Here's a couple of questions: What about link exchanges? Most people don't want a rel="nofollow" when they do those, are we going to be hurt because of that? Secondly what about text-link-ads.com - how is this going to affect that company?
You've completely missed my point. The review process that happens with Yahoo Directory is in most cases the same one that happens with the purchase of text link ads. If the site selling the ads deserves whatever PageRank and prestige that it has, then the review process of what content it allows is going to be fairly stringent, and if it is a crap site that only has PageRank via a few rented links then then it isn't going to pass value anyways. Google's assumption that paid === whoring is essentially flawed in every case where it counts. I posted alot of my feelings here as well: http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5745 -Michael
Is that Google's point of view or your own? What conclusions do you come to when you break it down using statements from Google employees only? Google does not particularly like reciprocal links and all the evidence indicates that Google depreciates their value. It's worthwhile noting that recips still make-up the majority of links behind the SERPs for many queries, especially in commercial markets. Two things might be derived from this observation: 1) Topical relevant reciprocal links probably continue to hold some value and 2) there are probably a lot of keyword markets for which the current SERP holders are at risk. IMO, Google prefers to assign link equity via its algorithms. This is much easier to do with reciprocal links than undisclosed paid links. Therefore, Google can battle reciprocal links much more quietly. It benefits Google to stir the pot more openly in the matter of undisclosed paid links. If you do want to learn more about Google and reciprocal links I suggest you read this thread: http://www.webmasterworld.com/link_development/3190790.htm
What if I disclose the paid links on my site and say that I reviewed them for relevance and quality? Would Google still penalize me? Probably. Seems like a double standard between the little guy and big guns like Yahoo and business.com. Google's being hypocritical.
Help me out here. You are comparing paid directory listings, the type in the Yahoo! Directory, with text links on web content pages, the type found in the content itself (contextual), side bars and prefill pages? Did I get that right? If not, please be patient and explain where I am off the mark. Now, you also wrote First, let's assume that the web site is not selling advertisements and is not renting links. If this were the case then, not counting on-page link equity factors, the link equity that the page can pass is proportional to the link equity it receives divided by the number of outbound links. There are additional link equity passing factors like the Wikipedia Effect and placement or where on the page each link occurs, but for the sake of simplicity let's ignore them for right now. Now, let's suppose the same page is selling links. Whether they are disclosed or undisclosed, how do these links compare with paid directory links in the eyes of Google? I understand that you think they are comparable because in both cases a value judgment is being made by the link publisher. Obviously Google, as represented by its chief Spam fighter Matt Cutts, suggests that the two types of links do not compare. By asking you to draw the same conclusions as your own by using statements made by Google spokespersons, something I do not think can be done, I am suggesting that it does not matter what I think or what any domain owner or webmaster holds to be fair and equitable. Google has made its value judgment. Barring the ability to convince Google to change its position our only choice to to assess the efforts required to earn a SERPs position and to weigh the benefits and risks, as suggested by Google, of different SEO methods. We can choose to abide by the guidelines, which will probably make our jobs more difficult, or we can choose to ignore the guidelines, in which case we must accept the potential for link equity discounts, penalties, or even a ban. Of course everyone is welcome to try to lobby Google to change it's position, but I would not want to halt my own SEO efforts while I wait for an answer. Also, I'll wager that while forums.digitalpoint.com is a great place to vent frustrations it is among the least effective places from which to lobby Google. Personally I'd love to see Rand Fishkin debate Matt Cutts about this subject at SMX Seattle in June. That would be fun to watch!
No, they are simply distinguishing between different types of links. Yahoo Directory is not the only paid directory that influences SERPs (my opinion) or that knowledgeable SEO practitioners recommend. http://www.strongestlinks.com/directories.php
Yes, that part is dead on. You're half wrong and half right there, and therein lies the problem. It most certainly does matter what webmasters think. If it didn't, then the whole exercise of you or I, or anyone else, discussing it would be rather moot, wouldn't you say? Much like the person who refuses to recycle, or conserve water, or not throw their trash on the ground, simply because they feel that as a single entity they will have no effect on the end outcome, simply saying "it does not matter" is nothing but a cop out to say the least. You, I, and everyone else on the web is part of the web community as a whole. I am going under the assumption that the powers at be at Google simply haven't thought this through thoroughly, and that all it might actually take is someone reading the right blog or forum post to see where the error lies, and take a stab at fixing it. I am assuming you did not read the post that I linked to earlier. My main concern is that in going after this, Google is going to kill many innocent sites in the process. I have seen it happen before in the past. -Michael
And anyone who tells you google can find and devalue all undislosed purchased text links is trying to fool you as well. There is no way they can do this, simply no way.
Even if they can't catch every paid link, they have enough resources to make a big dent - even to the point of wrecking the text-link-ads.com market. They just haven't flexed their business muscles.
I have to agree with this. And it's only one reason that Google do not like paid links, and reciprocal for that matter, and try to scare people into stopping selling links. If You do not have links, You will not rank for You keywords. And if You are selling something, You will need AdWords, and that mean cash for Google.
I wonder what would happen if someone started a paid web directory on a high page rank and high quality site. Basically, that's what Yahoo directory is. It's a directory on a subdomain on a popular site. Would google penalize the paid directory links of, let's say, associatedcontent.com (PR7), if they started a directory with the same editorial review process that Yahoo has? In a similar light, what if w3schools.com turned their links page into a directory like yahoo and took out the no follow tags? Would google devalue those links? I'm not sure what google would do, but I would hope they wouldn't penalize either site's directory. If they did penalize, that would be definitely be hypocritical. Also, why does google not penalize high page rank directories but then they penalize relevant, high quality disclosed paid links? I just can't see the difference between yahoo charging for an editorial review on their directory and someone charging others to be put on their links page. And what makes a directory paid link better than a content-based link? From the user point of view, the content-based link will often be more useful than the directory link. But Google will probably devalue links for reviews from reviewme.com. That's just crazy. And we all know that the sites in the Yahoo directory are not all that great. There's PR 0 sites in there! Also, they're penalizing press release links but not directory links?! I don't get it. Google seems so arbitrary with their paid link guidelines. If they want to be fair, they need to penalize yahoo and all those other directories or they need to stop cracking down on paid links. Am I missing something here?
Just because they and you SAY they can do it, doesn't make it true. If you want to believe google's spider can tell a sold link from a normal link, go a head and believe that. But there is absolutely no evidence for it. If my friend puts a link to me off his pr7 site, or I buy it, there is absolutely no difference. Not unless google can see the money flowing. Which they can't. End of story.
I think the main thing is... people listen to matt cutts to much. They take every little thing he mentions half-heartedly as gospel. Watch his videos, he talks and talks you and walk away knowing nothing about google, how it works, or how you should change your site. He pretends to answer questions with vague and sometimes irrelevant responses. Just because he said he wanted to see some examples of paid links so that he could try some things out, means nothing. Next week he'll be talking about meta tags or some other nonsense. Personally, I think he just wants attention. He advertises Google, builds up the hype, and doesn't say anything useful at all. There is no way they can cut down on paid links, there is just no way for them to know whether a site wide link is a friend, a valid resource, or a paid link. Absolutely no way. Even if it's reported by some jerkoff... still doesn't prove anything. Unless they show the monetary transaction and the resulting link. It's a joke. I can't believe there is such a furor over it, it's ridiculous!
I guess I have a more pessimistic outlook on this whole paid link debate. I actually think Matt Cutts is being serious. I think Google in the near future will start devaluing many links that look like paid links. And they have the resources to totally change the paid link landscape. Also, they have the brashness to flip everything upside down. Google is brash. They're the company that didn't follow traditional IPO methods. They basically snubbed Wall Street. Many people think they're breaking privacy laws by recording our searches. And they even bought Youtube amidst copyright controversy. Google doesn't play. If it wants to do something, it uses its resources to do it regardless of the uproar in the internet community. They're losing money because of the paid links industry and they want their cut. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the future. I could easily be wrong, but based on Google's brash attitude, internet dominance, and previous actions, I think they will wreck the paid links industry.
Maybe, but as stated already in this thread it will very difficult to know which links are paid and which are not. Also, what is wrong with paying for the review service only? I pay $299/year to have 2 of my sites listed in Yahoo, is Google going to devalue the Yahoo directory as well? As far as paying for the submission service only, well that is not the case with Yahoo either other wise it would only be a one time fee rather than annual.
There is, of course, at least one way of detecting paid links that is 100% reliable. You simply log into a link selling site like www.text-link-ads.com and start going through their inventory of sites. Google could have a contest for the first programmer whose script goes through the entire site and compiles a list of domains. The winner gets to park in Sergey's parking spot for a week. All of the search engines have a policy against selling links for ranking purposes. If you've been selling links for the rankings benefits, then you have to know that your site is a target. Google doesn't have to have a foolproof method of detecting paid links. First, Google has no legal obligation to be 100% accurate in designating a site as a link seller. Second, just as you are free to post whatever links you want on your site, they are free to use whatever method they choose to assign penalties. Third, the fear factor is going to be more effective than any automated system they come up with for finding paid links. I've been seeing sites that are no longer able to pass PageRank for several months, so its not as if there's anything new going on here except that it sounds like they're trying to automate the detection of paid links. So they make a bot to round up suspects. The blatantly obvious might get their PageRank poisoned automatically, and the rest get a hand check of some kind. A few months of that and the word would get around that selling links is a serious risk. Openly selling links for rankings was a business that has always had an inherently short shelf life. Sooner or later, the search engines were bound to target the practice. Paid links distort the rankings, and it skews the online advertising market. Google can't kill paid links, but they can make it a very risky proposition. If you have a site whose rankings are important to you, the time is coming when you're going to have to decide if the money is worth the risk. You can switch to selling search-engine-legal links for traffic and live with the change in earnings, or you can go underground by making private deals to provide links that look legal, or you can ignore the risk by doing nothing and waiting for the hammer to fall.