Content For Links - Part Deux - Pot Shots

Just A quick response to Kieron's post about content for links. I do have issues regarding some of the points, as I believe "efficient use of the truth" is a good way to sum up part of it, and with access to Risk Disk you can prove a few things. But I'm not really interested in that bit.

Now Simon and I have had quite a few discussions via email about "content for links" especially as I reviewed what could be labelled as their work. But out of fairness I took the post down as I didn't feel reviewing one possible client could be deemed as representative of the whole picture. Even though my conclusions were on the whole negative, I thought I'd give them unfettered progress in trying to do what they do as well as realising "who am I to judge?" There are for more important people (the search engines) that are best fit to judge.

But there was one bit in their response to the chatter that tickled me:

As a final thought, if the content-for-links approach is so “black hat” because it is motivating partners through the value of the content to include a link, where does that leave, for example, content affiliates who are paid for the traffic – some via natural links tracked via merchant’s own programmes . . .or many bloggers . . or possibly the bulk of today’s social media system . . .where does it stop?

It's quite simple. Google understands that websites, in the main, exist to make money. But the content I and other bloggers write is purely motivated by making the sale. Our ability to earn depends on our ability to write interesting and informative content. Our motivation is not to increase the search engine performance of those we link to. In fact our wish is that we don't, necessesarily, want to help push them up the SERPS as that'd mean more traffic may go direct to them.

I often link to online retailers that don't have an affiliate programme. I do this because often they have great products that I feel enthused about, I review them and link to them. Now should I rel="nofollow" them to fit your argument? Or should I do what Google wants and actually "vote" for them? Does it matter that they send the product that is being reviewed for free? Does that muddy the waters? I'm sure the sole purpose they do it is for the traffic and sales I send. If I get a whiff of anything about SEO from their side then I don't publish.

So Kieron and Simon, its very simple. Our content is designed to drive sales as the primary function, your content is designed to improve the search engine performance of your clients. It's that simple.

I've no issues with offering to increase the "value" of websites with great content and then getting a link back - that's what online PR is all about. It's just the quality issue I often have problems with.

And guys, I'd love to hear your opinion on Triond!