Well, not exactly. The New York Times busted JC Penny for buying links whereas Forbes engaged in the far shadier practice of selling them. The difference may seem inconsequential to the uninitiated, but a qualified SEO specialist assures me that Google recognizes a significant distinction. Link buying definitely raises a red flag; nevertheless, it's hard to penalize people for indulging in the practice because of the potential for deception. For instance, let's say site A kicks site B's ass for whatever reason. Site B could theoretically purchase crap links in site A's name, and then report the competition for violating Google protocol. The manbeasts from Mountain View would respond by unjustly banishing some of site A's pages to the dark recesses of organic results page 10. Selling links, on the other hand, reflects deliberate intent to manipulate the search system. Domain integrity comes with a high price tag, and those that use valuable web real estate to post artificial links pay dearly.

Unless the perpetrator happens to be Forbes.com, in which case, it's perfectly understandable. Twice even. Forbes initially played coy by asking, "Can someone help figure out what Links are in violation?" The fine folks at TechCrunch answered their call for assistance, and the evidence seems to have disappeared. Google's been against paid links since 2007, so everyone in the industry is fully aware of this policy. Some accuse the search giant of trying to police the interwebs; this claim may sound hyperbolic since no one goes to prison for messing with search standings. Google's spam cop lacks the authority to press charges in a court of law. Still, it's worth noting that the premeditation element in the company's guidelines stems from a statutory basis in criminal law. Intent distinguishes degrees of murder in many states. The psychological aspect makes sense in the context of homicide, but no one lives or dies as a result of a few sponsored links. They mean very little in the grand scheme of things because most users ignore them completely. Besides, Google's ethical standards always fall by the wayside when it comes to valuable clients, such as the perpetrators in question. Their selective enforcement indicates that there's something beyond punishing paid links going on here.

Google's procedures reflect a profound desire to control content and determine legitimacy. Witness the "honeymoon" period a new site enjoys in the first few weeks of existence. The admirable Page Rank status vanishes within several days unless they notice instant name recognition among consumers and professionals alike. In other words, they're perfectly willing to sustain enviable Page Ranks for wealthy domains. Everyone else must crawl out of a virtual cave just to be seen in queries that specifically mention the business' name! Obviously, fundamental fairness isn't part of the complex equation. So what's behind the empty moral posturing?