In an attempt to promote its Chrome browser, search giant Google appears to have broken its own rules against buying links and using thin content to increase SERP standing. What's going on?
Danny Sullivan reported the story for Search Engine Land. He noted how Aaron Wall, upon performing a search for “This post is sponsored by Google,” saw it return more than 400 pages. All of these entries appeared to be part of a marketing campaign to get the word out about Google Chrome. The links in the results led to a variety of blog posts with headlines such as “What Can Chrome Do For You?” and “Take Your Small Business to the Next Level with Google Chrome.”
Okay, by itself, this isn't necessarily incriminating. But here's the problem: these posts linked back to the Google Chrome download page – and the links didn't include the nofollow attribute. Without that attribute, the links will pass PageRank, or “link juice,” reading in Google's algorithm as a vote for the page. If Google did indeed sponsor these posts, then it effectively paid for those links – and whatever link juice they get from them.
I assume I don't need to tell you that paid links are against Google's own Terms of Service. Matt Cutts, head of Google's webspam team, made it clear nearly two years ago that Google frowns on sponsored posts that pass PageRank. As Cutts explains in his post, “Clear disclosure of sponsorship is critical, and that includes disclosure for search engines. If link in a paid post would affect search engines, that link should not pass PageRank (e.g. by using the nofollow attribute). Google – and other search engines – do take action which can include demoting sites that sell links that pass PageRank, for example.”
Google has taken action against websites before for this kind of behavior – even its own websites, when they get out of line. Sullivan's list of websites that Google penalized for this conduct include JC Penney, Forbes, and Overstock, plus Google-owned BeatThatQuote and Google Japan. Does this mean that Google will have to ban the Google Chrome download page?
Possibly not. Of the posts he's reviewed, Sullivan observed that “most do not seem to have links to Google or the Google Chrome page. In addition, I expect that Google probably never instructed anyone to directly link to anything.” That's how JC Penney handled the PR storm when the New York Times article revealed how it managed to snag a high standing in the SERPs for so many valuable keywords during the holiday shopping season. The retailer claimed that it didn't know that its SEO company was breaking rules, and never instructed the SEO firm to engage in black hat practices. What really bothers me about this, though, is that Google made the rules in the first place. How can any advertising company that's dealing with any branch of Google NOT realize that they should avoid using anything that even remotely resembles paid links?
Google Optimization 
