ground on this one. No, nor should you. It is fair compensation for someone offering you their time and effort to provide them a clean link back to their website. If you trust their content on your site, then you should trust it on their own site as well.

The problem with the line of bs that Google is trying to get people to buy is that they themselves stated, at the inception of the whole nofollow introduction, is that the attribute was a way to protect you from linking to bad neighborhoods that you couldn’t vouch for, in situations where you had no editorial control. It was a measure to control comment spam, nothing more.

By penalizing people for selling TLA’s, Google is in effect trying to say that webmasters no longer have the ability to choose who they link out to, that the entire internet is populated by people who will link to anyone for a buck. This just isn’t true, and it is in no way, shape, or form Google’s job to make that assertion.

Patrick is dead on in holding his ground on this one.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6284 Sebastian Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:03:45 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6284 I was under the impression that TLA applies nofollow on request. I was under the impression that TLA applies nofollow on request.

]]> By: Joshua cyr http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6273 Joshua cyr Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:37:47 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6273 I had a similar phone chat and email exchange with them. Nowhere in their terms and agreements does it require the nofollow, though they do verbally require it. If you do cancel, be careful. When I told them I needed to cancel they shut down my account and I didn't get paid for the month of ads shown. http://www.usefulconcept.com/index.cfm/2007/10/17/Canceling-Text-Link-Ads I had a similar phone chat and email exchange with them. Nowhere in their terms and agreements does it require the nofollow, though they do verbally require it. If you do cancel, be careful. When I told them I needed to cancel they shut down my account and I didn’t get paid for the month of ads shown.

http://www.usefulconcept.com/index.cfm/2007/10/17/Canceling-Text-Link-Ads

]]> By: Keith Dsouza http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6210 Keith Dsouza Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:13:58 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6210 Funny exchange, TLA are losing their customers and their heads too :grin: Funny exchange, TLA are losing their customers and their heads too :grin:

]]> By: Manuel Viloria http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6190 Manuel Viloria Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:39:54 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6190 Since the link to the guest blogger's site is a straight or natural link, and since the link is some kind of favor in exchange for the guest post, will Google see the link as a manipulation of pagerank? For example, if the guest blogger did not make the post, would you still put a straight link to their site? Since the link to the guest blogger’s site is a straight or natural link, and since the link is some kind of favor in exchange for the guest post, will Google see the link as a manipulation of pagerank?

For example, if the guest blogger did not make the post, would you still put a straight link to their site?

]]> By: Carl http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6146 Carl Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:43 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6146 ... and get banned for link buying? :razz: … and get banned for link buying? :razz:

]]> By: Carl http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6145 Carl Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:21:37 +0000 http://www.carlocab.com/oh-geesh-so-you-think-youll-win-tla/#comment-6145 Of course not, I don't put nofollows on posts. Of course not, I don’t put nofollows on posts.

]]>