<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: By the way..</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 05:30:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Three</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42625</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Three]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:41:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The key here is that Google considers _anyone else_ making money as evil.

Google making money is good; You and I making money is bad.

Google making money is altruistic; You and I making money is greedy.

Google&#039;s search engine makes money off of all of our hard work creating billions of pages of content.

And yet if we try to make money off that content -- outside of the AdSense program where we make money for Google -- Google slaps us down.

This feels less like an internetwork and more like Stalinist Russia.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The key here is that Google considers _anyone else_ making money as evil.</p>
<p>Google making money is good; You and I making money is bad.</p>
<p>Google making money is altruistic; You and I making money is greedy.</p>
<p>Google&#8217;s search engine makes money off of all of our hard work creating billions of pages of content.</p>
<p>And yet if we try to make money off that content &#8212; outside of the AdSense program where we make money for Google &#8212; Google slaps us down.</p>
<p>This feels less like an internetwork and more like Stalinist Russia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lazar</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42624</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lazar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 19:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matt,
What&#039;s about affiliate banners and affiliate text links? A website owner is not getting paid for placing them, but is getting paid either for clicks or for sales from these clicks. Are affiliate links [even if they are relevant] viewed by Google as paid links and have to include rel=nofollow?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt,<br />
What&#8217;s about affiliate banners and affiliate text links? A website owner is not getting paid for placing them, but is getting paid either for clicks or for sales from these clicks. Are affiliate links [even if they are relevant] viewed by Google as paid links and have to include rel=nofollow?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42623</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andreas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did someone above write that I pay Google to promote my themes and that my themes include AdSense links? If so, it is way wrong and quite an ugly claim. I have never placed AdSense ads in any of my designs, and the only big sin I am guilty of is to have sold sponsored text link ads on my site - something I have quitted long ago since I learned that it was not a good thing to do.

My themes contain a link back to my site, and that&#039;s it. I have never paid a penny to promote them. However, other companies have used my generous free use policy (basically &quot;do what you want with my designs&quot;) and added various kinds of ads. But I can assure you that you will never see me promote a theme that someone else has added ads to.

Now, this was posted a long time ago and I have dropped this topic months ago. But if anyone have any doubts at all regarding my work, my themes or my view on online advertisements, just ask. I&#039;d be happy to tell you how I work. Or just download my designs, that should give a good hint as well. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did someone above write that I pay Google to promote my themes and that my themes include AdSense links? If so, it is way wrong and quite an ugly claim. I have never placed AdSense ads in any of my designs, and the only big sin I am guilty of is to have sold sponsored text link ads on my site &#8211; something I have quitted long ago since I learned that it was not a good thing to do.</p>
<p>My themes contain a link back to my site, and that&#8217;s it. I have never paid a penny to promote them. However, other companies have used my generous free use policy (basically &#8220;do what you want with my designs&#8221;) and added various kinds of ads. But I can assure you that you will never see me promote a theme that someone else has added ads to.</p>
<p>Now, this was posted a long time ago and I have dropped this topic months ago. But if anyone have any doubts at all regarding my work, my themes or my view on online advertisements, just ask. I&#8217;d be happy to tell you how I work. Or just download my designs, that should give a good hint as well. <img src="https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Jacques-Louis</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42622</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Jacques-Louis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Matt
If wordpress.org is not penalised, then nobody should.
It&#039;s one of the most stupid ideas ever heard around - I deon&#039;t speak about having 3-4 links, but 1 doffolow link - why not? I spent my time on that.
Why can&#039;t I leave a dofollow link if I design or buy a theme?

@ Craig, if Paid links are the only way for web sites with little content and next to no relevancy to search terms to get some rankings - than what would you suggest if you sell 25 000 products, that are editions of the same product - you suggest to write 25k descriptions? This is not for shops, at least not for those, who sell the same products which differ only little.

@ Alec
whose hand is in what cookie jar :) Correct.

@ DevilzOwn
Google doesn’t want anyone else to get paid for ANY kind of adverts unless it is through their very own Adsense - this is not new. Not at all. That is the path Google has chosen. And it&#039;s a pitty Matt does not ever answers in this topic.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Matt<br />
If wordpress.org is not penalised, then nobody should.<br />
It&#8217;s one of the most stupid ideas ever heard around &#8211; I deon&#8217;t speak about having 3-4 links, but 1 doffolow link &#8211; why not? I spent my time on that.<br />
Why can&#8217;t I leave a dofollow link if I design or buy a theme?</p>
<p>@ Craig, if Paid links are the only way for web sites with little content and next to no relevancy to search terms to get some rankings &#8211; than what would you suggest if you sell 25 000 products, that are editions of the same product &#8211; you suggest to write 25k descriptions? This is not for shops, at least not for those, who sell the same products which differ only little.</p>
<p>@ Alec<br />
whose hand is in what cookie jar <img src="https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /> Correct.</p>
<p>@ DevilzOwn<br />
Google doesn’t want anyone else to get paid for ANY kind of adverts unless it is through their very own Adsense &#8211; this is not new. Not at all. That is the path Google has chosen. And it&#8217;s a pitty Matt does not ever answers in this topic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42621</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Danny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the internet almost nothing isn&#039;t free .So you want to have something good and free.A developer work many hours to do a script or something else for people to you use free.But he have to eat so a promotional link about who  created the script I don&#039;t think is wrong. So how many of you work for nothing?
Look at phpbb , they don&#039;t worth a backlink?
Good developers will never use viagra or other junk links.

Mark said: 
&#039;Much of the PageRank for wordpress.com/org is probably due to those links from various blogs. Since it is really advertising for Wordpress they should be penalized or at least have the value of the links discounted right?. I sounds like Matt is suggesting that they should have “nofollow” attached to them.&#039;

Well if google do this will be many angry users and will be few developers that will make free software .
Google need to know that his users make him to have so much money and if they don&#039;t think on user interest they will folow Windows Live search path.

Google is too commercial at this moment]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the internet almost nothing isn&#8217;t free .So you want to have something good and free.A developer work many hours to do a script or something else for people to you use free.But he have to eat so a promotional link about who  created the script I don&#8217;t think is wrong. So how many of you work for nothing?<br />
Look at phpbb , they don&#8217;t worth a backlink?<br />
Good developers will never use viagra or other junk links.</p>
<p>Mark said:<br />
&#8216;Much of the PageRank for wordpress.com/org is probably due to those links from various blogs. Since it is really advertising for WordPress they should be penalized or at least have the value of the links discounted right?. I sounds like Matt is suggesting that they should have “nofollow” attached to them.&#8217;</p>
<p>Well if google do this will be many angry users and will be few developers that will make free software .<br />
Google need to know that his users make him to have so much money and if they don&#8217;t think on user interest they will folow Windows Live search path.</p>
<p>Google is too commercial at this moment</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: detoam</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42620</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[detoam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 12:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would strongly Agree with jumpenjuhosaphat.
I have a directory as well (and are planning on creating a couple more of them.) While I do have a free link submission I still review each and every site that is submitted. I have refused a number of them as they were of very poor quality. But I am planning to stop the free service as it does cut into my day. I have a number of other sites to maintain and the only reason I will charge is because it takes my time to verify links before approving and each day I verify that all the links work properly.
It also begs the question whether Google considers the sites that advertise in their search results. I mean the sites that pay google to be the featured sites in the search results, but have actually nothing to do with the search terms or simply are spamming sites. If it&#039;s okay for Google to accept those why a webmaster cannot accept money for their work?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would strongly Agree with jumpenjuhosaphat.<br />
I have a directory as well (and are planning on creating a couple more of them.) While I do have a free link submission I still review each and every site that is submitted. I have refused a number of them as they were of very poor quality. But I am planning to stop the free service as it does cut into my day. I have a number of other sites to maintain and the only reason I will charge is because it takes my time to verify links before approving and each day I verify that all the links work properly.<br />
It also begs the question whether Google considers the sites that advertise in their search results. I mean the sites that pay google to be the featured sites in the search results, but have actually nothing to do with the search terms or simply are spamming sites. If it&#8217;s okay for Google to accept those why a webmaster cannot accept money for their work?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jumpenjuhosaphat</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42619</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jumpenjuhosaphat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It was mentioned above that paid links are reviewed links, and typically will lead to quality sites.  A response was that some of those paid link reviewers don&#039;t actually review the links, but only take the money are run. Here&#039;s what I&#039;ve noticed.  Many of the sites that offer free links(those are the good kind in the eyes of Google) do the exact same thing.  While one site owner goes through and spends his/her valuable time reviewing the site and verifying that it meets to their quality standard, another site owner might just accept the link without so much as clicking it first.  Canada&#039;s directory (I think it&#039;s Canlinks or something along those lines) automatically accepts all links without even so much as a chance for a human to verify it.

I am in the process of building a link directory.  I have every plan on charging to place links on my premium directory.  Why?  Because it takes time and effort to visit and review each site that is submitted, and I will not place links to low quality sites or sites that I don&#039;t think are appropriate for my visitors on my site.  Am I charging for links?  No.  I am charging for a review process that cuts into my daily schedule.  If a site owner decides to purchase a link from me, I&#039;ll know that 99.9% of the time, their intent will be to gain better Google PR, or result page rank.  But the reason that 99.9% of site owners have this intention has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with all of the hype that has been put into Google&#039;s search results and Google&#039;s seemingly worthless PR values.

If Google wants to offer better results to it&#039;s users, then Google needs to figure that out on their own, and stop trying to strong arm the websites that make up 95% of what Google is by telling them how to process their links(ie the nofollow attribute) or how they&#039;re allowed to create revenue.

About the nofollow comment I just made.  I think that nofollow is a great tool, but it has it&#039;s place.  The reason that Google came up with it in the first place was to combat spam.  Now site owners are being told to use it on sites that they link to if the link is sponsored.  Here&#039;s a crazy idea, if a site doesn&#039;t approve of a particular site, for whatever reason, then maybe they should just not link to that site in the first place.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was mentioned above that paid links are reviewed links, and typically will lead to quality sites.  A response was that some of those paid link reviewers don&#8217;t actually review the links, but only take the money are run. Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve noticed.  Many of the sites that offer free links(those are the good kind in the eyes of Google) do the exact same thing.  While one site owner goes through and spends his/her valuable time reviewing the site and verifying that it meets to their quality standard, another site owner might just accept the link without so much as clicking it first.  Canada&#8217;s directory (I think it&#8217;s Canlinks or something along those lines) automatically accepts all links without even so much as a chance for a human to verify it.</p>
<p>I am in the process of building a link directory.  I have every plan on charging to place links on my premium directory.  Why?  Because it takes time and effort to visit and review each site that is submitted, and I will not place links to low quality sites or sites that I don&#8217;t think are appropriate for my visitors on my site.  Am I charging for links?  No.  I am charging for a review process that cuts into my daily schedule.  If a site owner decides to purchase a link from me, I&#8217;ll know that 99.9% of the time, their intent will be to gain better Google PR, or result page rank.  But the reason that 99.9% of site owners have this intention has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with all of the hype that has been put into Google&#8217;s search results and Google&#8217;s seemingly worthless PR values.</p>
<p>If Google wants to offer better results to it&#8217;s users, then Google needs to figure that out on their own, and stop trying to strong arm the websites that make up 95% of what Google is by telling them how to process their links(ie the nofollow attribute) or how they&#8217;re allowed to create revenue.</p>
<p>About the nofollow comment I just made.  I think that nofollow is a great tool, but it has it&#8217;s place.  The reason that Google came up with it in the first place was to combat spam.  Now site owners are being told to use it on sites that they link to if the link is sponsored.  Here&#8217;s a crazy idea, if a site doesn&#8217;t approve of a particular site, for whatever reason, then maybe they should just not link to that site in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DevilzOwn</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42618</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DevilzOwn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The whole discussion is ridiculous!

It looks like that if some &lt;a href=&quot;http://xs114.xs.to/xs114/07172/google-wordpress-themes.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guys pay Google&lt;/a&gt; to promote wordpress themes created by others including &lt;a href=&quot;http://andreasviklund.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andreas Viklund&lt;/a&gt; with his own links embedded in the footer or embedded Adsense ad codes, then every thing is okay!

I am getting really pissed with this latest furore. Look at it closely and it seems like Google doesn&#039;t want anyone else to get paid for ANY kind of adverts unless it is through their very own Adsense. 

Seems like rather than going after competitors like Yahoo and MSN (that can give Google some, if not too much, real competition) and fight for their ad spenders, Google wants to make small sites a soft target and take away their revenue stream if it is NOT Adsense! Want to save breath, eh Mr. Google?

Why don&#039;t you ever really focus on the issue of &lt;a href=&quot;http://apadanait.com/2007/04/23/mcafee_antispyware_enterprise_v85sa_engine_v5100019.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;warez sites displaying adsense ads&lt;/a&gt; or similar other shady sites and adsense farms? Even after people like me report such sites time and again, these sites stay up forever. Maybe &#039;coz they get tons of traffic, loads of impressions and thousands of clicks and the advertisers are too dumb to note where the clicks are coming from or is it that these advertisers &quot;request&quot; for such traffic, eh Matt?

And you want everyone to look at &quot;paid links&quot; on their sites and let Google know that they are being paid for their hard work from someone. Since when has Google taken up this self proclaimed role of the &quot;Web Inspector&quot;? Care to throw some light on it, Matt?

Lastly, will my comment be even approved, Matt? Or will you kill it because I have digressed from the REAL issue? ;-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole discussion is ridiculous!</p>
<p>It looks like that if some <a href="http://xs114.xs.to/xs114/07172/google-wordpress-themes.gif" rel="nofollow">guys pay Google</a> to promote wordpress themes created by others including <a href="http://andreasviklund.com/" rel="nofollow">Andreas Viklund</a> with his own links embedded in the footer or embedded Adsense ad codes, then every thing is okay!</p>
<p>I am getting really pissed with this latest furore. Look at it closely and it seems like Google doesn&#8217;t want anyone else to get paid for ANY kind of adverts unless it is through their very own Adsense. </p>
<p>Seems like rather than going after competitors like Yahoo and MSN (that can give Google some, if not too much, real competition) and fight for their ad spenders, Google wants to make small sites a soft target and take away their revenue stream if it is NOT Adsense! Want to save breath, eh Mr. Google?</p>
<p>Why don&#8217;t you ever really focus on the issue of <a href="http://apadanait.com/2007/04/23/mcafee_antispyware_enterprise_v85sa_engine_v5100019.html" rel="nofollow">warez sites displaying adsense ads</a> or similar other shady sites and adsense farms? Even after people like me report such sites time and again, these sites stay up forever. Maybe &#8216;coz they get tons of traffic, loads of impressions and thousands of clicks and the advertisers are too dumb to note where the clicks are coming from or is it that these advertisers &#8220;request&#8221; for such traffic, eh Matt?</p>
<p>And you want everyone to look at &#8220;paid links&#8221; on their sites and let Google know that they are being paid for their hard work from someone. Since when has Google taken up this self proclaimed role of the &#8220;Web Inspector&#8221;? Care to throw some light on it, Matt?</p>
<p>Lastly, will my comment be even approved, Matt? Or will you kill it because I have digressed from the REAL issue? <img src="https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" alt=";-)" class="wp-smiley" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So the question is this:

Is Google going to penalize wordpress.com and wordpress.org because they embed this type of advertising in each installation of Wordpress by adding their links into the blog roll.

Much of the PageRank for wordpress.com/org is probably due to those links from various blogs.  Since it is really advertising for Wordpress they should be penalized or at least have the value of the links discounted right?.  I sounds like Matt is suggesting that they should have &quot;nofollow&quot; attached to them.

This seems a little odd to me.  If Wordpress made a product they should be able to benefit from links when people decide to use that product, both in the form of more attention from search engines and click through traffic.  

So how is that different from someone paying for a theme and including a link?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So the question is this:</p>
<p>Is Google going to penalize wordpress.com and wordpress.org because they embed this type of advertising in each installation of WordPress by adding their links into the blog roll.</p>
<p>Much of the PageRank for wordpress.com/org is probably due to those links from various blogs.  Since it is really advertising for WordPress they should be penalized or at least have the value of the links discounted right?.  I sounds like Matt is suggesting that they should have &#8220;nofollow&#8221; attached to them.</p>
<p>This seems a little odd to me.  If WordPress made a product they should be able to benefit from links when people decide to use that product, both in the form of more attention from search engines and click through traffic.  </p>
<p>So how is that different from someone paying for a theme and including a link?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pilkster</title>
		<link>https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42616</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pilkster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/by-the-way-2/#comment-42616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ the Wandering Author: The issue here is not hidden links. We are discussing visible links on WordPress themes.

No-one at WordPress is refuting the right of the theme designer to put a link back to their site in the theme. I commented above asking Matt (Cutts) his opinion on designer links, whether they should be nofollowed or if they are legitimate, but so far I (like Graeme above) am frustrated. Matt&#039;s comments so far appear to relate to paid links only, paid as in $ not as in beer.

If a company (for this example, lets say a travel company called ‘Happy Travel’) has a blog about travel deals with a unique theme that has been custom designed for them by a talented young designer called ‘Tom Thumb’ who works for a web design company called ‘Cool Designs’. After a while the altruistic management at Happy Travel decide to release the theme to the public through the themeviewer and the codex. Who gets the link?

    * Happy Travel?
    * Cool Designs?
    * Tom Thumb?
    * All three?
    * Nobody?

Answers on a postcard please…]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ the Wandering Author: The issue here is not hidden links. We are discussing visible links on WordPress themes.</p>
<p>No-one at WordPress is refuting the right of the theme designer to put a link back to their site in the theme. I commented above asking Matt (Cutts) his opinion on designer links, whether they should be nofollowed or if they are legitimate, but so far I (like Graeme above) am frustrated. Matt&#8217;s comments so far appear to relate to paid links only, paid as in $ not as in beer.</p>
<p>If a company (for this example, lets say a travel company called ‘Happy Travel’) has a blog about travel deals with a unique theme that has been custom designed for them by a talented young designer called ‘Tom Thumb’ who works for a web design company called ‘Cool Designs’. After a while the altruistic management at Happy Travel decide to release the theme to the public through the themeviewer and the codex. Who gets the link?</p>
<p>    * Happy Travel?<br />
    * Cool Designs?<br />
    * Tom Thumb?<br />
    * All three?<br />
    * Nobody?</p>
<p>Answers on a postcard please…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
