He will be missed

Wow! I met Ted and I can tell you, his quiet demeanor didn't hide the fact he had a brilliant mind. He will be missed in our industry. 

Exactly GrowMap! It is not so

Exactly GrowMap! It is not so much identifying if you are hit by penguin, but what needs to happen next to get your website out of it.

Marie has a very insightful

Marie has a very insightful article on the exactly the same warning Tad's client received: http://www.hiswebmarketing.com/google-sends-new-confusing-unnatural-links-messages/

Isn't a guest a guest?  If

Isn't a guest a guest? 

If I'm invited to someones house I am a guest.  If I invite someone to my house then they are my guest. 

No one has paid :) 

If a guest make and mess and gets to drunk you send them home in a taxi. If it's bad enough you remove them from you life.. If not you continue to have guest do you not?

 

 

Isn't a guest a guest?  If

Isn't a guest a guest? 

If I'm invited to someones house I am a guest.  If I invite someone to my house then they are my guest. 

No one has paid :) 

If a guest make and mess and gets to drunk you send them home in a taxi. If it's bad enough you remove them from you life.. If not you continue to have guest do you not?

 

 

Isn't a guest a guest?  If

Isn't a guest a guest? 

If I'm invited to someones house I am a guest.  If I invite someone to my house then they are my guest. 

No one has paid :) 

If a guest make and mess and gets to drunk you send them home in a taxi. If it's bad enough you remove them from you life.. If not you continue to have guest do you not?

 

 

Isn't a guest a guest?  If

Isn't a guest a guest? 

If I'm invited to someones house I am a guest.  If I invite someone to my house then they are my guest. 

No one has paid :) 

If a guest make and mess and gets to drunk you send them home in a taxi. If it's bad enough you remove them from you life.. If not you continue to have guest do you not?

 

 

Senseless obedience to authority, SEO edition

I continue to contend that nofollow is the very weakest part of the Google ecosystem - as aptly demonstrated by the endless shenanigans associated with the existence of this prescriptive attribute.

I get why it exists, and I don't have a better alternative (then again I don't run a search engine), but I do know that it's incredibly problematic to add any layer of friction to the mechanism on which the entire world wide web and it's resounding success is based:  the hyperlink.

Anyway, to the point of my headline and to somewhat echo Ann's well-made point - WTF?  If a link is useful to a reader, then by extension it should be useful to a search engine ("Focus on the user and all else will follow" - Google), and one shouldn't artificially manipulate that link code so its useful only to a reader.  The closest one can to a reasonable and workable exception is a paid link (though even now, with the growth of "native advertising", this is becoming problematic - are all the links in an paid post by extension paid links)?

Only writers and publishers can make the determination of whether a link is useful or not, and - as an extension to Ann's point - if not, why is it included in the first place?

But it's okay if you're a "journalist"?  So we're now supposed to be making follow-or-nofollow decisions based on occupational title!  This would be a ridiculous suggestion if it didn't come out of the mouth of a Google employee.  Google employee?!  Must obey!  Must obey!

Senseless obedience to authority, SEO edition

I continue to contend that nofollow is the very weakest part of the Google ecosystem - as aptly demonstrated by the endless shenanigans associated with the existence of this prescriptive attribute.

I get why it exists, and I don't have a better alternative (then again I don't run a search engine), but I do know that it's incredibly problematic to add any layer of friction to the mechanism on which the entire world wide web and it's resounding success is based:  the hyperlink.

Anyway, to the point of my headline and to somewhat echo Ann's well-made point - WTF?  If a link is useful to a reader, then by extension it should be useful to a search engine ("Focus on the user and all else will follow" - Google), and one shouldn't artificially manipulate that link code so its useful only to a reader.  The closest one can to a reasonable and workable exception is a paid link (though even now, with the growth of "native advertising", this is becoming problematic - are all the links in an paid post by extension paid links)?

Only writers and publishers can make the determination of whether a link is useful or not, and - as an extension to Ann's point - if not, why is it included in the first place?

But it's okay if you're a "journalist"?  So we're now supposed to be making follow-or-nofollow decisions based on occupational title!  This would be a ridiculous suggestion if it didn't come out of the mouth of a Google employee.  Google employee?!  Must obey!  Must obey!

Like I said earlier: Bad

Like I said earlier: Bad answer to the stupid question :) No matter what he would have said, that would have blown up. Imagine he would say "It's ok to link to yourself" lol

I am the one who is going to resist: I am not nofollowing my links in my guest posts since my publishers are comfortable with them. I am not following this stupid rule because it doesn't make sense!

If they want us to markup our own / self-serving links (for them to know), I am fine with that but give me a proper way to do that!