Content Quake

If you follow Google pagerank and algorithm news, you will have noticed some big changes happening. For instance, giant sites like Engadget, the Washington Post, and Forbes have take big hits in terms of page rank (PR). That has some folks in a total uproar. But this is typical Google style. Once folks get used to the game, they change the rules. That’s what happens when you essentially own the market in that regard. But that’s not totally what I want to talk about.

What I really want to talk about is how Google is actively punishing sites that sell text links. I think the idea here is to protect the internet from spam linking or artificially increasing link rank through the use of paid links. Well, that’s an interesting dilemma, isn’t it. What does this remind me of? This reminds me of governmental intervention into free markets to protect them. Typically, this is a bad idea. I can’t say it’s always a bad idea - because I think there are ways in which governmental or oversight intervention is a good thing for the free market. When it stifles fraud, for instance, it’s a good thing for everyone. When it impedes legitimate commerce, however, it is a really bad thing. The question remains, is this good for the internet in general and specifically for users.

Now, let’s come to the issue of how commerce is done on the internet. Advertising helps fuel internet commerce. Think about how products and services reach your eyes and ears in the real world. Typically, it is done through the use of advertising. This is also true of the internet. Individual sites and networks utilize advertising on a regular basis, and have done so for a long time, to provide revenue. And this brings value to the advertisers and also to consumers who can buy that service or product. So, I ask, what has changed?

Well, once large link broker houses started springing up, Google took immediate notice. Now, there has become a marketplace for the buying and selling of links. Is that a bad thing in and of itself? I don’t think so in the least. Can that become a bad thing? Absolutely. It can be abused in some instances. But don’t link owners have the right to refuse certain advertisers? Of course. And shouldn’t folks be putting links that are closely related to the site/blog in which they are being hosted? Well, again, of course. That’s where the customer base is.

So, could there be another angle to this? Is Google really doing all of us a favor by cracking down on paid links? Again, maybe or maybe not. Doesn’t Google itself play in the advertising sphere? Yes, it really does. In fact, a major portion of Google’s earnings depends on advertising itself. And aren’t these paid links and contextual ads being served on sites and blogs? Again, yes. So, couldn’t Google be playing hard ball against these link brokers and ad agencies? Again, that answer is a resounding “Yes!” The spin on this could be protection of link quality and the overall spam defense mechanisms. But aren’t site owners and readers smart enough to spot these?

The real issue is that Google wants to protect “the relevancy” of search results. Now, are people trying to buy page rank? I’m sure - that’s kind of a no brainer. But there is also a self-protectionism within Google’s attempt to protect relevancy. No one can deny that behind the scenes they are truly protecting their own ad generation. And that is worth billions. I just want to be sure that site owners and purveyors are truly being served here. Because it really seems like Google is acting unilaterally.

Is there such a thing as an internet monopoly?