Comments on: Google blames marketers for Chrome paid-link blunder http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/ Feeding Your Gadget and Tech Obsessions Tue, 15 May 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Tracy http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168441 Tracy Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:01:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168441 Oh, okay.  Thanks for explaining!

]]> By: David Amerland http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168356 David Amerland Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:55:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168356 You are right, I have explained it a little below.

]]> By: David Amerland http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168355 David Amerland Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:54:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168355 You are right, I have explained it a little below.

]]> By: David Amerland http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168349 David Amerland Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:30:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168349 I explained this above. The significance is that Google, which claims that its search is inviolable and tamper-proof, has now been caught tampering with it (in a manner of speaking). Because Google is more than search (it now has a video channel, Google TV, Android Phones and a host of other properties) and it owns search, it has to prove that it really can self-regulate and not squeeze out potential competitors, unfairly. This could well lead to an anti-trust issue so it is hugely important.

]]> By: David Amerland http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168348 David Amerland Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:28:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168348 I explained it for Tracy just above. You are absolutely right in your criticism. 

]]> By: David Amerland http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168347 David Amerland Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:27:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168347 You are right. Really poor journalism and typical of an article on SEO written, mostly, for insiders. Long story short a ‘nofollow’ is a special attribute placed on the code of a link which stops that link from being counted by Google when it looks for backlinks to a specific website. Backlinks to a specific website are one of the factors which has been used to date to assess its importance and therefore increasing its ranking. The whole thing about Google is that it is organic and its search results are reportedly inviolable so if you and I buy online advertising and the advertising we buy points to our sites (as it should) this will not affect the organic ranking of the site so it will not, for instance, suddenly appear to go on the first page of Google from the tenth. Google has very strict guidelines for this kind of behaviour and usually penalizes both website owners caught doing it and the sites which might sell backlinks, by dropping their rankings in search. 

Now we will have to wait and see what they will do in this case. I hope this has helped clarify it for everybody.

]]> By: Joseph Hawley http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168344 Joseph Hawley Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:25:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168344 Chrome is a good browser, and that’s why people like it and continue to use it, IMO!

]]> By: bluecrane http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168343 bluecrane Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:22:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168343 The words look like English but the combinations of words appear encoded by some strange CIA operative with time on his hands.

]]> By: Cessna http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168342 Cessna Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:19:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168342 Awful writer…  and that Chrome logo could have been a little bigger!

]]> By: Tracy http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168339 Tracy Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:11:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168339 What the hell is ‘nofollow’?

]]> By: Keppler http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168336 Keppler Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:09:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168336 This article might have been better if the author’s intent was to communicate with us rather than with himself. As it is, I imagine only he knows what he’s talking about.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168332 Anonymous Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:54:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168332 So what’s the issue? A third-party firm accidentally forgot to mark a single sponsored link, and did so as soon as it was noticed. I’ve read this on a couple different sites now and still don’t understand its significance. 

]]> By: Durant Imboden http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168329 Durant Imboden Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:49:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168329 The links are meaningless. Chrome doesn’t need inbound links from bloggers to get attention or traffic.

The real issue is whether anyone at Google approved the purchase of “sponsored posts” (with or without “nofollow” links). 

]]> By: Sam http://www.slashgear.com/google-blames-marketers-for-chrome-paid-link-blunder-03205641/#comment-168328 Sam Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:43:00 +0000 http://www.slashgear.com/?p=205641#comment-168328 Hey Chris. Speak English
 will ya?

]]>