You may recall back at SMX Seattle earlier this year, Google’s Matt Cutts talked at length about paid links. He touched upon the topic of Google being able to read javascript after giving out advice for so long to use javascript as a way to keep Google from reading paid links.

When asked about this, Matt said Googlebot had gotten smarter. He noted that Google began changing its messaging on the subject around 2007-2008 to stop mentioning javascript but to nofollow or do a redirect through a URL which is blocked through robots.txt.

Cutts noted that even on the onclick in javascript, the crawl and indexing team had submitted code so that it would respect a rel="nofollow". So you can put a rel="nofollow" attribute on a link that’s running in javascript, and more often than not, Google will make sure it doesn’t flow pagerank even if they’re executing the javascript.

Cutts did say, however, that if you want to be completely safe, to nofollow or link through things that are blocked.

Cutts revisited the topic in a recent upload to the Google Webmaster Central YouTube channel, in response to the following user question:

Now that Google can crawl JavaScript links, what is going to happen with all those paid links that were behind JavScript code? Will Google start penalizing them?

Matt reiterated that Google has gotten better at crawling javascript, and that URLs you put into javascript that you didn’t think would be crawled, might now possibly be crawled and indexed. He says the vast majority of people who do javascript links are ad networks and that Google handles these very well.

He then reiterated the use of nofollow, even within the javascript code, and the use of robots.txt to block out URls, and redirects.

"We find that the vast majority of paid links are typically not done with javascript," says Cutts. "They’re typically completely straight text links. so that’s where we’ve been spending the vast majority of our time."

Cutts says that Google is not currently penalizing paid javascript links, but they may start looking down the line. He says it hasn’t been a big issue at all in his experience though.

"If you’re selling text links, just make sure they don’t flow page rank and they don’t effect search engines," he says.

Update: Izea has launched thier paid tweeting service (discussed in the original article) on its own site at SponsoredTweets.com.

Original Article: Will advertising kill Twitter? Probably not, but it might kill the popularity of the Twitterers tweeting the ads if some consideration isn’t put into it.

The concept is nothing new. Don’t like the ads you are getting in an email subscription? You’ll probably unsubscribe. Don’t like paid posts on a blog you read? You’ll probably stop reading. I don’t see why the same principal wouldn’t apply to Twitter.

Word is that popular blogger Perez Hilton is making big-money deals to do some paid tweeting. Some will be quick to point out that this kind of behavior will ruin Twitter, but really, it will just piss off Perez Hilton’s followers at worst. If it pisses them off enough, they’ll just stop following him. At best, he is selective with his sponsored tweets and does not alienate his audience, and makes some nice bank while he’s entertaining his fans (not that he isn’t already doing that).

Here’s some stats about Hilton’s blog audience from his own advertising page:

Perez Hilton averages 250 million impressions and 10.5 million unique readers per month.

    * 88% female
    * 9% age 18-20
    * 70% age 21-34
    * 14% age 35-45
    * 90% have attended college
    * 60% earn $60,000 or greater (HHI)

On Twitter, he has 1,008,960 (at the time of writing) followers. And look at what Facebook and Twitter have done for his traffic. It’s no wonder sponsored tweets from him would be attractive to advertisers.

Of course there are others out there doing this already. Heard of PayPerPost? Izea, the company behind that offers services where advertisers can pay for sponsored tweets, complete with unique tracking URLs and everything. Marketers pay for Twitter advertising campaigns on a Cost Per Click (CPC) basis.

Izea says its sponsored tweets are all marked with the hashtag #spon. This can lead to scenarios like this where many people are retweeting sponsored tweets:

Could this annoy followers? Sure. You’re taking your following into your own hands when you go the sponsored tweet route. I don’t think this will ruin Twitter for the followers as much as it could for the ones tweeting the sponsored links if they are not considerate with their sponsored tweets. It’s a reputation issue. Do you want to be known as the guy pushing ads on people all the time?

Quality and audience factor in as well. "Sponsored" often comes with a negative connotation attached to it, but it isn’t always a negative, even from the reader’s point of view. If you are tweeting a sponsored link for a something your followers might actually be into, I don’t see why they would mind.

Choose your tweets carefully. This is a good rule to live by sponsored tweets or no sponsored tweets. And if they’re sponsored, you better mark them as such, or you are bound to alienate people. I’m not sure where the FTC stands on paid tweeting, but that could be a whole other set of problems.