Our PR goes up and down and no one can figure it out but for 2 years we sell our own adspace.

Google is attempting to threaten its affiliate network with penalties if they go to direct advertising. That is pretty hairy.

Google is pushing a monopoly on forms of income and selling a link to a website is a no-no? Links were there before Google – they are merely a form of competition.

Perhaps it is Google’s ineptness to discount links in the sponsor boxes? Whatever their programming failures they should not be corrupting the meaning of the no-follow as a spam tag, not a tag for someone who sponsors a website.

Horrid business practices hiding under some guise of programming ineptness should be unacceptable when it crushes competition.

These sites pull in over 500 a month in links. They never made that on Google affiliate network. Like I said, some are direct links we sold, others through Linkworth. All work with our content and provide services. We have far more control who we link to than with Google or Yahoo who stick the strangest stuff in their ads.

Content assures traffic and Google PR is something for web freaks. No one cares! It is SERP that is important (what comes up on search for terms) and if Google did not present the best content first page – well – the hand would show too large.

What is a poor soul that takes blind automatic advertising that has little to do with the site, the Webmaster spent no time finding out whom that advertiser was, and you are told to sell no links to anyone else? A Google Adsense Webfarm Affiliate!

As long as you’re not lying to your readers and not putting garbage links in front of them while they’re trying to access your content, your readers won’t think less of you. So if they’re your main concern (and it sounds like they are), don’t let them be a reason you stop selling ad space (if you do) – if you do that, it’s really nothing more than appeasing Google (which is fine if you’re OK with that sort of thing – I’m simply not).

I agree with you- however, Google seems to think that only everyone relies on, and thinks about Google rankings. Google thinks that if you are buying or selling text links, and NOT implementing a NoFolow tag that you are making a direct statement to challenge their TOS, and want to manipulate their algorithms of how they rank website pages.

I have had in-person, face-to-face conversation with Matt Cutts about this issue. He believes that if you are buying links you are trying to manipulate your Google rankings and directly violate their TOS. If you are publishing / selling links then you are misleading your readers and taking a direct position on the Google TOS.

That is why we created LinXL – so users could do what they wanted with text links and not fear being devalued in Google, Yahoo or other search directories.

And I really don’t understand why having text links is bad PR, and will run readers off. How is it dishonest? I see no difference in having a text link vs having google adsense. Which by the way I do NOT use. I run and honest, clean site, with one text link. Google is not happy with it but they can kiss my butt. I still come up on search engines all the time. I’m usually always on the first page for many many searches, so I don’t see how it has hurt me. I get most of my traffic elsewhere anyway.

I will NOT bow down and worship the might google.

Google doesn’t mind people selling links as long as they have “nofollow” in the rel.

I have 0 Page rank Now (it used to PR 3), but fortunately they didn’t block the search result for my blog.

It’s Google’s TOS, not ours. There is no violation to sell or buy text links for profit. And if they have a problem with their algorithm then they should fix it.

Most did leave, and others have stayed. Most of what was lost I’ve picked up through other income sources by now, with more on the way (I’m a big believer in diversifying income streams – not only will I not be a slave to Google, but I won’t put my sites’ fate in anyone else’s hands either – and that strategy in addition to focusing on authority content is what had my blogs going from nothing to what some would classify as a full-time income in a matter of months – in fact, I plan to move to it full-time by the end of ‘09 as it eventually overtakes my service-oriented income).

One of the things I really find laughable, which some have mentioned here, is Google’s claim that they’re supposedly doing this to improve the relevancy of search rankings. That’s utter BS.

For example, when they hit directories, many of the top ones were completely absent or buried deep in rankings, even for their OWN NAME!!! There is absolutely no justification for removing the most relevant result for a search phrase if you’re then going to feed a line like that to your end user. It was about them not doing what Google wanted, plain and simple.

It’s no one’s fault but Google’s that they base rankings too heavily on links rather than actual content. A lot of their ranking practices don’t make sense – featuring old, outdated material for instance versus newer content from high-level authority figures in various niches because of site age or an advertising model they don’t agree with.

I’m lucky in that I come from a marketing / PR background, which gives me an edge in understanding exposure and how to bring in an audience. I sincerely hope the rest of the blogger / webmaster world moves past the Google love fest eventually too. Not holding my breath on that one either though.

I use text link ads and it has not affected my page rank to my knowledge. I wouldnt know if it prevented my PR from increasing, of course. Perhaps it has, as Ive been at PR4 for quite a while.

Part of the issue here is that some blogs are just junk and the only links they have are to TLA and other advertising mechanisms. They dont refer to good sites, they dont do things that generate authority – strong, informative, instructional posts and links to the same.

So with that, I say: Go ahead Google, follow the link. If you decide that the blog is trash simply because of a TLA link here and there then YOU are the one damaging your reputation.

I earn my own reputation from my readers and I do so every day, thank you very much. I don’t get it from a bot.

Would Matt Cutts regularly read my blog if he owned a small business? I think so. That’s the type of reputation gauge I worry about.

Selling text links competes with Google’s click through rates and takes away their income.

Should Google be playing with the rules of the web sites or its the other way round? When a company captures 60% search engine this is what happens.

It becomes a monopoly and that is what US anti- trust laws should prevent them. Consumers suffer, they lack choices, and alternatives. Google has become the Microsoft of few years back dominating everything, buying all ancillary businesses and choking up competition and healthy growth.

Congress and Justice Department should look into these Anti-trust violations. No one should be prevented from doing legally what they can to make a living.

PS: Notice Probloggers has 3 ads for Text lInk sellers.