DISQUS

It's a good pointer - with services it can become quite difficult, so for the past 12-18 months I've basically asked for a budget range and pitched at all three levels - bottom, middle, and top.

Only a couple of people ever went for the bottom - but they quickly upgraded to middle.

At the end of the day, the better the service, the better ROI for the client, IMO.

I've got to admit, I don't think the PR downgrades has ever been a mainly manual process - I think it has been, and still is, an algorithmic process guided by human editing. But that's just my 2c. :)

I've got to admit, I don't think the PR downgrades has ever been a mainly manual process - I think it has been, and still is, an algorithmic process guided by human editing. But that's just my 2c. :)

No, Mert. If I were to ever believe Platinax had a penalty, I'd change to correct it.

As for the ads on the right - they've been there for 3 years - long before the paid link arguments really developed.

However, you can be assured that I will be taking action, and applying a nofollow to all of the links this week, simply because I have no intention of waving a red flag to Google.

No, Mert. If I were to ever believe Platinax had a penalty, I'd change to correct it.

As for the ads on the right - they've been there for 3 years - long before the paid link arguments really developed.

However, you can be assured that I will be taking action, and applying a nofollow to all of the links this week, simply because I have no intention of waving a red flag to Google.

Andy, I've got to say, I find your reasoning daft. All you're saying is that your interpretation differs from Google's clearly stated and different interpretation.

I figured you were more intelligent than this, so what's with the strategy here? Are you simply trying to gain some kind of blogger sympathy vote as a viral marketing plan?

I seriously don't get it - you sell paid editorial links, you got your hand slapped, end of story, surely?

Andy, I've got to say, I find your reasoning daft. All you're saying is that your interpretation differs from Google's clearly stated and different interpretation.

I figured you were more intelligent than this, so what's with the strategy here? Are you simply trying to gain some kind of blogger sympathy vote as a viral marketing plan?

I seriously don't get it - you sell paid editorial links, you got your hand slapped, end of story, surely?

The big difference between old media and new media?

Old media is important. New media just thinks it is.

Seriously, every time the concepts of "business" and "blogs" join in the same conversation, we see the demagogues rise out to denounce revenue models.

2c.

For $1500 I would expect gold plating, not gold paint. :)

Still, I can see a market for this - would be nice to have a choice of white or black instead, though. :)

It is a tad ageist though - laughing at older people.

You may be amazed at how many older folk are actually using social media. :)

2c.

Video ads have a novelty value, but the big danger is to presume higher clickthroughs = better advertising experience.

The real proof on their effectiveness is on their conversion rate. It would be interesting to see if there are any figures on this.

Simply put, it sounds as though Google are trying to make personalisation more attractive to users.

Once they roll out the WoW skins though....

Um, the WMW thread is a private one.

IMO it's not about whether the links are paid for or not - as much as Google being seen to be objective.

If you've ever checked out Google's robots.txt, they're pretty keen to keep most of their content blocked.

Pretty curious, really - they want to index the web, but disallow the web indexing them.

I've seen this argument on forums before - people outside of SEO expecting SEO companies to rank for SEO terms.

But...I've never tried to rank for SEO terms. I remember talking to John Scott years ago who indicated internet marketing terms converted much better.

Now I don't try to rank for anything because I have a strong base of happy clients and have no need to aggressively chase more.

I also think it's worth noting that not every company trying to rank for SEO terms necessarily has client interests at heart. After all, if they are dedicating so many resources to ranking for themselves, is this at the expense of clients? In some instances, I think it clearly has been.

2c.

Robert, just curious - do you see the recent market in Pay Per Post as really all that different from the promotions and product recommendations that A List bloggers traditionally post? I'm thinking of where there are clear direct and indirect commercial relations between themselves and the companies they promo.

Also - isn't the Pay Per Post system a more democratic economy - and one that will inevitably see market forces hone the process so that the biggest sell-outs in the short-term are the biggest losers in the long-term?

Here's a couple more good ones:

DigitalPoint


and of course:
Platinax

"Some people though mistake Google for a monopoly, they are not. Yes they are the dominant search provider, but that does not make them a monolopy by federal standards."

Google owns more than 75% of the UK search market. The next nearest competitor has 7.4%:
http://www.britecorp.co.uk/news/4/google-is-mos...

In the UK at least, Google is an effective monopoly.

The trouble with huge TVs is that sometimes - they are just *too* huge.

Flatscreen TVs can also have serious quality problems, especially solarisation and poor image quality, that the sellers often will pretend they aren;t aware of until after the sale - then claim so long as it's to manufacturer specifications, then just shut up.

Had a bad experience with that last year:
http://www.platinax.co.uk/blogs/brian/index.php...