Is getting back links from Directories is Spam now

And it even bigger rubbish for you to say that nonsense.
Head over to the Google's webmaster help group and explain the directory is not spam and they will laugh at you. There are plenty of webmasters who are getting manual link penalties and the example of the bad links that Google gives them is from directories. Care to explain why they are getting that from Google if they are not spam according to you?

 

Natural/ Ethical SEO is go for ever. It needs regular supervision and analysis to continue its work process.

 

I challenge you to provide one example where this is true. If you can produce one webmaster that has received a manual link penalty where they were told by Google it was specifically due to directory links I will publicly acknowledge you are right and I am wrong. If you can't , then you should stop spreading rumors. Google has NEVER once identified directories as a source of "bad" links.

 

Well, there is more than one webmaster that received a notice of unnatural links and samples provided by google are directories. If you want to see some examples, pm me your email and I'll send you some screenshots. You need to read the google webmaster forum more and see what people are saying. Watch google help desk hangouts too.

If you do on a large scale then you'll get an unnatural link notice, but it doesn't mean that if you have only a few directories links that's going to help you. Directory links do not help rankings and do not have any value. There was a hangout with John Mueller(google employee) this week and he mentioned general directories in this video, there are some screenshots of a few directories as well. You may want to watch that hangout.

I know there are many webmasters here that run directories for long time and it's hard for them to accept that links from directories are unnatural. You have to realize that general directories do not add any value to google, they are there only for link purposes. Look what major directories such as yellowpages, insiderpages, yelp and etc are doing. How they changed the way to interact with their visitors.

 

Links from directories are not unnatural, like search engine results are not unnatural. Actually, I've been questioning the "natural"/"unnatural" link stuff from Google for a long time. Directories are valuable when they are relevant to your website and give you a chance to build a community and relationships. If you're scared of Google penalizing your website, pick directories that link out with a rel=nofollow.

 

Plenty of webmasters are reporting over at Google webmaster help where the example was given by Google of a driectory link was an eg of the bad link. Just head over to Google webmaster help group and start scrolling through .... I don't have time or patience to dig out, but if you look you will find them.

Bullshit. I on Google webmaster help every day and there have been plenty of egs over the last 6 months

 

I am eagerly awaiting your email.

 

I think directories are part of a natural link building campaign. Just don't use it as your only source of backlinks and you should be okay.

 

I just emailed you a few snapshots with samples of unnatural links

 

Thanks for the info. Your seem like a nice guy and I am not trying to be confrontational, I just see thing differently.

I have seen no substantial evidence that Google deems directories as "bad" and if you read the things that Google, Cutts and others (with any authority) have said about directories would indicate pretty much the opposite. Sure, they warn again "poor quality " directories as well as a just about every other type link. If people are willing to give a select few directories a pass why not say "low quality directories" may be detrimental instead of using a blanket statement? Since we do not know how or what Google deems as "low quality" how are we to know if they are not looking at DMOZ, Joe Ant etc as low quality yet most folks will give the likes of these a pass. I would argue that there are lots of directories out there that are just as well edited and as good as BOTW and but don't have the same notoriety and should not be summarily dismissed. I agree that there are directories that I would not touch with a ten foot pole but the same can be said about lots of websites.

It would be interesting to see the actual ratio of directories compared to forum sigs, booksmark sites , blog comment and other links that Google lists in these WMT messages. I would be willing to bet that the number of directory links ever cited would be very low compared to someones overall back link profile. Personally I find it rather short sighted for folks to claim that directories are bad or links from them will create some penalty when there is not soild evidence and only very little in the way of anecdotal evidence. It would be like saying all wordpress blog comments are bad or all DP signature links are bad because Google cited a few instances. G is simply offering an example of what they deem at the time to be "unnatural links" , they are not condemning an entire genre or industry, just citing a specific link from a specific website in a particular instance.

I can only offer anecdotal evidence and personal experience but directories work very well for me. I own a number of directories that all have a large number of back links from other web directories and I have never received any sort of warning. In fact they all do very well and business has never been better. Getting 1000's of weekly submissions and only an occasional link removal request one would have to wonder who is right and who is wrong.

 

What are shown as example unnatural links in WMT is merely a sampling of a domain's link profile. If all you have pointing to your site are directory links, well it's safe to say that is what Google will show. Below are a couple cases to look at that should cause some to question the accuracy of unnatural link examples.

DMOZ Unnatural Link - Google's John Mueller jumped in and said they got it wrong.
Unnatural App Tutorial Link - Someone the App author did not know wrote a tutorial and linked to the App.
Deforestation Reduced by Furniture Recycling - Someone linked to the business website's campaign to save endangered animals by recycling furniture. This link was supplied from the Google employee that performed the manual review from a reconsideration request.

The larger problem, for those trying to operate quality directories in this industry, is a mindset held by many that directories are good for links only. Real directories try to provide listings, which is something that exceeds the superficial value of a link. Bombarding directories, using automated software, with submissions that contain more spelling errors than there are stars in a clear night's sky is not SEO. Keeping this in mind, it's probably good that the company the OP's friend works for is not submitting to directories anymore. His company was likely responsible for at least some of the automated spam/abuse seen within the industry. And I'll take a wild guess that the OP's friend targeted free directories because most spammers operate by consuming the resources of many without any cost or concern.

 

Keep in mind that google doesn't provide the full list of unnatural links; 2 or 3 samples only. You need to look for the pattern. If google provides directories as a sample of unnatural links then most likely you have a lot of directory links and it's a sign that you've submitted your link(especially money rich keywords) to those directories. Now, if you have links from directories, but didn't receive a manual penalty notice, doesn't mean that those directory links help you to rank. They don't! Google simply ignores those links. There is always a possibility that a few directories will publish your link on their site, but not 1000 directories with rich tetx link. That's why sites with a few directory links do not receive a manual penalty notification.

Milton(LakeCounrty), so far I haven't seen google or Matt Cutts or anyone from google saying that directories are good for seo/rankings. If you have any info/publications, please post it here. I'd love to see what they're saying. But the term "low quality directories" has been mentioned so many times on their blog, by Matt Cutts and John Mueller.

Another thing you need to pay attention is that google doesn't mention "low quality directories" in their notifications, it says "unnatural links". You need to determine what's low quality and what's high quality. And that's not that difficult. Do you think google will show low quality directories as an additional source for businesses? Absolutely not. Go to google and search for a business(florist, dentist, plumber or whatever you want), you will see the google's 7 pack. Roll over your mouse to one of those businesses and you will see a map along with a few directories(they called citations). These are the high quality directories. These directories do not rely on link/business submissions, most of their data comes from InfoUsa, D&B, Localeze and etc. And when you submit a link/business , they verify all listings, most of the time you will get a phone call too. Many of these directories will publish your url, but it's not a link or it's a nofollow link. So they don't exist to provide a link juice. Milton, you've mentioned that your directories are listed in number of other directories, please try to submit your directory to one of these high quality directories and see if it'll be approved. It will not. Do you see the difference?

One more thing, I'd strongly recommend everyone to visit Eric Ward's website and signup for his private linkmoses. It's only $8/month. This guy was building links even before google started and this is the only person I know that was praised by Matt Cutts for his link building tactics. Please note, I'm not affiliated with his business in any way, I'm a subscriber. In one of his private videos he goes through many directories(I've seen some of them here on DP) and evaluates them. Unfortunately, I can't share the video.

 

This may be a bit off topic but there is a good article on unnatural links on moz.com (link) that you should read to understand better what a spam link is or not.

 

All I can say is no one outside of a select few at Google really knows for sure how they view web directories and how links are looked at and weighed in the grand scheme of things. It would be folly for me to claim to know with certainty what is good or what is bad in G's eyes. Since I do not know, I am only expressing my opinion and I can only talk from personal experience and directories have always worked very well and continue to work very well for me even after all the recent Google updates. I agree 100% that there are tons of worthless directories around that have given the industry a bad rap. That's why I always urge folks to use common sense and due diligence when submitted to them. IMO, people are doing themselves a disservice by dismissing directories entirely and are potentially missing a great link building strategy.

 

LakeCountry, I'm with you on that. Google tells webmaster to develop their websites as if Google didn't exist, and in a non-Google world, directories count. They were highly relevant in the pre-search engine era.

 

There are thousands of local directories out there all pulling data from the same sources. It's basically the same data replicated, which can be limited by locality, etc., on different themes. Even our local television stations (two of them) jumped onto the directory train and are pulling data from the sources you mentioned. It's easy money for them as they do not have to employ editors or even manage the software/script in many cases. It's a set it and forget it type of money maker for notable brands as they typically direct user submissions to the primary data provider and earn a percentage off of each sale for "bulk listings."

Although Google may not have these types of directories in their crosshairs, as many use nofollow or do not link out as you noted, most are not what I would consider to be high quality. Yes, they may pull data from a source that verifies listings. However, their data is duplicated across many other directories and most of these directories are effortlessly populated using a more sophisticated form of automation that is part of a paid bulk submission process. Outside of reviews, what sets these directories apart from one another if all their information originates from the same sources? Granted, some do allow image uploads and individual descriptions. But few businesses make use of this as their listings all originated from a bulk submission process.

 

Google said....diversify your backlink profile.....SEO Companies submitted their clients to 1,000s of directories at a time.

Google said....networks of sites are bad neighborhoods...SEO Companies and others started building hundreds of directories on the same database.

Google said...don't buy links for PR...SEO Companies continued to beg, borrow, steal backlinks based on PR.

Google said...paid links should be nofollow...SEO Companies said only submit to directories that are dofollow.

Google dropped the hammer.

SEO Companies blamed who? Well, certainly not themselves.

 

YMC, networks of sites are bad neighborhood only when the sites are really bad. If the network is made of excellent content, then they're just a group of sites that are relevant to each other; and to the user.

By the way, I agree with you that not all SEO companies know how to handle Google's changes, and it would be their professional responsibility to know exactly where to stand; if they don't agree with Google, they can offer their services to clients who don't care about Google and help them effectively. If they believe in Google's traffic and guidelines, then they can help Google-oriented clients achieve their goals.

 

Perhaps I should have clarified that statement about networks to mention networks built solely to manipulate PR. Though one of Matt Cutt's videos does seem to say that even relevant networks can be seen as suspicious if there are too many sites involved - http://searchengineland.com/googles...-your-sites-together-but-in-moderation-157141

There were, and maybe still are, directory networks with hundreds or even thousands of sites. They didn't have good content and they were obviously part of a link scheme to drive up the PR of each of the sites. They were made to sell links, period, end of story. Those were the folks I was referring to. Not someone who has good sites that are related to each other.

The worst part is that so many of those networks were owned and operated by the same people who are now proclaiming all directories are bad.

 

You're right, YMC. My comment might be a little biased because I run my own networks too (50+ role-play blog that interlink to create a multi-faceted fictional story; my readers love to follow each character and their interactions through the blogs) as well as websites in more niches to accommodate my many hobby and professional interests. But what I find really sad is that many good websites and networks shut down because of this Google paranoia. The last word should be the webmaster's, not Google's.

Oh, and about your last paragraph--- talk about coherent thinking, there. If you change your mind on something that relates to your profession, your should let readers and prospects know somehow, and why, not change things overnight.