Paid Directories

If one pays to be listed in a directory such as Yahoo, does it need to be reported to Google? If so how?

Thanks so much

 

Reported as in grassing them up?

 

I have no idea what you mean, explain a bit.

 

Don't paid directory submissions count as paid links?
Thanks

 

A listing on Yahoo! directory is about advertising not obtaining a page rank enhancing link. It's links purchased for the sole purpose of enhancing a site's page rank that Google has issue with.

 

What about submitting to Yahoo Directories and paying their fee of $299?

 

No - Google says in webmaster guidelines to submit to directories.

Yahoo and other paid directories charge review fees.

Submitting does not equal approval - it means your site will be reviewed and if it meets guidelines can be listed.

 

The directory loophole. I understand some bloggers tried that same tactic with mixed results.

 

I found this at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/information-about-buying-and-selling.html

It looks to me like you don't have to report Yahoo Directory.

Matt Cutts said...

2-3 people have asked about directories. I've talked about this before, so I'm going to include the answer that I gave at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/ a few months ago:

"Q: Hey, as long as we’re talking about directories, can you talk about the role of directories, some of whom charge for a reviewer to evaluate them?
A: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I’d ask questions like:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn’t speak well to the quality of the directory.
- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site."

I hope that helps answer the question of how (say) the Yahoo directory is different from the examples I showed in my post at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/selling-links-that-pass-pagerank/ . I hope it also answers the question of why a "bidding directory" that just gives the top slot to the highest-money bid might not be as trusted by Google.

 

Yes it is very important to report any paid links directly to gooogle, they also need to recieve a copy of all your tax returns for the past 5 years and a special notice to the frequency of your bowel movements.

 

Permit me to make a comment that is slightly off topic, but highly relevant to tons of DP posts:

Matt Cutts of Google speaks here of the "quality of URLs in a directory" that is an issue of importance to Google. Now here's the question: What does Matt/Google mean by the "quality" of the URLs? There's not one of us here (I think) that believes Google manually assesses all the URL's in a directory. So what could Google possibly be using to evaluate "the quality" of those URLs in directories? Can anyone come up with a more likely answer than PageRank?

 

Great post and I think it is all BS. My question is this: If Google allows every single site into their search results including crappy, spamming sites then any amount of review and editing (by a directory owner) results in better quality 'results' than their own search index.

I have the same problem with their broad penalties on 'paid' links. Just cause a blogroll or directory list outside links then how is it fair for google to assume they are paid and then penalize?

I think it is all about squashing the competition and they are using their virtual monopoly to achieve it.

 

Their market share does tend to give them bigger biceps , for good or for bad.

 

Aka, their steroids