I'll have to buy that link from Google. If they get the $$$ --they will not stop me selling links and my directory ( soon to be versatile website) will always keep PR6 Maybe Matt Cutts may get some commission for brokerage Thanks a lot I'll go along Google's lines and your line --that I am not selling links -I am selling advertisements. ( My designer+coder will finish the new look of my directory where the word links is totally banned ). My marketing point will be -I am selling advertising space to webmasters and facilitating them to reach to their prospective clients. Words change --not the concept of BUYING/SELLING links. I am hoping Matt Cutts and his bots would take another year to adapt to my new technique and by that time I could earn $$$$$ and invest them wisely by buying links ( opps -sorry advertising space) --from Authority sites --and make my site an AUTHORITY SITE itself. BOTTOBLINE: Many things will change --but the basic concept of buying and selling links won't --So too passing on PR to other sites --whatever form it may be--because Google has created it- the PR . People will always find ways to dogde Google's bots --because those bots have been made by humans. Humans (read webmasters) are far smarter than computer programmes.
To note, I was only pointing out that you sell links because you keep pointing out others are doing it... It's not Rocket science either, and many of us get it... we just are getting it on different levels. If your version is the correct one, would you mind showing how you got to that conclusion? It's certainly good to know that you understand how Google works better then google does. Without you we'd all be lost. Ignoring the nofollow suggestion also explains the paid links in your site. Now I wonder what your sources are again... surely it's another employee of Google and not just your own speculation. OH never mind I guess...Mr. Cutt's is confused and doesn't understand what he's talking about.
That is the problem, Google's own guidelines show that they want the quality sites to rise to the top. It hasn't worked out very well due to link buying/selling for PR and of course SPAM. They keep tweaking their algo to try to get those quality sites to the top, because it's good for their business as well as the searcher. This IS business and competition is a part of business. There are anti trust laws to help start up companies to get their footing without always being crushed by the big guys. Without those laws, just imagine how much more control Microsoft would have over the world. As far as that page with Google corporate partners, look closer, those links are redirected. They are not direct links, which follows Google's guidelines. Of course I am VERY biased and I will be the first to admit that. Google has been treating me well (except for the supplemental index headaches) and I don't buy or sell links. I don't expect people that do buy/sell links to support anything that hurts their business. Business 101: Adapt or die.
Thank you that you understand those points. Don't you think Google is incapable of controlling what it created? That is what it seems now and that is what I have been trying to say all along. If G bans buying and selling--its whole algo ( search results by way of backlinks) will have to change --so too PR has to go to Mars. What do you mean by quality sites anyway? Do you think --since you don't buy links --that makes you site of high quality?
No. But I do think if your site IS a quality site you don't need to buy links. If you own a directory, and care at all about the quality of what gets listed, you'll know that 80% of what gets submitted is utter crap. I approve about 1 in 10 for my directories. When I look at some of the utter pointless garbage sites people create, I fully understand why they believe the only way they're going to make any money with those sites is to scam the search engine rankings with paid links.
Sorry minstrel -- it was not for you. But the way gabrielangel was putting --it just meant that her (or his) sites are not getting good SERPs because Some crappy sites are buying links and she is not. But some very high quality sites ( today, I discovered 3 authority sites selling links -- --PR8, if I get those links --no $$$ --I would get PR7 in August ) are also engaged into this business. I checked he signature and if those sites are the sites she is talking about then I must say --I am SORRY. They are not in anyway of high quality like your DMOZ listed site.
Haha no I wouldn't classify the links in my sig to be HIGH quality. They are decent, but definitely don't deserve to beat wikipedia in my keyword rankings. They are all MY site though. I'm constantly trying to improve them, but there so much work to be done. It's hard to find time for designing, promoting, SEO, AND web design. All the sites that rank ahead of me in the main keywords DESERVE to be there, because of their excellent content. Not many keywords are that lucky.
Now that I do agree with. Although I'd say the percentage is higher, 90%+. That is actually why I converted to a paid directory; I was sick and tired of wasting my time reviewing total garbage. Since then, submitted site quality has gone up. Some sites are borderline, and some violate submission guidelines, but only one site has really qualified as total crap (see legalmusicdownloads.com if you want to see a really laughable excuse for a site).
Now this is the angle that really gets me about the whole paid links fuss. If it's only half-decent sites that can afford to pay for directory links, then surely penalising paid links is throwing the baby out with the bathwater? In some cases, you might prefer to see websites in the SERPs that have paid for advertising. For example, if you're interested in buying something and you want to find an established company, or if you want a job from a firm that isn't likely to go bust. In those cases the most relevant sites will also be the ones that advertise extensively, through both paid links and otherwise.
Just because they want to improve their SERP's they can't expect the whole world to act according to their will. Improving the SERPs and providing relevant results is their job not mine. If they are way too concerned let them come up algo's to match their alter ego, instead of begging everyone to get rid of their Bread and butter. With more than a million sites coming up everyday, I wish all the luck for them .. All Success, ~G
And yet another one totally missing the point... 1. The only reason link sellers HAVE any bread and butter is because of Google's PageRank - what Google giveth, Google can taketh away (-eth) 2. Google does NOT "expect the whole world to act according to their will". In fact, Google doesn't expect you to do a damn thing. You keep selling linkes. Other people can keep buying links. Google won't try to stop either of you. All they're going to do is take away the PageRank benefit. Period. And, once more time, THIS IS NOT NEW. Google has already done this and is doing it today. They're simply trying to improve HOW they do it.
Contaminate their results? In google i see the huge companies always coming up first in the search results. Can we say biasedddddddddddddddd?????????? Im 1000000% there are much better content sites than business.com but because they have deep pockets they get to the top first. Id say the results are allready contaminated wouldnt u?
Heads up to all the directory owners here. How does your business model work? Let me guess. 1) Start your new directory allowing everyone to join up for free whilst offering premium membership. 2) After a while (i.e you have a brand new shiny PR) you start to make it harder for people to join for free by asking them to provide a reciprocal link. At the same time you still accept payment for premium results. 3) Further down the line you make people jump through even more hoops to get a free listing. You're still taking payment for premium members and have introduced a new tier of payment which puts these higher paid links at the top of your directory. 4) Repeat to fade. Look familiar? Google is a business. They are in it to make money. Are they putting out all these free tools to people because they love the web user community? No. They're doing brand reinforcement for their search product. If they turn around tomorrow and say that they're only letting in new entries from urls that begin with the letter B, there's not a thing any one of us can do. Well apart from head to our domain registrar with a dictionary in our hands. The simple fact is that Google can and will do whatever the hell they want with their search product.
Not for me, no. I started with a variation of step 1 - allowing highly selected sites to obtain listings for free, sites that met the criteria for those specific niche directories. I'm still at step 1. There is no step 2.
Precisely. Broad generalisations always tend to be misleading. Some directories have good policies, others don't. Also, the fact that a directory isn't free doesn't make it evil or deceiving.
I tend to agree and disagree with Actor Mike. While his model is typical of a directory --I think there is a compulsion for doing that. Why? #1 -- To control SPAM submissions. I opened a directory few weeks back and opened it for the public for free. What I found was link-sharks were submitting multiple sites using automated softwares. And as I wanted to maintain little bit quality -I found that it was extremely difficult to cope with those type of SEOs/who can go to any length to get a link for their clients. One needs time to review sites. #2 --If the review price is kept small --it will discourage spammers and also will encourage quality/serious webmasters. I had to put review fee at $1.99 to stop those spammers and after that I got no submission at all So with review fees at a minimum --some sites will come and you can always refund/reject sites which do not conform to your standard. But your job will be much more easier. Ofcourse Niche directories like minstrel has --tend to receive fewer submissions than general directories --thus managing them is far easier and does not take much time.
Right Google have NOT released a public statement of paid links yet, therefore. Every post in this thread in just an opinion And a personal opinion cannot be right or wrong, its just an opinion, I could say Google are the worst company in the world, and thats my opinion and prerogative, you could waste you life telling me how great Google are, but it doesnt matter, its my opinion, which cannot be right or wrong. There is little information to back hardly anything up, apart from the brief post of Matt Cutts, only logic. If everyone has the slighest bit of respect of courtesy for a memeber, you will value their opinion, rather than creating a pointless dispute.
Actually, Google does have a public statement on paid links, more than one - and the statements are not new, either - they've been around for some time. And Matt Cutts as head of the anti-spam department at Google has made many statements about paid links over the years. here's a sample: Webmaster Guidelines Google Information for Webmasters Tell me about your backlinks Matt Cutts December 9, 2005 Text links and PageRank Matt Cutts September 1, 2005
All of the most recent posts are from the Matt Cutts archives. Do they still have any relevancy to today's web?
First, did you not read the post that started this thread? Second, December 2005 is hardly ancient history. Third, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. This is an ongoing process that should have been evident to webmasters 2 or 3 years ago at a minimum. Google Hell? By Matt Cutts Tue, May 1 2007 .