I’m talking of course of the ever-expanding list of Webmaster Guidelines, a supposedly friendly set of suggestion for how you should create and code websites if you want to be respected on the Google Internet. Of course, it’s really just a Webmaster Wishlist, describing the way sites and pages and links would be created in a world where everyone was trying to serve Google’s best interests.

In other words: “Those with the gold, make the rules.”

The existence of the list implies an arrogance, but there’s a practicality too. We’re free to ignore their suggestions, and they’re free to ignore our websites. In theory, a balance can be found between what they ask of the world and what they provide to the world, and we can all just get along.

When the ‘Guidelines’ specify clear actions that will result in pages or sites being removed from the Google index, I find it a useful document and think it operates on a fair premise: Don’t stuff keywords in white type on a white background. Don’t create 700 versions of the same page with different title tags. Don’t show one page to the GoogleBot and another page to Joe Consumer.

When the ‘Guidelines’ get vague and try to make water flow up-hill in pursuit of some supposed karmic-good, I think they’re laughable and should be treated as such: Don’t create additional pages for search engines (just think about your users). Don’t separate sites into different domains or sub-domains because you believe it will result in better organic rankings (again, pretend the engines aren't there). Don’t exchange links or otherwise lift an un-natural finger to get more links to your site (pretend this is not predominantly what you're being measured on.)

Which brings us to today’s broo-haa-haa. The trouble with links. Votes. Recommendations. References. Google Juice. The bots at Google have asked the carbon-life-forms for help. You too can squeal in the name of Google.

They need a clean world where all links are truly organic (naturally forming) and since we’re all cursed with the knowledge that more links improve our rankings (and thereby results and generally bottom lines) we just can’t help but bite that forbidden fruit. Thus paid links are original sin.

Here’s where the ‘Guidelines’ really go crazy, actually requesting that you not share in the value that has been jointly created by your content, your link equity, your rankings. Your website in co-operation with Google and its algorithm has been given a certain status, and the collective value of that status is why people search Google and they make all that money. There is no doubt they own the collective value.

But shouldn’t you own your sliver of the value, and be able to monetize it? Both legally and morally in terms of the relationships between websites and the Google index? Why should they keep 100% of the value?

And if sharing in that value is confusing to their algorithms, is that really our problem?

As a side note. I’ve never sold a link and very rarely recommended or participated in their purchase. Neither decision was based on what Google may or may not think.