Many bloggers are aware of the self-proclaimed online marketing guru John Chow and his "stop at nothing" blogging tactics. The tagline on his blog : Dot Com Mogul John Chow teaches blogger how to make money online by turning their blog into a money making machine. Although John Chow’s blog rates amongst the highest trafficed websites and has an Alexa Ranking in the top 3000, suprisingly, a search of Google for his name does not yield a single result for his site JohnChow.com which, incedentally, is the first listing in every other major search engine if you search for his name. Does this mean the folks at Google are blacklisting Chow by removing his site entirely from their index because he did something that angered the Google Gods? What is it that caused his fall from top rankings in Google while he has still been maintaining presence in the other major search engines?
Go back in time to December 2006 when John Chow started a very aggressive linking campaign in which he offered fellow bloggers a backlink from his blog in exchange for a review of his blog that included a link to Chow’s blog with the anchor text "make money online". While this in itself doesn’t seem to be anything more than a clever strategy to build backlinks, evidently Google did not think it was so creative. Other well known bloggers such as Darren Rowse of ProBlogger fame and Jeremy Schoemaker of ShoeMoney are well known for their "linkbaiting" techniques and their similar approach as John Chow. Each one has shown pictures of paychecks they have earned from blogging which is essentially an old MLM trick (show the people the checks and they’ll follow you down any dark alley) which I personally find to be a shady business practice and just tacky. All three bloggers have been known for encouraging readers to add them to their Technorati favorites which boosts their Technorati ranking and adds to their blog’s valuation for on-site advertising. See the Advertise on ProBlogger page where they openly state "ProBlogger.net has become synonymous with making money through blogging and has grown a loyal and influential readership." and openly cites the blog being in the Top 10 on Technorati’s Favorites page and being in the Top 50 of Technorati’s Most Popular page. Does this really matter to potential advertisers? Do claims such as 25000+ daily RSS readers, a Google PageRank of 6 or an Alexa Ranking in the top 3000 really increase the value of an advertisment on a blog or website? Sure they do and anybody who thinks otherwise is in the dark. Does that mean the advertising dollar will be worthwhile? Probably not. Anybody with a background in advertising knows that high priced advertising slots are merely for "Brand Recognition" which is the reason the big corporate firms compete for slots on television during the Superbowl. It doesn’t mean they will necessarily sell more product, but it does implant a seed in the subconscious of the general public that the company is a leader in the field. On the internet, high visibility doesn’t translate into sales, conversions or guarantee desirable clicks.While the approaches of the three bloggers mentioned may differ at various junctures, the end result is the same, increase PageRank, visibility and viability to pump up advertising revenue.
Recently, Google announced a crackdown on buying and selling text links to pass PageRank, which essentially put a dent into the services provided by sites such as Text-Link-Ads. The impact was also felt by John Chow. While John’s own site doesn’t show up in the first several pages of Google search numerous others have been quick to profit from his misfortune. Here’s a snapshot of Google results for the search term "John chow"
The blogging community is divided on the subject of the battle between Google and John Chow. Some claiming what John Chow is/was doing to be wrong, while others claiming Google’s behaviour to be unethical. I personally find it humourous that paid sponsor links are appearing in AdWords targeting a blogger who has been already rebuked for using questionable marketing tactics. Seems like an oxymoron to me especially when Google themselves are the biggest purveyors of text link ads on the internet. Google’s Matt Cutts is quick to defend Google’s text link sales through AdWords as exclusively for advertising value and not to pass the coveted PageRank but who needs PageRank if your site is coming up first in Google’s listings because you paid for it to be there? It seems like pretzel logic to me or possibly a hint that Google would rather keep webmasters from making any profit that doesn’t involve them. I am a big fan of Google as a company, all the services they offer and I happily run AdSense ads on my sites. The only complaint I have is with Adsense, often times I’ve seen questionable AdSense ads displayed on my sites such as ones from pyramid or ponzi scheme programs who targeted keywords such as affiliate, marketing, etc. For example, the following ad has been running in the AdSense on this site for the last few days…
This is obviously for a pyramid scheme… I feel if Google is to hold bloggers or webmasters such as John Chow accountable for the content (or links) on their websites, they should also be a little more responsible for KYC (Know your Customer) and TIA (Truth in Advertising). As a publisher, I have no control over what is displayed through AdSense. However, if Google is going to take the time to single out and make an example of a blogger such as John Chow for agressive linkbuilding and sleazy marketing practices, they should also take the time to check out their advertisers. This applies especially when they are placing and profiting from questionable advertisments on third-party websites that may or may not lead to consumers becoming the victims of fraudulent internet schemes.
While the whole John Chow affair is probably meant to be an example to other publishers regarding integrity and compliance with guidelines set by Google, my personal opinion is that two wrongs don’t make a right. John Chow is well known for openly stating "Dont put your eggs in one basket" and it is very clear that regardless of his annoying and obnoxious approach to business, he is right about that one particular business ethic. Any entity that has such a large share of a public commodity (such as internet searches), who takes matters to a personal level and purposely sabotages another entity becomes potetentially hazardous to do business with for everyone. Especially when they take advertising dollars from other, even sleazier entities who are seeking to exploit the situation for their own personal gain.
Let this be a lesson well learned by the blogging community. God is Dead. Your lives are insignificant. Only Google’s guidelines matter. Throw away your Bible, boot up your internet browser (preferrably Firefox) and whisper a prayer on bended knee in hope that one day you don’t come under the microscopic eye of the almighty.
…and in the meantime, while you’re waiting for the second coming, just remember the eleventh commandment : Don’t be a John Chow.
The latest posts over at Matt Cutts’ blog is starting to make a lot of us “Mattophiles” wonder if Mr. Cutts is ignoring us on purpose? When we keep asking him about the next Google 
I see a lot of people complaining that their sites are not 
