Respeto tu opinión. Es cierto que son especulaciones y teorías. Para escribir este artículo, he basado las teorías en la información que nos ha proporcionado Google.

Por ejemplo, en septiembre de 2005 (¡hace 3 años!), Matt Cutts dijo “On the dailycal.org, I see the words ‘Sponsored Resources’. Can’t search engines detect paid links?” Yes, Google has a variety of algorithmic methods of detecting such links…

En diciembre del mismo año, Matt dijo:

Google is getting better at handling paid links [algorithmically]…

My favorite overall moment was when a totally legit company (micromatic.com) stood up and asked for advice. Overall, their site was great: good architecture and very crawlable. They had lots of really good backlinks, including industry-specific links. But I could also tell that they’d been buying some backlinks. And they were buying backlinks from the exact same place as one of the earlier sites! At the point when in a minute of typing, I can say: you guys are both trying to buy backlinks, and I can tell that you’re buying them from the same network, and here’s an example page from ketv.com where both of you are even on the same page, and it’s not doing you any good at all. [Analisis del perfil de enlaces]

Matt Cutts dijo en “How to report paid links“:

“Why is a Linux site linking to a bunch of poker, pills, and gambling sites?”….people who search on Google don’t want links like these to affect Google’s search results. [enlaces no relacionados con el tema de la web.]

…the “Sponsored Links” text….is actually an image, not text. The rest of that site is very text-heavy, so the choice to make the “Sponsored Links” be an image is potentially trying to avoid detection of these links as paid. [En otras palabras, Google puede detectar y descontar automáticamente enlaces vendidos si encuenta frases como 'Sponsored Links'.]

…our current approach to paid links worked quite well in this case. Our existing algorithms had already discounted these links without any people involved.

In my personal opinion, Google’s philosophy on webspam is to look for scalable, robust approaches that improve our quality (with a heavy emphasis on algorithms).

Jim Boykin mencionó lo siguiente:

If I were Google..let’s see…how could I tell if a link might be paid for….well I know I can get rid of 90% of them by finding words like “Paid links”, “Sponsors”, Paid Ad”, “Paid Advertising”, etc….and if that word is followed by a bunch of links going to other sites, I’m not sure if I’d trust those links….hum would I trust links in footers and sidebars? would I trust a list of links all going to unrelated places? would I trust a “stand alone link” (a link that’s not part of a sentence)? What else could they find as “flags” that a link is purchased?

PD: ¿De verdad crees que no se puede amañar los votos en Digg? A propósito, Google ya tiene en su toolbar un sistema de votación:

If you especially like or dislike a web page you’re visiting and want to share your opinion with Google, you can vote thumbs up by clicking the happy face or thumbs down by clicking the unhappy face. These buttons can also be used to report especially useful or unsatisfactory results after searching with Google. Just click the appropriate button while you’re still on the results page. This feature is currently in test mode, so you will not notice any immediate effects based on your action, other than experiencing a warm sense of satisfaction from having shared your feelings with people who really do care.

PD: Las redirecciones no impiden la transmisión de PageRank. Para evitar que un enlace transmita PageRank, hay que crear una directiva o del tipo nofollow o en robots.txt

Los enlaces que se adquieren para publicidad se deben identificar como tales….redirigiendo los enlaces a una página intermedia que se encuentra bloqueada para los motores de búsqueda con un archivo robots.txt
- Google

Me puedes explicar lo que quieres decir cuando dices que me invento un algoritmo que “justo funciona al revés de como otorga la importancia Google a sus enlaces.” ¿De qué manera funciona al revés?

Además, los sistemas de revisiones como bloguzz no venden enlaces, lo que hacen es pedirte que pongas no follow o usar un de redirección tipo dominio.com?id=123123 y eso no es una venta de enlaces, porque internamente redirecciona al destino y no transmite pagerank.

Y me parece que si en Google tuvieran este algoritmo que tu dices, no haría un triste formulario para que la gente denuncie a su competencia, hacen eso tan cutre para educar de lo que para ellos está bien y lo que no porque otro modo de atacarlo.

La venta de enlaces además de manipular su algoritmo y tergiversar sus resultados le hace competencia directa o indirecta a Google AdSense, es por ello que no los pueden permitir. Hasta que no pongan en practica lo que salió de el buscador social con unas votaciones tipo Digg o Menéame, creo tardarán a tener unos resultados no alterados.