Guest posts on sites you buy advertising with?

[ProjectLabs]

What are your thoughts about the following scenarios.

Scenario 1: You purchased a banner ad on a site for $50. Then you notice that the site accepts guest posts and you contribute a guest article which has a followed link.

Scenario 2: You pitch a guest post to a blog and they say sure but first pay us $50. You say, I can't pay for links but how about I buy an ad spot for $50 instead in appreciation of you reviewing by submission.

Scenario 3: You pitch a guest post to a blog and they say sure but it will cost $50 to be published. You say sure and pay them.

Which of these would go against Google's guidelines and be considered a paid link? It seems like they are all buying links to a different degree, but they would all be indistinguishable to Google.

[X-com]

Mmm.. I like your question. I don't google will see any of these links as paid. As long as your guestpost is relevant and the link in it is also, i don't see any problem. Not even to pay for it. But, if i must choose.. Scenario 2, a guestpost with followed link and a bannerad of 50 usd, that's the best deal

[dohertyjf]

So, I think this is a great question and underscores a very important part of SEO - it's not black and white. Some links are obviously paid, others are not. Then we have the middle where we have to interpret what is being talked about as "paid" or "incentivized" links.

I wouldn't consider any of these "paid links" I don't think. The only one that I wouldn't say this about with 100% clarity is #3, but in that case you're paying for the article, and technically you could pay to publish an article without a link, right?

The problem is that money always muddies the waters. By buying an ad spot you are advertising yourself, but it's obviously marked as an ad. Also, if you buy ad space you're probably guaranteed to be accepted as a guest author even if it is "reviewed by submission".

By paid links Google is talking about links that are "meant to manipulate Pagerank". All links manipulate Pagerank in some way you could argue. So are all links bad? No. I could show many examples of paid links that add nothing to the page on which they are. THOSE are the manipulative paid links, not one within a blog post that has a publication price.

Also, going in and paying for a link within an article after the publish date, and especially in an article that was not written by you, is definitely manipulation, even if the link makes sense.

Those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, though this topic has been discussed to death in the past few years.

[JordanGodbey]

Great answer John -- I agree that this is a very vague/grey area. Are there any videos or interviews with Matt Cutts talking about this?

I think similar scenarios should be brought up with Matt at conferences so we can his answer "straight from the horse's mouth" as this topic is getting more and more attention (and more severe penalties ie. iAcquire)

Thanks for your answer

[eyepaq]

The questions are really on point but unfortunately there is only one straight answer: if money are exchanging hands and involves a link then it's a paying link.

I've run the same set of questions (not exactly but with the same core) with John Muller from Google and his answer was on point:  Yes, it's a payed link but if you want to be safe just place the links on no follow.

It make sense . if you pay for the article and if you want a link that can bring some referral traffic or you need it for branding then go for it but place it on no follow.

That won't happen as you want that article (in most of the cases - 99% ) for the link - you don't give a r..s a...s on the article

Google however is flexible in my opinion and even if it will see a follow link and it will somehow understand that is a payed link it won't take action if it make sense, if the domain is not featuring different similar payed links on each page and so on.

My 2 cents.

[dohertyjf]

To your reason for the article, it goes back to your mindset I think - you can either do it for the link and therefore have to produce content, or you can produce content that happens to have a link. Any link is paid for in some way, by someone. Salaries, bandwidth, etc.

I just don't think it's that straight forward, as I said in my first reply on this thread.

[EppieVojt]

I tend to disagree with John about what constitutes a paid link.  Just because a paid link is embedded reasonably in content doesn't mean it suddenly aligns with Google's TOS. The intent is to manipulate search rankings and the link wouldn't exist without payment -- I think that's the easiest criteria to apply to these questions.

From my perspective, scenario 2 and 3 are pretty clearly violating the intent of Google's guidelines.  That said, this type of approach is pretty much undetectable, particularly if the post published on the site is of high quality, the site being linked to is of high quality, and the publishing site doesn't publicly solicit this type of arrangement.

[eyepaq]

Agree. But I do think John Muller had a solution for this with the no follow. If it's followed that means you want to influence the rankings (if money has exchanged hands).

The problem is that if the domain is "clean" and not involved (at lest clearly) in selling links there is no proof and for this reason tehy can not take action but at the end of the day is a payed link no matter how is spinned.

But i think it's all about perspective, what's the angle from witch everyone is looking at it. The problem is we care how google is viewing it and google dosen't care how we see it

[dohertyjf]

I totally agree that placing a link in-context does not make it a good link. I could also show many examples of links in-context that are obviously manipulative. So we have to go what I've been saying for a long time - is the link adding value to the article? Is it placed at the time of publishing? Is it there just for the link, or does it provide value to someone who would click through?

Studies have been showing time and time again that readers are much more likely to click on something like [click here] or [this article] instead of an exact anchor. Exact anchors are basically only done by SEOs.

So we should think carefully about when'where we put these links too. I think the argument and studies done on partial-match anchor text being valuable bolsters the argument to link whole sentences instead of just the keywords you want to rank for. You may also get more referral traffic if you do this.

[EppieVojt]

Right, but the question is more about the ethics of paid placement than the quality of the link, isn't it?  Obviously manipulative = bad because it's more likely to be caught.  Discretely placed links = better because they're harder to detect and seemingly add value.  That all skirts the fundamental ethical issue, though.

Would the link exist without payment? Is there an effort to manipulate search rankings with the link? Google would say that if you really cared about the context of the link and wanted the traffic it would send, you'd have no problem nofollowing it.  In that case, paid placement should be fine.  If you're letting it pass authority, it shouldn't be paid.  There's really not any wiggle room in the TOS.

It all comes down to a risk / reward calculation.  If your link is legitimately contextually relevant, the content you supply is good, the site it's published on is high quality, and the site being linked to is likewise a quality site, there's minimal risk.