Not since the famous “Troubled Times for SEO firms” article has there been so much controversy in the SEO world. On April 14th, 2007 Google’s Engineer/unofficial spokesman Matt Cutts announced on his blog that Google has initiated a new “spam reporting form” in the Google Webmaster Console. Matt Cutts says the new form will allow webmasters to report “paid links” as a form of spam. The announced came shortly after the SES conference in London, England.

In Matt Cutts blog he states “Something thing I heard at SES London was people wanted a way to report paid links specifically. I’d want a few paid link reports anyway because I am excited about trying some new ideas here at Google to augment our existing algorithms.”

Since then there has been over 500 comments on the original post. Major SEO websites and bloggers across the Blog-o-sphere have taken up in arms against Google’s new plan to eliminate paid link advertising. Not only are there serious flaws in the ideology of comparing paid link (advertisements) to lowly Viagra spam. The effects of this initiative are far reaching, causing many to question Google’s motives. There are several reasons why this is a mistake.

Paid Link Fraud

Individuals and Companies will exploit this more than click-fraud�..it’s easier to defraud.

Since the huge click fraud problem why would Google open up a brand new fissure for deceitful exploits and manipulation? Whats to stop a users or companies from buying spammy links in their competitors name and then reporting them?

Semantics

How do you define “paid links”?

The concept of a paid link is tricky to begin with. What constitutes payment: money, trade, personal favors? Even if you manage to nail a definition down how would categorize and verify every claim?

Proof Positive

How can Google prove links were bought and paid for without seeing financial records?

How exactly does Google plan to verify claims? Is there going to be an actual financial investigation unit that follows up using stored user data? The burden of proof is on Google and cannot be deferred, can they live up to this responsibility without violating (anti-trust) laws, or is it my word against yours?

Pagerank

Cut the head off the snake to kill it, not the tail.

Google created this situation in the first place by putting emphasis on links and creating Pagerank. The whole reason links matter is because of Pagerank. If Pagerank didn’t exist would paid linking even be an industry? The biggest question is, do paid links contribute to spam and yes some do but most probably don’t.

Google’s got no sense (except Adsense)

Isn’t Adsense a paid link?

Google’s primary profit base comes from advertising via Adsense. How could Google denounce link advertising when their entire business model is created around selling links? Also isn’t it bizarre that Google’s Vice President of Advertising is the co-founder of Associated Content. What’s worse is that recently Associate Content stopped renting link space to Text Link Ads, what a coincidence.

Conflict of interest

Determining link space

There is a conflict of interest if Google one of the world’s largest internet ad sellers determines the rules about selling ads. What balance is there that would prevent Google from skewing the rules to their advantage? Is it fair for Google to monopolize internet advertising by disallowing anyone else to do it? Sorry Google there is no way to get rid of spam entirely (unless you control all content).

If this wasn’t enough, Matt Cutts along with Google Advertising VP Tim Armstrong are avoiding the spotlight. According to WebPro News both Google employees are failing to respond to communication attempts. Perhaps this is a matter of timing, or this delay is intentional. Maybe Matt Cutts and Tim Armstrong are planning their next move. Regardless, this issue isn’t going away and if Google pushes forward with paid link reporting there is likely to be SEO turmoil.