Jeremy Zawodny Says No to Link Condoms

by Greg on December 11, 2005

I recently received an email letting me know that blogging superstar Jeremy Zawodny has decided to sell text links on his blog. If you have no idea who Jeremy is, you might be wondering why I’d waste the time to write about it. After all, he certainly isn’t the first blogger to decide to monetize his site with paid text links. And you are right. If Jeremy was just another blogger selling links, I wouldn’t have ever mentioned it. But Jeremy isn’t just another blogger. He is an extremely prominent blogger who also happens to work for Yahoo Search.

All search engines (including Jeremy’s employer) have made it very clear that they despise paid text link advertising. Sponsored text links on trusted sites like Jeremy’s causes all kinds of problems for search engines because they don’t believe a paid link should count as an algorithmic vote.

Penalizing trusted sites for selling links isn’t really an option because so many people search for them by name. Removing them from SERPS would leave users wondering why they can’t find their favorite sites.

Trusted sites also pass on an incredible amount of link juice so throttling them (preventing them from passing their juice to other sites) isn’t a great option either because it has a negative impact on all the non-paid links as well.

Ideally, a search engine’s goal is to separate out only the paid links for throttling. But that is something that is easier said then done. And that is why search engineers like Matt Cutts have been pushing the idea of "safe linking."

Safe linking involves placing a link condom on all paid text links. If trusted site owners were to do that, search engines wouldn’t have any problems with paid links. But the dilemma for the site owner is that using condoms dramatically reduces the value of the links.

So what did Jeremy decide to do? He works for a major search engine. You would think he would be sensitive to the problems caused by unsafe linking. Surely he followed Matt’s suggestion and applied condoms to all his paid links.

Nope. Apparently, he decided in favor of the cash. As I write this, there isn’t a single condom anywhere in Jeremy’s paid links.

So what will happen next? Will Jeremy cave and add the condoms? If he does, will advertisers continue to pay $300.00 per month for a juice-free link? Or will he stand his ground, forcing his good buddy Matt to take punitive actions? Will Matt throttle Jeremy’s entire site or will he take the easy way out and simply stick it to the individual advertisers?

I have no idea, but it’s going to be fun to watch it all play out. :)

{ 10 trackbacks }

John Jonas Blog - Blog Archive » Stop All Internet Commerce!
December 13, 2005 at 12:02 pm
» Pues yo si que voy a hacerlo » Spacebom Blog
December 13, 2005 at 1:10 pm
ThirdSquare.com » Jeremy Zawodny is selling links on his blog!
December 13, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Oilman » Links, Condoms, Shit and Fans
December 13, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Six Degrees of a Lesbian Porn Scraper : Graywolf’s SEO Blog
December 13, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Jim Boykin’s Internet Marketing Blog » Blog Archive » Buying links under the radar so Matt can’t find them.
December 13, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Search Engine Journal » Google Fights Paid Links While Yahoo Defends Them (Sort Of)
December 13, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Rauru Blog » Blog Archive » Jeremy Zawodny ã?®éš ã?—リンク
December 13, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Greg Hartnett » Building Quality
December 20, 2005 at 12:27 am
WebGuerrilla - aka Greg Boser » Blog Spamming Part 2
December 22, 2005 at 6:01 pm

{ 14 comments }

graywolf December 11, 2005 at 11:21 pm

Wonder if someone will be getting “the talk” at work this week

Justilien December 12, 2005 at 8:22 pm

I see some interesting research to be conducted if he does not get the talk.

Aaron Pratt December 12, 2005 at 10:56 pm

can’t pay for links
can’t trade links
can’t reciprocate links
can’t have sex with links without wearing a sock
can’t
can’t
can’t :-(

A Paid Sponsor December 13, 2005 at 12:16 pm

I purchased one of the sponsor ads on Jeremy’s Blog. According to you, Greg, I should be penalized for purchasing advertising space on a high-profile and high-traffic website.

I have good rankings on the search engines already, thank you… I purchased this link for traffic and care less if it gives me a boost in G, Y, or M.

A Paid Sponsor December 13, 2005 at 12:18 pm

P.S. I think it’s B.S. that a site owner could get penalized for displaying paid ads yet it’s ok to display Google’s paid ads? Can you say… MONOPOLY?

KCinDC December 13, 2005 at 1:56 pm

Sponsor, if you bought the link for traffic and not for page rank, then adding “nofollow” should be fine with you. You wouldn’t be being penalized, just not getting a huge page rank bonus you don’t deserve and apparently don’t want.

Mike December 13, 2005 at 5:50 pm

As the employee of a search engine IMO he should have a non-follow for sure. Otherwise his blog is being manipulated to alter rankings which is a bad example to set.

Tim the surfer December 13, 2005 at 6:44 pm

If Jeremy’s paid links go to highly-useful quality websites (ie, authority sites) then where’s the crime in him accepting a payment? Like, he’s not supposed to earn money from his blog or something?

If his paid links went to junk sites, then yes, I agree it’s a problem. If he accepts paid links to spam websites then I think you’ll see the trust for his blog drop quickly. Surely that is enough risk to prevent a major conflict of interest?

oilman December 13, 2005 at 8:23 pm

ok Tim but who evalutes the quality of the site being linked to? and who judges if the person doing the linking is smart enough to choose who to link to?

Ben December 13, 2005 at 8:51 pm

Google & Yahoo must be kicking themselves in the ass daily when they realise there’s probably a billion or more annual dollars in ‘privately brokered’ web advertising and they’re missing out on it.

How dare someone broker their own ads without paying the 30/40/50% commission-per-click to Y or G????

If Yahoo and Google were ‘unbiased’ then they might receive a little more support for trying to dictate how others monetize their sites. The pair of them are like little emo boys, crying from the lap of luxury because “it’s so unfair dude, you’re skewing our serps that we go to great troubles to produce [3 inches below the advertising]“.

linkin4tay December 13, 2005 at 11:44 pm

If search engines don’t like what Jeremy does, they can do whatever they will. It is not his problem that their software cannot distinguish between meaningful and unmeaningful links.

The use of the word “condom” is meant to imply that Jeremy is somehow irresponsible for doing his own thing, when in reality, it isn’t his fault that search engines use algorithms that are trivially duped.

pwb December 15, 2005 at 3:54 pm

This is the lamest “controversy” I’ve seen in awhile. Now people can’t just put up text link ads on their site? That’s ridiculous. Site owners are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to add no-follow. Site owners should not have to do weird things in order to account for the flawed manner in which search engines rank sites.

Daniel Moxon December 17, 2005 at 10:12 pm

“Link Condoms” really is an appropriate word haha. Who coined up the word in the first place anyway?

mark December 23, 2005 at 11:38 am

he shouldn’t be selling links. not at all professional!

Comments on this entry are closed.