Should Paid Bloggers Heed Smorty's Advice About Google PR?
November 25th 2007 01:01
Smorty's Latest Advice to Its Bloggers for Maintaining Their Google PR
In light of the recent PR cuts that many blogs have experienced during the latest Google update, Smorty has recently begun offering its bloggers advice on how to reduce the likelihood that their PR will be cut. This advice is, of course, based on the widely held assumption that the reason for these unprecedented PR cuts is the widespread practice of paid posting. Here's what Smorty has begun advising its bloggers:
There have been some recent changes that Google have made with regard to sponsored postings. Smorty would like to offer you some advice on this issue. Google has primarily targeted PayPerPost member blogs and reduced their Page ranks across the board. Although this WILL NOT REDUCE your rankings or readership, your blog will receive more campaign offers if it has a higher page rank. To prevent any future loss of page rank due to this issue you can take the following steps:
1. Remove all sponsored post tags on each of your posts. Google can follow these tags to determine if you are being paid for posts.
2. Remove any PayPerPost tags on your posts for "hire me" and "review me". Any general affiliate banners are fine to keep.
1. Remove all sponsored post tags on each of your posts. Google can follow these tags to determine if you are being paid for posts.
2. Remove any PayPerPost tags on your posts for "hire me" and "review me". Any general affiliate banners are fine to keep.
Is This Good Advice, and Should It Be Followed?
While I certainly do not mean to malign Smorty--since I've found them to be a fair company to work with--I must nonetheless question the overall wisdom and, in particular, the ethics of this particular course of action. (I do recognize, of course, that many believe the above steps to constitute necessary acts of self-preservation for bloggers who are being targeted for PR cuts, presumably because of paid posting, which Google purportedly equates with link-selling.) And while no one can be absolutely certain whether that was, in fact, the reason for the recent PR cuts--and many actually question this, since presumably many who don't post paid content were also targeted--we bloggers still need to determine what our response to the situation will be.
My Thoughts on the Matter: Stick to Your Principles
Though every blogger must decide for him or herself what course to take--because each will have to live with the consequences of that decision, whatever they may be--I tend to feel that it's always best to stand by your principles, maintain high ethical standards, and do right by your readers.
The following are a few of my thoughts on the matter which are quoted from a comment I wrote in response to another comment left on one of my recent posts:
I see the entire situation a bit differently than Smorty does. I feel it's unethical not to disclose the sponsored nature of our paid posts to our readers--which is why I never accept paid posts that require non-disclosure. (See my disclosure policy.) I believe my readers have the right to know when a post I've written was sponsored and when it was spontaneous.
I think it's a shame that PayPerPost is being targeted by Google simply because their ethical standards are high enough that they require disclosure, and I applaud them for being the only paid posting company I know of that does. It's just the right thing to do! (It's funny the way honesty can get you into trouble sometimes.)
I feel that PPP doesn't go quite far enough, however, in that they allow certain advertisers to specify "sitewide disclosure only," which simply causes confusion, because the reader has to guess which posts are sponsored and which aren't; and that's unfair. (Along with not accepting "non-disclosure" posts, I never accept "sitewide disclosure only" posts, either.)
Despite Smorty's advice, I have no intention of removing my sponsored posts from my Paid Posts category. That category was created specifically for the benefit of my readers, because I believe in being honest and above board with them. If Google can't handle it, they'll do whatever they have to do. But, that's OK, because at least I'll know that I did what I knew to be right.
I think it's a shame that PayPerPost is being targeted by Google simply because their ethical standards are high enough that they require disclosure, and I applaud them for being the only paid posting company I know of that does. It's just the right thing to do! (It's funny the way honesty can get you into trouble sometimes.)
I feel that PPP doesn't go quite far enough, however, in that they allow certain advertisers to specify "sitewide disclosure only," which simply causes confusion, because the reader has to guess which posts are sponsored and which aren't; and that's unfair. (Along with not accepting "non-disclosure" posts, I never accept "sitewide disclosure only" posts, either.)
Despite Smorty's advice, I have no intention of removing my sponsored posts from my Paid Posts category. That category was created specifically for the benefit of my readers, because I believe in being honest and above board with them. If Google can't handle it, they'll do whatever they have to do. But, that's OK, because at least I'll know that I did what I knew to be right.
And that, dear Reader, is my view in a nutshell. While I realize that there are many aspects to this issue which make it complex, I also strongly believe that there are some principles that simply shouldn't be sacrificed for expedience' sake. For me, at least, that's the easy part.
The hard part could come later.
Thanks for reading,
Jeanne
This is not a sponsored post.
Did you enjoy this post? Have any thoughts on the issue? If so, we'd love to hear them!
| 28 |
| Vote |
Comments (8)
Add Comments
