Posted by randfishMy post yesterdaycaused a bit of confusion about internal linking practices and I figured it would be wise to clear it up with a handy visual representation.In the example above, we have a website that wants to build search-targeted pages for 4 unique keyword terms:Wind Wind Power Wind Energy Wind Turbines In order to effectively communicate to the engines (and to users) which page is targeting each particular keyword, I've used anchor text from the generic "wind" page to each of the more specific subpages and, likewise, linked back to the generic "wind" page from those subpages with the singular anchor text phrase "wind."Why is this necessary? Shouldn't the engines be able to "figure it out" on their own, especially since those pages target the keywords by using them in the title tag, URL, headline, etc.? Well... Yes. They probably SHOULD be able to sort it out. However, we've seen a lot of instances where that's not the case, and it has detrimental results. The problem generally isn't that you can't rank the page at all - it's that the wrong pages rank for the wrong search terms, leaving users less than fully satisfied.Just imagine - you've searched for "wind power," but instead you get a general page about wind. You might be willing to read the piece and see if there's specific information about your intended query, but you might just as likely go back to the results and choose another sites. Even worse, sometimes the listing in the SERPs will dissuade the searcher from ever choosing your page, even if you rank very highly.The solution above tends to work particularly well in our experience. It's also a great way to get the "broken-out" results for both the general and specific queries. For an example of a site doing a great job with this strategy, you need look no further than the ever dominant Wikipedia:Google search results for "Wind"I'm never a fan of creating two pages with exactly the same keyword as the targeted term/phrase. Even if you can earn the coveted first two spots, my opinion is that you'll do far better by having the broken out result something more specific - you may even catch the searcher's intent before they re-try their search (or interest them in something they didn't realize they wanted).Does anyone use this strategy? Are there others that you like better when targeting generic and more specific variations of a keyword?BTW - If you read just one great post on SEO this week, make it Vanessa's 301 Sword of Link Power- any SEO post with a Highlander reference has got to be worth a read. And yes, I know it's faulty logic to put that at the end of a post about SEO, but I'm feeling whimsical this evening. :)Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by FluxxThis week, Rand talks about moving websites.  Aside from the usual 301'ing of URLs, there are a few more steps one should take to make sure that all of their SEO efforts aren't lost when the move is made.Video notes and extrasMy Whiteboard Friday on 301'ingStill picture of the white boardDo you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by randfishTomorrow morning starts my 8 hours of presenting for our first SEOmoz training seminar. As such, I have very limited time for blogging tonight, but I wanted to share this hard-to-believe piece of data:According to Compete.com(who buys their data from ISPs and has some "proprietary" methods of traffic monitoring as well), Yahoo! is the most successful engine at getting users to "click" a result. This would suggest that Yahoo!'s customer satisfaction rate with their results may actually be the highest and that Yahoo! is doing the best job of the three major engines in turning searchers into site visitors. Check out what else they have to say:...Lower search fulfillment numbers mean that on a percentage basis fewer search queries on that engine resulted in the searcher clicking on a result link. So from this perspective one might consider Yahoo! more effective at getting consumers the results they want....This data actually matches somewhat with reports that Yahoo! traffic is higher converting higher than Google (source: WebSideStory), though MSN supposedly has the highest conversion rate. Yahoo! also supposedly does the best job of keeping traffic on their domain - forwarding search referrals to Yahoo! properties like News, Sports, Entertainment, Answers, etc. - perhaps there's a correlation.I don't have a good answer here, and I can't say for certain if the research is accurate, but it certainly would be interesting to see whether Yahoo! users actually feel more satisfied with their results. As we've often seen - just because a product is better at satisfying the customer doesn't mean the customer feelsmore satisfied with that brand. Perhaps that is the non-Googlers' biggest hurdle to overcome.Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by rebeccaThe other night I was watching Knocked Up, and in the movie there are a few references to "Googling" something. For example, in one scene the older daughter is riding in a car and casually says "I Googled murder," while in another scene Leslie Mann's character asks Paul Rudd to "Google" their daughter's symptoms to determine whether she has the chicken pox or a rash. I also recently saw The Bourne Ultimatum, and in one scene Jason Bourne uses Google to search for an agent's name, and later on there is a car chase where the guys in one car are using Google Maps on their dashboard navigation system.If you haven't seen these movies, I'm sure you nonetheless can think of some examples of Google being the search engine of choice in a movie. While my first example could be chalked up to "Google" being used as a verb to signify searching for information on the web (like saying "Do you have a Kleenex?" when you just want a tissue, regardless of the brand), the Bourne Ultimatum actually shows characters specifically using Google products. Either way, Google is clearly the dominant search engine in movies today. How many films have you seen where a character is searching for something using Yahoo or MSN (I won't even bring up Ask)? Google's domination got me wondering whether the screenwriters are just defaulting to Google or whether it's deliberate product placement. Whatever the reason, what's to stop Yahoo or MSN from increasing awareness and brand salience by "advertising" in movies? Is it possible for them to arrange some product placement? Why not have Kate Hudson perform a search on Yahoo in her next romantic comedy? Jason Lee can look for something on MSN in the upcoming (shudder) Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. Or, they could go the "blatant movie tie-in" route a la AOL in You've Got Mail or Fed Ex in Castaway (hmmm, both Tom Hanks movies...might be a good idea to contact him, Yahoo and MSN). Another thing Yahoo or MSN could do is tie into movie promotions. Remember that "Google Pontiac" commercial? What if a preview for a typical action-adventure movie urged viewers to "Go to Yahoo and search for [insert keyword here]," and when they do they're taken to a cool page (something along the lines of the Lost viral content). I think there are several possibilities and options for the #2 and 3 search engines to increase their visibility to the moviegoing audience. What do you all think? Do you ever notice Google's repeated presence in films? Can Yahoo and MSN do something to change that, even a little?Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by randfishToday we wrapped up our first ever SEOmoz training seminar - covering topics from keyword research to technical issues to search algorithms and social media. Despite the 7 straight hours of speaking on stage, I feel pretty good - the people in attendance appeared to have a terrific time and our after-hours party was still going strong when I left an hour ago.One of the most frequently asked questions during the seminar was around building microsites or leveraging microsite strategiesfor SEO. I know that Stephan Spencer has written about the pros and cons of Microsites on SearchEngineLand, but tonight I wanted to briefly cover why I personally believe that microsites (or any secondary sites for that matter) are almost universally a mistake.Search Algorithms Favor Large Authoritative DomainsTake a piece of great content about a topic and toss it onto a small, Mom+Pop website - point some external links to it, optimize the page and the site for the target terms and get it indexed. Now, take that exact same content and place it on Wikipedia or CNN.com or even SEOmoz - you're virtually guaranteed that the content on the large, authoritative domain will outrank the content on the small niche site. The engines' current algos favor sites that have built trust and authority, consistency and history. Multiple Sites Split the Benefits of LinksI often use the following illustration to show how a single good link pointing to a page on a domain positively influences the entire domain and every page on it:Because of this phenomenon, it's much more valuable to have any link you can possibly get pointing to the same domain to help boost the rank and value of the pages on it. Having content or keyword-targeted pages on other domains that don't benefit from the links you earn to your primary domain only creates more work. 100 Links to Domain A ≠ 100 Links to Domain B + 1 Link to Domain A (from Domain B)In the diagram above, you can see my take on how earning lots of links to page "G" on a separate domain is far less valuable than earning those same links to a page on the primary domain. Due to this phenomenon, even if you interlink all of the microsites or multiple domains you build, it still won't be close to the value you can get from those links if they were to point directly to the primary domain.A Large, Authoritative Domain Can Host A Huge Variety of ContentNiche websites frequently limit the variety of their discourse and content matter, while broader sites can target a wider range of focii. This is valuable not just for targeting the long tail of search and increasing potential branding and reach, but also for viral content, where a broader focus is much less limiting than that of a niche focus.Time & Energy Is Better Spent on a Single PropertyIf you're going to pour your heart and soul into webdev, design, usability, user experience, site architecture, SEO, public relations, branding, etc. you're going to want the biggest bang for your buck. Splitting your attention, time and resources on multiple domains dilutes that value and doesn't let the natural order of building on your past successes on a single domain help you out.So when do I suggest using niche sites or microsites?When you own a specific keyword search query domain - e.g. if you own "usedtoyotatrucks.com," you might do very well to pull in search traffic for the specific term "used toyota trucks" with a microsite. When you plan to sell the domains - it's very hard to sell a folder or even a subdomain, so this strategy is understandable if you're planning to churn the domains in the second-hand market.As Ciaranpointed out in the comments, if you're a major brand building a "secret" or buzz-worthy microsite, it can be useful to use a separate domain (however, you really should 301 them back to your main site after the campaign is over so the link juice continues to provide long term benefit - just as the mindshare and branding do in the offline world).I know there are others in the search marketing and Internet marketing fields who feel very differently, and that's great, but my personal experience has led me to believe that sticking with one domain (or, if you have 50 domains, 301'ing them all to your favorite) is a better move in the long run.What do you think? Do you ever run multiple domains in the same sector? How have you seen that strategy benefit your overall reach, income, success?Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by CredoPaulINTRO from Rand: Paulwas the winner of our Landing Page Competitionand authored a post last weekon his personal style.This blog post is going to take on a very simple format:  first of all I’m going to present my landing pageas a “good cop persuader” and refer to the work of Gerry Spence.  Then, I’m going to present my landing page as more of a “bad cop salesman” and refer to the work of Dr Robert Cialdini.  I’d love to give you more, and I had lofty ambitions for this post, but that’s all I’ve got space for.Caution:I have to say, Spence and Cialdini are not in the mould of Bryan Eisenberg(a true online conversion expert, and author of “Call to Action”), in fact, I would be willing to bet neither Spence nor Cialdini have ever heard of the term “landing page” before in their lives… but, then again, neither had I until recently… so let’s just go for it!Here are the two books I’ll refer you to:How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence (ISBN-13: 978-0312144777).  Gerry Spence is often referred to as “America’s finest trial lawyer”.Influence: The Psychology of Persuasionby Dr Robert Cialdini (ISBN-13: 78-0688128166).  Described by the Journal of Marketing as “one of the most important books ever written for marketers."You’ll learn a lot more about selling/psychology/influence from the two books I've mentioned above than you will from me in this blog post.  However, in the spirit of the SEOmoz full disclosurepolicy, I am happy to answer any questions you post in this thread fully, honestly, and in line with what I have learned studying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of scientifically tested direct response results (offline results).  Please consider nothing to be off-limits, and after we are done I will vanish into the night together with my silly little theories and ideas - deal?You are very welcome to pay me a visit over on my own blogif you want to check out my latest meanderings, and I’ll certainly still be lurking around here at SEOmoz.First: Introducing “How to Argue and Win Every Time” by Gerry SpenceI argue that the powerful argument comes not from disavowing our divine uniqueness in favour of someone else’s style, or values, but from tapping into the wondrous well of our own personhood.  We do not fail to make a persuasive argument because we lack electric genius or lightning wit, we do not fail because we possess but a sparse fund of words, we fail to make the successful argument because we have fixed certain locks to ourselves, locks that imprison our arguments, locks that bar us from assuming a successful stance or from adopting a winning method. -- Gerry Spence So, what represents the divine uniqueness of SEOmoz?  I would argue that it is the story of the “Linkerati,”as found in the SEOmoz blog archive.  As I read the series of articles rand wrote on the “Linkerati,” a little siren went off in my head… and I knew these articles would arouse what I will call the “let’s go!” feeling within a small section of the target market.  I’ll concede to you that my exquisitely sensitive emotional antenna wasn’t really tested during the process of identifying these articles on the subject of the “Linkerati”, because for a long time they were among the most popular on the SEOmoz blog (as measured by number of thumbs up).  So, I’ll just have to ask you to take my word for the fact that I would still have “felt the force” even if it weren't for all of the thumbs up.  This work on the “Linkerati” was clearly written from the heart and based entirely on what I perceive to be the core beliefs of SEOmoz as an organisation.  What I’m saying to you here is that the Linkerati story “persuades” people in a way that is entirely moral, ethical, and truthful.  In other words, by putting the story of the “Linkerati” front and centre in my landing page I helped to free SEOmoz from their own “locks,” as Gerry Spence would put it.  I just helped SEOmoz say what they had to say.Yes, I realize that to all of you “old pros” out there the story of the “Linkerati” is all a bit ho-hum and “heard it all before”.  However, as I mentioned in the last post, my landing page was targeted to those who fall into the category of “newcomers” to the SEOmoz community; and to them the story is hotstuff.Finally, because the core message (the “big idea”) of my landing page is entirely in alignment with what I perceive to be the core beliefs of SEOmoz, I think this should help to silence a lot of questions about the intelligence level of people signing up to the premium membership packagefrom my sales letter.  I’d love to talk with you more about switching off the “oh yuck” reaction in people (people like me, for example) who generally don’t buy from sales letters… but I simply don’t have space to do so in this post.  The cat & mouse game I’m referring to has been going on for more than 100 years, though - Robert Collier wrote briefly about the “dying sales letter” a century ago.   The sales letter is always dying in one form or another, but just remember the nature of human psychology hasn’t changed much since the beginning of time and it won’t change much in the future, either.  OK, I’m tired of being a good guy; let us move swiftly on to Cialdini.Second, Introducing Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, by Dr Robert CialdiniAlthough there are thousands of different tactics that compliance practitioners employ to produce "yes," the majority fall within six basic categories: the principles of consistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity (not included among these 6 principles the simple rule of material self interest) -- CialdiniCialdini examines the ability of each of these tools to create a kind of automatic, mindless compliance that makes people say "yes" without thinking first.  Consider: as human beings we don't have time to critically analyze every new situation, person, or choice we are faced with on a daily basis.  We have to take some “autopilot” decisions and focus only on a few normally reliable features of the “whole,” during our decision making processes.  A quick example: if a policeman knocks on your door, flashes you a badge, and asks to come in to your house so he can ask you a few questions about an “incident” across the street, few would hesitate to comply.  Not many of us would ask him to wait at the door as we call his station, check his badge number, and so on.  Criminals frequently exploit this fact to do people harm.  Another example of a shortcut response: expensive products = high quality products. The reason why we trust our shortcut responses so much is because they are extremely accurate, dependable, and helpful.  In fact, we'd all be completely lost without them - stuck in a state of "paralysis by analysis," if you like.  The following point is critical: The proper targets for counter aggression are only those individuals who falsify, counterfeit, or misrepresent the evidence that naturally cues our shortcut responses. -- CialdiniReciprocationThe rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.  We are obligated to the future repayment of gifts, favours and the like.  There is no human society that does not subscribe to the rule.  We are human because our ancestors learned to share their food in an honoured network of obligation. -- CialdiniMy landing page gives people the story of the Linkerati.  This story of the Linkerati is nothing new to all of you SEO veterans out there.  However, to people outside the SEOmoz community it's news, and a very fun, interesting and educational read.  Bottom line: my landing page induces a desire to reciprocate in those readers for whom the story of the Linkerati is fresh.  Social ProofAs a rule, we will make fewer mistakes by acting in accord with social evidence than contrary to it. -- CialdiniThe use of testimonials is classic social proof in selling.  The reason why I didn't use testimonials in my copy was because I didn't feel the testimonials on file offered general appeal; they sounded "too far up the ladder of abstraction" for my liking.  However, it was a weakness on my part not to weave in some relevant testimonials throughout the copy.  Question: are there other ways to "trigger" social proof besides testimonials? Yes, the idea is basically "monkey see, monkey do".LikingWe like people who are similar to us.  This fact seems to hold true whether the similarity is in the area of opinions, personality traits, background or life-style.  Consequently, those who wish to be liked in order to increase our compliance can accomplish that purpose by appearing similar to us in any of a wide variety of ways. -- CialdiniWonder no longer why my landing page uses a "just you and me talking" tone of voice.  To paraphrase SEOmoz member Mike Tekula, who put it so eloquently, "The writing style is less about presenting a product or service and more about you sitting down with Paul (Rand) and having him explain a few things to you."  I'd also include here under “liking” the picture of Rand and the SEOmoz team.  This increases likeability by helping to humanize the selling effort - we think we are far less likely to be ripped off / get a raw deal if the guy selling to us is willing to show his face (and the face of his team).AuthorityIt is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study -- CialdiniLogos for The Washington Post, USA Today, Newsweek, and so on... all demonstrate or imply authority.  Selling Rand as a consultant to Fortune 500 companies on a minimum retainer of $10,000 per month?  That is authority building, too.  By the way, building Rand up as a $10,000 per month minimum consultant is also an illustration of what is known as the "contrast principle".  This makes the required investment of $399 seem small when compared to what others have paid for access to the same/similar information.Commitment and ConsistencyThe tactic of starting with a little request in order to gain eventual compliance with related larger requests has a name: the foot-in-the-door technique.  Subjects had innocently complied with a trivial request a couple of weeks before, and these people became remarkably willing to comply with another such request that was massive in size. -- CialdiniLibraries could be written on this subject, because the power of commitment and consistency is mind blowing.  Some say (Robbins, for instance) that commitments are the basis of all selling, and I would tend to agree.  All I'm going to do here is explain a seeming discrepancy in the data of the landing page results: Carlos's landing pagehad an opt in rate of 12.5%, which was much higher than mine, yet his overall conversion rate was lower.  Now, obviously people who read a few dozen pages of copy are much more committed to buying than people who simply look at a table.  What makes this more interesting, in my opinion, is the fact that… for “raw” traffic not logged into an SEOmoz account… my landing page redirected people to an “error” page (my fault).  Understand this: when the WANT within someone is stirred up, you would be amazed at how tolerant/savvy they will become in order to fulfil their desires.   By all logic, this error page should have been a conversion rate crusher, but it wasn’t (or at least didn’t seem to be) because people were already committed to the idea of buying at the time they clicked “Enroll”. Please also recognize that it is perceived to be less of a commitment signing up for a service when people have a money-back guarantee to fall back on: the idea is to get people thinking "I'll hand over my money now, check it out, and if I change my mind later I can always get my money back".  This works because people are much more likely to make a small commitment than they are a larger one, however the larger commitment follows naturally from the smaller one with astonishing regularity (as Cialdini’s work demonstrates).ScarcityOpportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited -- CialdiniVery few resources in this world are infinite (maybe none?) and I would argue that the same is true of the SEOmoz premium membership, because SEOmoz is made up of a small team and there will be a limit to the number members that can be serviced to a high standard (Q&A etc).  When I chose the number 7,000 it was fairly arbitrary… I tried to lean on the high side.  Scarcity is some very powerful “voodoo”.Closing ThoughtsAs I said to you before I’m happy to offer you full disclosure, so feel free to ask me any questions you want.  I’m not claiming I’ve been able to cover everything in this post.  But, wait a minute… when I made the offer of ull disclosure was I stating what I genuinely felt was the right thing to do (being truthful with you)?  Or was I trying to induce reciprocation within you?  Was I trying to increase your level of “commitment” to me by engaging you in dialogue?  Was I trying to make you like me?  Was I trying to pass myself off as an authority?  When I said that I would “vanish into the night” was I trying to make myself out to be a scarce resource?  Am I a good cop or a bad cop?  Have I been trying to persuade you all along?  Well, there are no easy answers… sometimes life can be “blurry” like that.  I’ll leave you all to draw your own conclusions.  All I will say is that it’s been my pleasure to try and help explain my landing page a little bit, and I hope you found this post to be of some value to your own endeavours!All the best,Paul Robbwww.crediblecopy.org Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by randfishI'm combining two short blogs into one tonight - hey, it's easier for you to read and me to write, so why not, right?First off, I wanted to do a roundup of some of the great material that's popped up over the past few days:Click FRAUD!! Andrew Goodman wrote an excellent piece on the subject at Traffick, and it reminded me that this old blog post from MindValleyLabs (who just launched SocialRank) was a must-read as well - Is Fraud Rampant on Google's Content Ad Network? Yahoo! did an impressive upgradeto their search results and the search functionality from their homepage - mirroring the rollout of MSN/Live's upgraded search functionality(which we'll be reporting on later in the week). To help us understand how Yahoo! changes might affect SEO, and specifically keyword demand and targeting, Joost De Valk wrote a post on Yahoo!'s Search Assist & Tracking Keywords. What does Techmeme's leaderboard(and, more importantly, the thousands of bloggers linking to it) tell us about viral content in the 'sphere? Easy - bloggers are obsessed with reputation and ranking and anything that plays on that ego will attract an incredibly amount of links & traffic. Aaron's post on exploiting passion for profitis easily one of the SEO world's best reads this month (I know, I know - we're only 3 days in) Happy 40th, Brian... Is it really the new 20? If so, I'm worried about Copyblogger being overrun by rampaging frat boys. I actually found a good number of very interesting sites on PC Mag's Top 100 Undiscoverd Websiteslist. I almost wish that someone would cover "up and comers" in the web world every month... On last thing - for goodness sake, DO NOT MISS SMX Social Mediain New York on October 16-17. Rebecca and I will both be speaking there on multiple panels, plus you can get a discount on SEOmoz membership if you attend (or, if you're already a premium member, we're giving you 10% off the show price in the premium discount store). The reason I'm so excited for SMX Social is simple - I think it's going to be one of the first conferences where 65%+ of the material will be completely new - Facebook apps, Bribing Wikipedia editors, tactics that still work for getting on Digg, etc.And now, to part 2 of the post. I actually saw this spiffy graphvia Lisaand thought - I should make one of those to reflect what my weeks usually look like.An Average Week in the Life of RandHere's the raw stats for those can't live without the numbers:Reading Blogs, News Sites & Forums7.00%Consulting w/ Clients6.00%Answering Email50.00%Company Internal Meetings2.00%Crafting + Giving Presentations4.00%Blogging12.00%Answering Premium Q+A5.00%Setting SEOmoz Strategy1.00%Contracts & Finances1.00%Travel Time4.00%Tool & Content Design2.00%Social Media & Blog Participation3.00%Non-client, Industry Meetings & Events3.00%I actually found this to be an interesting excercise, and one that made me realize how badly I need more help with my email.p.s. We found out the genius responsible for the Brock Sampson linkbaitlast night - I think he deserves his own case study, and possibly an interview, too Sadly, he's already working at another SEO company - and one that we probably need to add to our recommended list :)p.p.s. As always - let us know what we missed in the comments (and feel free to link out).Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by randfishIf you've been on the Yahoo! home page in the last few days, you've seen this phenomenon:The red box around the Indiana Jones 4 link should, by all rights, take the user to a Yahoo! Movies page about the upcoming film - after all, Yahoo! has had links like these for years on their home page and they've built that expectation into the user experience of the site.However, this is the page you get when you click that link:Why? Because Yahoo! is attempting to drive more search traffic via its homepage - one of the web's most popular destinations. We, the users, are meant to understand that the magnifying glass symbol indicates we won't be taken to content, but instead to a search result.Here's the twist - no one's bidding for advertising on the query they're sending users to - "george lucas indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull" - and, the results are organic; there's no specific attempt to drive traffic to a Yahoo! property from the results (which is hard to believe, as this pagewould be a perfect result.If you see Yahoo! having some inflated search query numbers next quarter - don't forget that not all of those were typed into the search box. Additionally, if you're looking to beef up your traffic, watch the Yahoo! homepage for queries they link to and grab those sponsored results (and optimize your pages) as fast as you can. Yahoo! rotates content out every few hours - sometimes even more frequently during the day. It's all the more reason to stay on the cutting edge of popular trends.Do you like this post? YesNo

  Posted by randfishThis morning, Andy Greenberg wrote an article for the front page of Forbes' technology section - Google Purges the Payola. The article focuses on the ongoing battle between search engines and paid links - a battle that most see as unlikely to ever end:To most users, the difference between sponsored links and advertisements is a blur. Take, for instance, the online site for the British magazine, New Scientist. Near the bottom of the New Scientisthomepage are "sponsored links" that launch the curious to odd destinations including teeth whitening sites or German language sites that sell women's shoes--places that are probably only marginally interesting to most New Scientistreaders.In the byzantine coding world of search engines, however, the mere existence of such links bumps up the placement of those particular teeth and shoe sites when someone types "white teeth" or "schuhe" into Google's search engine.Search engines hate this kind of paid-for popularity. Google's Webmaster guidelines ban buying links just to pump search rankings. Other search engines including Ask, MSN, and Yahoo!, which mimic Google's link-based search rankings, also discourage buying and selling links. But as Web commerce has boomed, so too has the value of links--for everyone, including Google. And that's lead to innovation--or from Google's perspective, scams.Tonight, as I was answering emails, I opened up some tabs and hit the "stumble" button - admitedly, I love StumbleUpon and the wonderful corners of the web it brings to me - and noticed an odd pattern. The first site I reached was this one:Homepage of CSSElite.comIt's a great stumble - cool sites with pretty designs and creative layouts are just my cup of tea. But, as I scrolled to the bottom, I saw something funny:Bottom Right-Hand Corner of CSSEliteWow... Paid links - and sure enough, no "nofollows" on those suckers. Well, I thought, maybe it's just a coincidence. I kept stumbling.The next site up was this one:Your-Relevant.com's Blog HomepageBeer Geek - I like it. I scroll down to check out some other posts and there at the bottom of the screen...Your-Relevant Blog FooterNo way! It's using a Wordpress theme that's been "sponsored" by a web hosting outfit. The theme links back to the creator, but the ICDSoft link is pointing to their site and has the link title as "web hosting by ICDsoft." Crazy coincidence? Yeah, probably, but I decide to start tracking as I'm stumbling - maybe it'll make for a good blog post (whoa... did Rand just break the fourth wall?).Site #3:OneMansGoal.com Blog PostI'm sure you can guess where this is going:OneMansGoal.com SidebarLinks to Feng Shui and SEO Services without nofollows - why am I not surprised?Over the course of the next 20 minutes, I stumbled another 16 sites, and found 6 more that featured the kinds of links that might fall under the heading of "Google Payola." Check it out:Webcreme.com's HomepageWebcreme is another CSS/Design gallery with some good links and an interesting layout. But there on the top is an advertising link without a "nofollow" on it that I've highlighted in red. Who knows? Maybe they're owned by the same people, or WebCreme wants to give them editorial endorsement, too - totally possible, but very hard to tell.CreateBusinessGrowth.com's HomepageCreateBusinessGrowth.com has a cool blog post on website copy for decision makers, and a quote from Zig Zigler (which is usually a fun addition), but as you scroll down, you can see a lot of questionable links (though again, hard to tell if they're truly "Payola").CreateBusinessGrowth.com's sidebarNext up is the blog "AFeedisBorn" - clever name, cute design and a post on Feedburner stats going down on them last week.Blog Entry from AFeedIsBorn.comBut of course, as you scroll down, the sidebar already has a short list of possible "payola" links.Sidebar for AFeedIsBorn.comBTW - From what I can see, Bizrate.com's links in their marketplace widget are direct and passing juice. And they're ranking pretty well for those four phrases on Google right now.Next up we've got Dagsrule, which loooks pretty suspicious just from the layout and has a lovely list of very "run, don't walk" type links at the very top (I've highlighted in red):Dagsrule.com's HomepageThen there's DailyWritingTips.com with a nifty post on must-know Latin words and expressions:DailyWritingTips.com's Blog PostAll well and good except... Look at the four image links I've squared off in red - nofollow's? Nope.Now it's time for TheSoCalledMe.net, who's gone with a pink theme to raise awareness for breast cancer - which is terrific. In fact, I don't even see any bad sidebar links:TheSoCalledMe.net's Blog PostBut, then I scroll down a bit more and see a familiar badge:The SoCalledMe's PayPerPost BadgeI personally think PayPerPost and other pay-to-blog services are terrific so long as they're disclosed. In fact, I'm thinking about using them for SEOmoz's premium content one of these days. However, they do certainly fit into what Andy discussed in his piece for Forbes and Google has railed about them in the past, so they probably come under the headline of "Payola," too.Of course, finally, I had to come full circle. There's a large number of odd pages on Forbes.com and since this has been reported several times in the SEO world previously (and Google's probably removed the link value at this point), I figured it's fine to mention. Basically, on the bottom of many pages at Forbes, you get a drop down menu that looks like this:Forbes' Special Advertising DropdownThe problem is, when you look at the code of the site, you see this:Forbes Noscript Tag ContentThe pages they link to look like this:Forbes' Mesothelioma Attorney PageWhile there's an obvious indication at the top that it's a sponsored page (much like a sponsored section in a magazine), the links aren't "nofollowed" which I'm guessing is why the pages don't appear in Google's index (though Yahoo! and MSN both have all the ones I checked).I suppose you could call that irony.My point with all this isn't to "out" sites for selling links - no way. I've encouraged some of our clients to purchase links in the past and I suspect I'll do so in the future (though we generally try to be extremely careful about it). I personally think selling links and making a living off the gap in search technology  is neither evil nor illegal (though I do think there's usually smarter ways to go about it).What I'm really trying to show is what an immense quantity of websites are engaged in link practices that Google would consider "un-trustworthy." Yet, as you can clearly see in the search results of thousands of commercially competitive terms, paid links still rule. I think Danny Sullivan summed it up best in the Forbes article:"Google will never be able to stop paid links altogether," Sullivan says. "They'll stop the obvious stuff. They'll create a climate of fear and a sense of responsibility. But some will still get through." And so long as "some" get through, the economy of paid links will continue to generate revenue for a massive subsection of the web. The search engineers certainly have their work cut out for them if they want to tackle this problem in a scalable fashion.p.s. One final frustration - I would have loved to link out to some of the sites that I posted about, but I'm seriously concerned about the "bad neighborhoods" phenomenon, which is frustrating. I hate worrying about whether or not a link from SEOmoz is going to hurt our rankings (as something has with this page) or if the engines might remove our ability to pass linkjuice if we're not careful where we link. There's got to be a better way, right?Do you like this post? YesNo