Google repeatedly speaks on issues regarding actions taken for the only purpose of increasing rankings.
I dropped the paid stuff and my site went straight to the top, I think the algo's are seeing paid links and are penalizing for it.
They don't penalize for buying text links, they just try not to let them help you rank better. If they penalized for buying links, anyone could buy a text link to point toward their competitor to get them penalized.
IMHO buying text links will get you penalized in Google, however one thing that I seem to have stumbled on is if a domain has some good age say 5 years, I have seen sites with that kind of age purchase backlinks and propel to the top rankings. There is a site in my market that did the samething, prior to purhasing backliks this site was nowhere to be found.
This all seems so dodgy. I cannot tell how a mathematical program can distinguish intent. If I pay my 50 bucks yearly to be in, say, bCentral, how is this distinguished from paying yellow pages online to be in yet another online directory? Or abilogic? It's a business listing, and businesses advertise. I would venture that for every "obvious" case of buying links to attain rank manipulation, one could make a plausible argument that it was an attempt to advertise one's site - not gain a backlink. Even in the case of wholly unrelated sites - can it not be argued that one was trying to reach a new audience? If the argument can be made, I do not understand how we (or gg) can aver, without question, that such "link buying" is automatically a nefarious activity doomed to gg hell. It may be that gg does this, but although I can see how, I don't necessarily see why.
From the beginning, Gooel has clearly stated their policy against "artificial link schemes", and the buying and selling of links for PR is a blatant abuse of that policy. They are just getting a lot better at detecting those schemes. In the end, you don't have to agree or disagree with the policy. You still have to live with it and with the consequences of breaching it.
I'm getting a little nervous here. I've purchased a modest amount of listings in paid directories. Would paid directory submission be considered "buying a text link", and thereby looked upon with skepticism by Google?
What I am asking is: Can any human clearly and unequivocally distinguish link buying from advertising? In "grey areas," perhaps even in "black areas," I would venture the argument could be made that the given site was attempting to advertise or reach a target audience. I would argue it would be difficult for any human to definitively and universally distinguish the difference between PR buying and advertising. If the first holds true, I am simply wondering how gg can distinguish the two? I'm not saying "it's unfair." Whatever is, is. I am asking whether google can, as an algorithm, legitimately distinguish between the two type of efforts. If all buying is bad, then every directory, it would seem, which takes money is going bye-bye, along with all member sites. Then, what's next? Subscription based services? No, because the client is paying for a service given...sort of like a site paying for a service given, that is, being listed in an online resource like a general directory (or yellow pages). I think this is a tough nut to crack, and unless google is just going to crack down on all paid services as a matter of course, I don't know how it will discern intent here. Edited to add: Jim, just saw your post. Ahem, I'm getting nervous too. Probably 5-6 paid listings per site, that is all, but, still....
That's a good question, Jim. I think it unlikely that Google will do a blanket crackdown on all paid submission directories but if they see a directory as being solely for the purpose of providing backlinks they might well discount such links. The way Matt Cutts talks about the issue, this won't mean that your site will necessarily be "penalized" per se. It's more likely you will simply have wasted your money because those links won't be counted. I can't tell you how Google does it. But it seems that Google can do it and is doing it.
Just came across this which most of you have probably read. But it goes over many of the points raised in this thread: Google on Links. Among the more salient points, to me: what to do with the paid directories from authority sites - MSN's bCentral; Yahoo (which cost my now bereaved restaurant $300 yearly); yellow pages; others; how to discern intent - and if it can't, how to legitimately declare paid links as bad practice? One thing I haven't even thought of: if you've got the cash, and if paid links are going to trash a site, then what's to stop: buy some links - trash some sites/. Granted, I am not getting that it is being said that buying links will harm a site - only make the links irrelevant. But the potential is there. Not sure what the answer is - I understand google's intent; but cannot see how to accomplish what it is after in this regard.
I don't think it is going to be penalizing anyone for listing in paid directories. If it's one of the larger directories like Yahoo, let's face it: a single link among all of the links there only adds a limited amount to PR anyway. If you are buying links from a link broker, which exists solely for the purpose of selling PR, Google probably knows about it or will detect it and you are throwing money away. If you are buying paid submissions in one of those run-of-the-mill everyone-has-one-these-days directories that require payment or reciprocal links or both, you can be pretty sure you're wasting your money in terms of PR and Google ranking. I do not submit to directories that require payment or reciprocal links, period. I object to it on principle. All that said, there may be legitimate reasons for buying advertising and "featured" links in directories but just be sure you understand it is for the advertising value and not for the PR value.
ministrel, you've got me stumped. If you don't have first hand experience submitting to directories that require payment, how can you make judgement as to whether it's beneficial to rankings?
Uh, have you read the articles and comments by Matt Cutts, dcristo? I haven't used doorway pages, invisible text, cloaking, or a whole lot of other strategies, either. I don't think that means I shouldn't advise people against them. For that matter, I've never been a coke or heroin addict, but I'm also pretty sure that wouldn't be a good idea.
Huh? Where in my previous post did I imply you used doorway pages, invisible text, cloaking, or a whole lot of other strategies? You state buying directory links is a waste of time & money - yet you dont use the strategy yourself. Just seems very contradictory to me.
Re-read my post: I didn't say you were accusing me of any of those things (or of being a coke or heroin addict for that matter). My point is (1) that if you read what Cutts and others have said it's pretty clear that ALL of those things are bad idea if you're trying to boost PR; and (2) that I don't need to have used any of them to know that they are bad ideas.
Minstrel, to requote what you said: To state the obvious, your saying paid directory links are a waste of money, and that you "object to them on principle" thus one can assume you dont use the strategy. It's never a good idea to make big assumptions, and believe everything you read.
A Google ex employee, or something? I've never been big on the whole guru followship, nothing beats testing things for yourself.
Uh, no. A current Google employee and one who has his name on some of the Google patents. In other words, not someone who's just blowing smoke through his hat. As a starting point, see http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/tell-me-about-your-backlinks/ Then read some of the other similar entries on his blog.