Comments on: BigMouthMedia Penalised – What’s the real reason?

By: Frank Malina

Frank Malina — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:56:20 +0000

Actually Google guidelines encourage the sort of e-mails you got: “Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.”

By: Hoopla Design

Hoopla Design — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:33:53 +0000

I don’t think this type of request violates Googles TOS, don’t think it even mentions a link does it?

By: Ernest

Ernest — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:30:48 +0000

“…especially the stakeholders of the linked to website did not previously contact you in any way”

I was going to say how difficult it would be to track that if Google even dared to try. Then again, it is the almighty Google!!

By: James

James — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:22:03 +0000

I think what Google is against is no editorial control exists when money is offered for a link.
So how the content a webmaster chooses to link to is found is another story. Actually Google could just change its TOS to avoid all the confusions:
You can only link to a website when no third party’s influence is in place, especially the stakeholders of the linked to website did not previously contact you in any way.

By: George

George — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:31:04 +0000

Caroline,
That’s exactly what I’m getting to.

PR, link building and to some extent all of marketing can be put in to this area. I’m not saying it’s wrong but the semantics of ‘purchasing’ are frequently blurred.

I don’t think you can say if it’s an SEO company it’s blackhat whereas if it’s a PR company it’s whitehat. It’s not that simple.

If BMM were to offer money would you then say this is against the TOS? What about a content exchange?

By: Caroline

Caroline — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:31:14 +0000

I’m with Ed – what SEOs consider link building, traditional media agencies consider PR. Would you think it was spam if it had been sent from a traditional PR agency?

By: Did BigMouthMedia 302 Hijack Themselves Out of Google? | News Portal | Lastest News Articles

Fri, 15 May 2009 15:13:23 +0000

[...] A some bloggers hit patterned the fact that BigMouthMedia is notably abstracted from the see results this hebdomad and are occupation it a penalty. [...]

By: George

George — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:56:53 +0000

Ed,
BMM are buying links in the sense that they are paying not with money but with content. The G TOS doesn’t stipulate that actual money needs to change hands.

In this example, it’s a case a classic barter and exchange – still a form of purchasing as there is a seller and a buyer.

Goods: Content
Seller: BMM
Buyer: Blog Owner

Goods: Links
Buyer: BMM
Seller: Blog Owner

In this case, as the Links and Content are of equal value and the Buyer and Seller are directly opposite, it becomes an exchange and no money changes hands.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:59:14 +0000

George,

You pretty much answered your own question by citing that quote.

There is no mentioning of buying or selling links in the email you’ve posted, and of course the email is send to build links…common practice for anyone wanting to increase their exposure on the web.

By: James

James — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:16:23 +0000

They are back now, looks like it was a glitch.