In light of the Interflora advertorials debacle where do you think bloggers stand with regard to product reviews?

[Tompt]

I realise the main blame fell on the newspapers for what was essentially cash for links, but a separate part of the PR push was sending flowers to bloggers who then blogged about it.

I can see that this could be construed by Google to be a breach of their t&cs, but equally it could be a legitimate action by the blogger if they are giving an honest viewpoint.

Is the Google Chrome "satchel" ad being unintentionally misleading?

If it's all down to the intention that's a worryingly grey area to be stuck in, what do you think?

[MarieHaynes]

The quality guidelines are pretty clear that it is not acceptable to give free product in exchange for a link that carries PageRank.

People are upset with the chrome satchel ad because it shows someone who creates a product (satchels) and then in the ad sends it to well known bloggers.  But nowhere in that ad does it say that she sent it in exchange for a link.  I think that the main idea of the ad showing her sending the product to a blogger was to get exposure for her product.  To stay within the guidelines this would be in the form of a no-followed link.  The ad goes on to show that Elle Magazine heard about the great product and asked if she could make one for them.

The whole point of the quality guidelines in regards to "link schemes" is that you should not be able to self manufacture links.  The reasons why links work to boost a site's rankings is because they are a vote for the quality of the site.  Bought votes don't mean that the site's quality is any better than another site.

Do I agree?  No.  I think that those bloggers wouldn't post a link if they didn't like the product.  (Well, most of them.)  So I think this should be acceptable.  But what I think doesn't matter.

If you've already exchanged product for links I wouldn't get too worried about it unless those links make up a large portion of your link profile.  But, I think that Google is trying to cut down on any forms of link building in which you create your own link, so personally I would not use this tactic.

EDIT: I just checked out the Cambridge Satchel backlink profile and they sure do have a lot of FOLLOWED links from blogs who reviewed their profile.  Perhaps the reason why this is allowed is because the links are branded as opposed to a keyword?

[Tompt]

If it's as explicit as "if I send you something I require a link back" I can see that it completely breaches guidelines, but if it's sent out without that requirement, for genuine review I think you're in much murkier territory.

Should they be denied the option of linking because they received the product?

I'm just interested in the discussion, I know there are plenty of product review bloggers out there (across the whole white\grey\black spectrum) who are now wondering where they stand. From what limited contact I've had with them, many of the more hobbiest bloggers had little or no idea about nofollow anyway.

Much of the PC games industry is fuelled by review copies, and there are some truly sinful strongarm tactics going on for positive reviews over and above any links. Is cracking down on stuff like this even enforcable?

[TomRayner]

I think we need to be realistic about how enforceable this is and why Interflora got caught.

It would be extremely difficult for an automatic review/algorithm to be able to detect a review/blog post that may have involved a giveaway or a payment (ie a paid guest post).

The only reason why this was flagged and made an example of was because, after conducting a manual review likely triggered by the advertorial/thousands of exact match anchor texts on crappy link-farms, the Googler reviewing determined that they looked unnatural.

And they looked unnatural because each blogger's review linked to the site with targeted anchor text.

It's explicitly in Google's TOS, yes, but I'm willing to bet the house in saying that there's no way this would have been detected if it wasn't for a manual review, which was also triggered by something else.

Not saying we should all be doing it, by any means. But we should be realistic about how Google is going to be able to detect these paid reviews/guest posts en masse.

[RobertFisher]

Tompt

To me, it is rather interesting the way that the satchel ad and several link gaining "methodologies" similar to it have worked while others do not. The beauty of an algorithm is in its lack of ability to measure intent.

Marie makes a great point with Brand as anchor text vs. keyword, but in the case of a more known company, a brand could be a keyword. At what point does a company become too large or well-known or well-branded for such tactics to become schemes versus methods? Also, if interflora was Interflora Flowers or Interflora Flower Delivery, does it revert to method or remain scheme?

I thought the Search Engine Land piece wherein they question at what point a penalty is a mere "show" of penalizing, further elucidated the problems that Google faces while trying to in some way keep it clean or level or whatever. Matt McGee added: (My italics for emphasis)

**In this Interflora case, Google’s timing has been particularly benevolent: The penalty took effect about a week after Valentine’s Day, and has now begun to be lifted one week before the UK celebrates Mother’s Day. Those are two of the most popular flower-buying holidays of the year — second and third in the US, according to AboutFlowers.com, and likely similar in the UK. **

So, was Google being strict or lenient? If it had been Robert's on time flower delivery, would I have gotten back so fast? Would I have been penalized given I was much smaller?

Great questions, but at the end of the day what is troubling is this miss IMO by Google: With the satchels, The Cambridge Satchel Co. uses a common method to "get the word out" via Google Chrome. Google brags about the success they helped Cambridge Satchel achieve. So, did no one at Google notice the conflict of interest?

Best, good question and good answer by Marie,

Robert

[Tompt]

I thought it was a nice public slap on the wrist without severely damaging a brand that probably should be on page one. It got the message out loud and clear and I would imagine that the papers are going to be much more careful.

You're right with regard to the error, but it's not the first time that the Chrome marketing team may have made an error with how they went about their business. To someone with a traditional marketing background I'm sure it seemed very innocuous, which was largely the problem with interflora anyway I suppose.