I will put ???Advertisement??� over the link, so my visitors don???t get confused
- I will not put ???nofollow??� on the link, because, after all, no-one paid for that link and I can actually vouch for that links, so??�

If you were running a search engine, why would you give any weight at all to a guy who simply “voted” for a bunch of his own sites especially through navigation. The fact that you mention “so my visitors dont’ get confused” suggests that the links have little to no value for your users, but you still want the links to have value for Google. Google has spent a lot of money to seem like the user.

You are not alone on this logic, but my tests have shown that undetectable links within the body are worth far more than any link found in the navigation. It doesn’t make sense to cast a vote with navigation.

It is an absolutely natural thing to link from one of my sites to my other site

I don’t agree at all. It’s not natural to cast a vote in this way. It’s natural for a person to want to vote for themselves, but we are not trying to measure pyschology here. We are trying to provide Google as close to a real vote as possible so our links we are buying and selling are worth more.

Google has created a whole industry around the PageRank. At the moment a webmaster will get a Google penalty because he added some unrelated link to his website the whole thing becomes bad.

As long as Google is showing unrelated results it’s not the time to punish people selling links.

They started as a free SE and now they judge link sellers because possibly Adwords is not growing fast enough…

See Microsoft. Did they have every right to bundle their media player with their operating system? Basically, yes.

Not wishing to completely shred your argument but does your version of windows come with an integrated media player?

Microsoft fell foul of competition laws people protesting had little to do with it, a judge(s) declared they had broken the law and forced them to pay a fine that would be like me paying for parking at the local car park more importantly did it change them or their attitude?
Of course not they simply brought out an “n” version with reduced functionality and charged a higher price for it. So now they can perfectly legally say they do offer an option without integrated media player and they are not breaking the law while still happily monopolising the industry in fact I think you brought up a good example of how mega corporations do walk all over everything including the law.

Google is a company you might not like it but it has no reason to listen to you what’s the worse that will happen you will stop using it’s search engine? Given that Google primary source of revenue is not Google search by not using it you are simple one less drain on its resource. If you want to get a site ranking well you can either choose to play by Google rules and live in a world where the goal posts are forever changing or you ignore the rules and if you get caught you pay the price the key here is simply not get caught.

But you are wrong in saying “its a mega corporation and is not answerable to you, me, or anyone”.

Exactly when a company becomes a mega-corporation, it becomes answerable to society at large. To you, me and everyone.

See Microsoft. Did they have every right to bundle their media player with their operating system? Basically, yes.

Still, they got f.cked legally, because when a company grows beyond a certain size, it cannot behave just any way it wants. Simple as that. And Google has already grown beyond that size.