Why Google Needs To Use Rel=”Paid” Instead Of Rel=”Nofollow”

Rel=”nofollow” was first introduced by the three major search engines (Google, Yahoo and MSN) in May 2005 as an answer to blog comment spam and other spamdexing techniques utilizing unauthorized link dropping. Since then, Google has tried to repurpose the rel=”nofollow” as a way to identify and de-influence the effects of paid links.

Paid links are primarily of three varieties–one, “sponsored” blog postings (like ReviewMe and PayPerPost); two, text-link paid advertisements (like text-link-ads.com); and three, paid directory listings. Matt Cutts, Google spam engineer, has publicly stated that all paid links should be marked with the rel=”nofollow” attribute because Google views these types of links as non-trustworthy and, therefore, these links shouldn’t be counted for purposes of search rankings.

But Google misses a crucial point, in my opinion, in getting webmasters to use the rel=”nofollow” attribute for things other than “true spam” links. That point is that in so trying to repurpose rel=”nofollow”, Google has told me what it thinks I should think.

The history of rel=”nofollow” indicates that it was used to address the blog comment and outside spam problem. By “outside” I mean the link dropping on a site by spammers not affiliated with that particular site. Google first marketed the whole concept as an answer to “untrustworthy links” (i.e. spam). Then, Google decided that all “paid” links are untrustworthy (in essence, “all paid links not marked nofollow = spam).

Since when was Google ever entitled to decide whether or not a link was trustworthy or not? Just because someone paid for a link, or I paid someone for a link to my site, doesn’t automatically mean that I don’t trust that link. Herein lies the problem–Google has made a value judgment for me that I don’t think it should have made. If I didn’t trust the site (because, for example, I didn’t believe in the product), maybe I wouldn’t have accepted the payment (even if offered) and wouldn’t have linked to the site regardless. Maybe I really do trust that site and they just happen to also pay me to blog about it or link to it. Why then should I be required to label the site “NOfollow” just because Google considered that all paid links are untrustworthy (no matter what I thought)?

My point is that Google has a right to determine what links should count for what in its index. It is their index after all. But, please, stop trying to make a value judgment for me on whether a link is trustworthy or not just based on whether it was paid for or not. Instead, ask me to identify which links have been paid and you, Google, decide whether that link is worth anything to you in your index. That’s fair.

While we’re at it, I have to mention that I think using a bunch of new rel= attributes for other types of link would really help make the web more semantic and transparent. For example (in addition to rel=”paid”), using rel=”affiliated” for sites owned by the same webmaster/person.