That being said, is this not a campaign for webmasters to take advantage of in a fair way or an unfair way with each other. Matt even said,
“Example.com is selling links; here’s a page on example.com that demonstrates that” or “www.shadyseo.com is buying links.in referencing how users should report websites and webmasters seeking paid links.
SEO-Metro is not seeking paid links but wondering, was not this OK in the past? I know for sure it was common acceptance. Now I understand how a website with cash could out-rank another website with more relevant content but less PR quality links. That would deliver less quality search engine result pages (SERPs) but isn't the algorithms supposed to take care of ranking quality backlinks? So if a site selling airplanes has links from a PR10 selling Antarctica asparagus plus paid links, should not the search engines be able to determine that is not the best quality back-link compared to a PR10 that is about airplanes linking to the airplane site (regardless if links are paid or not)?
So in regards to links and quality content, is not the quality of content that should have higher SERPs? Regardless of back-links or to a lesser extent determined by back-links? All-in-all realizing that back-links "help" determine more relevant content.
Maybe Mr. Cutts has that in plans with his mentioned,
That will be enough for Google to start testing out some new techniques we’ve got — thanks!
I would suppose this leaves link brokers in a quandary among others.
