Matt Cutts is one of the friendliest, most fun people to be around at an SES conference. But, like all of us, he's not infalliable and is prone to make mistakes once in a while. Far be it from me to criticize him, however, as I too have notorious errors of judgement in my past. However, it is poignant and worthwhile to point out hypocrisy wherever it occurs.

From Matt's blog on link buying:

A natural question is: what is Google’s current approach to link buying? Of course our link-weighting algorithms are the first line of defense, but it’s difficult to catch every problem case in adversarial information retrieval, so we also look for problems and leaks in different semi-automatic ways. Reputable sites that sell links won’t have their search engine rankings or PageRank penalized–a search for [daily cal] would still return dailycal.org. However, link-selling sites can lose their ability to give reputation (e.g. PageRank and anchortext).

and further

What if a site wants to buy links purely for visitor click traffic, to build buzz, or to support another site? In that situation, I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute. The nofollow tag allows a site to add a link that abstains from being an editorial vote.

Now let's take a look at some other items from Google - specifically here in their Webmaster guidelines:

Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

As far as I can tell, Yahoo! costs $295 and many "industry-specific expert sites" that list other sites have monetary costs associated with submission. Either Google wants webmasters to submit to paid directories like Yahoo! and other "industry specific expert sites" or they don't. I'm fairly certain it can't go both ways.

In addition, Matt's lost site of the nature of a link. Long before Google was measuring links, people were paying for them. It's not only unrealistic, but narcissistic to think that Google alone can change the order of the Internet simply because it will make less work for their algorithmic design team. What's also being forgotten here is the order of a capitalistic economic environment. If Google refuses to measure links that have been purchased, they're missing out on an important part of the structure of capitalism - links that can be purchased will go to the highest bidders for those links. Those companies and individuals who provide the best website experience will earn the most money (naturally), and thus will be able to afford paid links to boost their exposure. Obviously, as in the real capitalist world, it won't work perfectly, but the basic rules will still apply.

Matt has also forgotten that paid links ARE editorially reviewed. Just as Google's AdWords program & Yahoo's Search Marketing PPC system review ads, so too do publishers see the ads on their web pages and the sites that they point to. It may not be the ringing endorsement that you'd get from a free link via Forbes' Best of the Web list, but if you're a for-profit website, you will almost certainly find it easier to be found there after you've been found on Google by buying advertising via links.

There's quite a few angry folks out there, but I forgive Matt. His blog is relatively new and I know I've had days were I wish the world could change so I wouldn't have to work so hard... I feel your pain, buddy.