10 replies to this topic

[Randy]

A question that often comes up when people start asking about directory links, the question often comes up about what directories are considered Paid Links and offer little or no ranking benefit in Google, which are still counted even though technically they're paid links.

About a week ago Matt Cutts answered this question on the Webmaster Central Youtube channel. The video is here. The answer is basically is there value being added by the directory because they actually review and reject sites, regardless of payment. Versus a situation where every site that pays automatically gets in, gets to set their own anchor text, etc, etc.

[1dmf]

Can you explain to me how Google can know whether a link is merely paid for inclusion or if the link and the respective site has been evaluated and reviewed prior to taking any money or including the link on a page.

That answer is complete hogwash, I carefully review any site before I link to it whether i'm paid for including the link or not, and i decide what I use as the hyperlink text no one else, just like any webmaster of any worth would do as a matter of course, so to claim that as an excuse for debating whether the link is paid or not and carries weight is rubbish!

I know your just reporting the facts Randy, but you can't agree with that BS surely?

[Jill]

I think he's saying that as it applies to Yahoo and DMOZ Google knows the links have at least been reviewed. There may be other directories that Google knows will reject sites as well.

[1dmf]

I just find it odd that the rules change depending on who's running the directory, it seems unfair and a mixed message.

But when has SEO or the SE's ever been fair

[Jill]

How is it unfair to give more relevance to a directory that only allows sites that are up to par to be added, than one that allows anyone who is willing to pay?

Sounds damn fair to me!

[Randy]

The rules don't change though 1dmf. They're the same for anyone.

Do you really think Google doesn't have employees with a credit card in hand going around out there to see if a directory will include a really crappy, totally irrelevant site if they simply pay the price of admission? If so, you might want to re-think that position. Google have people in most of those shadier corners quietly watching. Many of them have expense accounts that gets them access and lets them see what's really up.

That's part of why it's smart to do the right thing all the time. You never know who you might be talking to.

[1dmf]

How is it unfair to give more relevance to a directory that only allows sites that are up to par to be added, than one that allows anyone who is willing to pay?

that's not what I meant Jill, how about those legitimate sites that charge for links but vet the links for quality, they are penalised as paid links, yet it seems Yahoo who do the same thing do not get penalised for the paid link.

Either it's a paid link or it isn't , I see no grey in this ?

What I see you saying there is I can sell links and PR, as long as I make the people who's links I include jump through x amount of hoops and vet their site against some unquantifiable quality score before I include them.

Randy -> I find that pretty crazy that someone has a company expense account to go and sign up to sites just to see how 'genuine' they are so G! can evalute a potential penalty or exclusion , big brother isn't watching you Google is!

[Jill]

how about those legitimate sites that charge for links but vet the links for quality, they are penalised as paid links,

Says who?

[Ron Carnell]

Either it's a paid link or it isn't , I see no grey in this ?

Exactly so. And the payment made to Yahoo! is not for a link. It's for a human review to see if a link is deserved. That's the value-added part of the equation.

Vetting paid links is clearly a good idea if one cares at all about the quality of their site. What happens, however, when that paid link is unacceptable? If the money is returned when a link is rejected then the money was clearly FOR the link. Yahoo! will, indeed, refuse to add sites to their directory after a review. They don't, however, return the money.

[Randy]

As Ron rightly pointed out, the distinction is one of what the payment is for. Where links are concerned there are really only two choices.

1. You pay for the review with the perhaps, maybe, sometimes inclusion. But if your site doesn't meet the standards it doesn't get added and you do not get your payment back.

2. You either get your link or you get your money back, so the payment was really for the link.

It may not seem like much of a difference, but it really is when one gets down to Intent.

re: The expense account bit, dunno why you would find that funny. And it's not just paid directories. They buy all kinds of stuff, with a special emphasis probably being on linking schemes or ebooks on how to beat/cheat Google. After all, why wouldn't they want to know what people are doing to find holes in their algo? Might as well go to the source if you can. And goodness knows they've got plenty of money to burn, not to mention that each and every spend for this type of thing would be tax deductible.

[1dmf]

come on your playing with semantics, I sell you an ice cream for $100.00 , with that ice cream you get a lid of hash. No officer i'm not selling drugs, I'm selling ice cream, the hash is free!

But I guess the argument is irrelivant now, as Jill has clearly stateted paying Yahoo for inclusion is a waste of money, so I won't loose any sleep over it

The expense account bit, dunno why you would find that funny

not quite what i meant Randy, i didn't use the word funny, but if I did it's funny ha Ha, not funny peculiar.

It amazes me how some people get jobs with expense accounts (and pretty big ones at that), just to go around the net signing up to sites to see if they are gaming anything. amazing the amount of money thats wasted on nothingness.

I guess us brits see things differently , we see USA as extravigant, wasteful, resource hungry, everything is so big over there, we find it hard to get our heads round, G! probably spends more in a month on cleaning up thier SE than my local council does on cleaning up our rubbish (garbage). it's mind boggling!