No one except Google really knows for sure why PR dropped for these sites but it certainly looks like an extension of September’s paid directory massacre. This time Google targeted some well-known sites in the search marketing world and mainstream news too. Sites include:
* Statcounter (from 10 to 6)
* Engadget (from 7 to 5)
* AutoBlog (from 6 to 4)
* Problogger (from 6 to 4)
* Copyblogger (from 6 to 4)
* AdesBlog (from 7 to 5)
* Search Engine Journal (from 7 to 4)
* Quick Online Tips (from 6 to 3)
* Search Engine Roundtable (from 7 to 4)
* Blog Herald (from 6 to 4)
* Weblog Tools Collection (from 6 to 4)
* JohnTP (from 6 to 4)
* Coolest Gadgets (from 5 to 3)
* CyberNet News (from 6 to 4)

It looks like mainstream websites that were selling links were also penalized:

* Washington Post (from 7 to 5)
* Washington Times (from 6 to 4)
* Charlotte Observer (from 6 to 4)
* Forbes.com (from 7 to 5)
* SFGate.com (from 7 to 5)
* Sun Times (from 7 to 5)
* New Scientist (from 7 to 5)
* Seattle Times (from 6 to 4)

According to Matt Cutts, Google’s spokesperson: In an earlier post I said that “The best links are not paid, or exchanged after out-of-the-blue emails–the best links are earned and given by choice.” Given the recent discussions of paid links, I wanted to talk about this issue in more depth.

“SEO geeks may remember the SearchKing lawsuit regarding link selling that was filed in 2002 and dismissed in 2003. Or they may have read through our quality guidelines, especially the part that says “Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank.” Those people can probably guess that Google does consider buying text links for PageRank purposes to be outside our quality guidelines.

“But for everyone else, let me talk about why we consider it outside our guidelines to get PageRank via buying links. Google (and pretty much every other major search engine) uses hyperlinks to help determine reputation. Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and link-based analysis has greatly improved the quality of web search. Selling links muddies the quality of link-based reputation and makes it harder for many search engines (not just Google) to return relevant results. When the Berkeley college newspaper has six online gambling links (three casinos, two for poker, and one bingo) on its front page, it’s harder for search engines to know which links can be trusted.

“At this point, someone usually asks me: “But can’t you just not count the bad links? On the dailycal.org, I see the words ‘Sponsored Resources’. Can’t search engines detect paid links?” Yes, Google has a variety of algorithmic methods of detecting such links, and they work pretty well. But these links make it harder for Google (and other search engines) to determine how much to trust each link. A lot of effort is expended that could be otherwise be spent on improving core quality (relevance, coverage, freshness, etc.). And you can imagine how the people trying to get link popularity have responded. Someone forwarded me an email from a “text link broker” that included this suggestion:

“The email later suggests “to use unique locations for ad links like within content.” At the point where people are recommending ways to make paid links less detectable (e.g. by removing any labels or indication that the links are sold), I wouldn’t be surprised if search engines begin to take stronger action against link buying in the near future.

“A natural question is: what is Google’s current approach to link buying? Of course our link-weighting algorithms are the first line of defense, but it’s difficult to catch every problem case in adversarial information retrieval, so we also look for problems and leaks in different semi-automatic ways. Reputable sites that sell links won’t have their search engine rankings or PageRank penalized–a search for [daily cal] would still return dailycal.org. However, link-selling sites can lose their ability to give reputation (e.g. PageRank and anchortext).

“What if a site wants to buy links purely for visitor click traffic, to build buzz, or to support another site? In that situation, I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute. The nofollow tag allows a site to add a link that abstains from being an editorial vote. Using nofollow is a safe way to buy links, because it’s a machine-readable way to specify that a link doesn’t have to be counted as a vote by a search engine.”

“One reader commented: “The Google conundrum is that although Google doesn’t count it’s own paid advertising text links for anchor/ inbound link benefit in its algorithmic results - Google does count everyone elses text advertising links…. and they affect the algorithmic results. In my opinion - that’s the flaw in the model…

Or, “You (and indeed all SEs) should be aiming for a nice, dynamic equilibrium. Link spam will happen for as long as links are a part of the ranking algorithm. Get used to the idea, and think about how to manage it. I also find it a shade distasteful that Google, who had more than a little to do with the birth of the text link industry when you introduced the Toolbar PR meter, is now trying to kill it off. It feels like I’m watching someone throttle their own kids.”

And, “Some Authority sites make a living out of selling advertisements (e.g. Internet Yellow Pages, Price Comparison, News, Content portals, Niche Directories like hotel guides etc.). Flash ads, Jpeg ads, Net Sky-Scrapers – Their main purpose is to create brand exposure and pass traffic, I can’t see why Text ads should be different in the SE eyes. An advertiser buys web presence in order to gain users coming into his site, if this helps in getting better ranks – in many cases its just a byproduct, not the main issue. Most site operators don’t know the rel=”nofollow” and it’s not really a Consensus yet. Maybe you just need to focus on the relevancy of the Linking page/media so you could determine that dailycal got very little to do with poker, or is it?”

According to WebProNews: “Google sells links and should not penalize others for selling them too. Why should Google be able to tell me how to link and whom to link to? What is wrong with linking and why should I have to put a no-follow tag on a link when I genuinely like a site? How does their algorithm know that I received payment for a link? Google is simply out to crush competition. Don’t they remember their roots? It was the webmasters who were the first adopters of Google’s search engine. It was us who made you rich Google!  One blogger called it a Google “bitch slap!” Is Google retaliating against me for criticizing them in my blog?

Google drops visible PR of many blogs and mainstream news sites

Technorati Tags: Google drops visible PR of many blogs and mainstream news sites