Thanks minstrel for all those info and links. It takes quite hard work to even compile your gigantic posts So it seems Matt Cutts and Google have been trying to stop paid links (that passes on PR) for quite some time now. But they could not succeed as yet and I reckon they will not succeed in the near future too. So there is still some time to earn some good bucks from the net by selling links till such time comes that Google's incompetent engineers/programmers suddenly bevome competent enough and can find a solution to stop paid links passing on PR. So long mate.
For those who are still resisting accepting facts in this thread, you might want to read Matt Cutts: How to report paid links: Update, May 12th, 2007. Excerpts: Addendum: Summary by Barry Schwartz Sites with paid links may lose their ability to pass link value to other pages Google may use "semi-automatic approaches to ignore paid links," such as manual reviews, spam reports and so on Not all paid links are bad, only those that "flow PageRank and attempt to game Google’s rankings" Examples given of bad paid links include those that have links to pages that are not related and pages hiding the fact that they are paid links Google still picks up on the two examples above, according to Matt Google wants spam reports on paid links to better test, confirm and improve their algorithms Directory links from directories that reject submissions, charge a fee and have quality listings in the directory should be fine Don't try to hide the links or make them "undetectable," as Google will find them I think Schwartz is wrong about the two points bolded above. I think the goal for Google is ultimately to prevent all paid links from passing PR. I also believe they'll never reach that ultimate goal and they know it. But that doesn't mean they won't keep trying and won't get better and better at it. And it also means that non-relevant paid links are going to be doubly dicounted, mso don't waste your time.
Thanks again minstrel for such info --it make me delighted specially with the point I made in RED Yes -my directories charge fees for advertising reviews ( sorry I don't sell links) but not all are accepted. Only quality sites are accepted based on their contents. If they do not meet quality guidelines -they are outrightly rejected. Besides I am working hard to list manually --the authority sites who will never submit to my directories but which will be very helpful to my visitors. I am still in the development mode -as it takes hell lot of time.
hello.... just ran into this at another forum and seems to be a better version then before. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/ Q: Are you interested in things like affiliate links? Are you interested in hearing about directories in this report? A: Nope, I’d be most interested in feedback like the examples that I mentioned above, or things like paid posts that might affect search engines. If you’re still unsure what sort of reports we’d like to get, that’s okay. Fortunately, the vast majority of people sending in reports are on the same wavelength and are sending in solid feedback like the examples above. thx malcolm
remember reading it first day, and there have been few threads I remember reading about this also I think Jeff started a thread or a blog post about this.
Sorry just realized there was another on the same topic started just before mine, please close this one or join it to the other. Matt Cutts Said, May 12, 2007 @ 11:42 pm Dave (Original), I think there was a tendency for a few people (deliberately or not) to look for the finest distinction of what a paid link is, when in practice the sorts of things that people have been reporting (and that we want to hear about) are along the lines of the examples I gave. Hopefully the examples help to give people an idea of what we’re talking about, and the other Q&A stuff will at least serve as a place where we can point people to. I definitely don’t want to scare people away from directories, but I did want to mention that Google has to reserve the right to weigh a directory in what we think is the appropriate way. That is, saying “well, I reject X% of directory submissions (or paid review proposals)†is fine, but if the stuff that ends up getting linked to is still low-quality or spammy in Google’s opinion, then that’s not great. So it looks like the Big 'G' might be ok with paid directories charging a reveiw fee as long as they don't list crazppy sites. Good news for directories because if paid links in general take a hit then directories are gonna be a prime spot!!
This is good for directory owners: And also: This second quote tells me that we might want to get away from "Featured" link and instead have "Express submission" and "Regular Submission" but possible Express could be listed ahead of Regular, and could even tell customers this.
Pay attention you guys.... look further down the pipe He only starts with his original comment and updates his comments and now offers examples......... 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. Those are a few factors I’d consider. If you put on your user hat and ask “Does this seem like a high-quality directory to me?†you can usually get a pretty good sense as well, or ask a few friends for their take on a particular directory.
Thanks for the heads up Malcolm! For all that have replied this is old news, make sure you go below the fold and read the May 12 update. The update is a good read, and as Macolm and Dvdual have pointed out, there is some good info (aka writing on the wall) for directory owners. It does look like "not so good news" for site wide links, or at least we need to reform how they are done/approved. (Although I think this has been speculated about already). Thanks again Maclolm! Morty
I think this is overall good news for directory owners, but also a wake up call to consider quality, and not just accept any link, and not just sell links, but instead only charge for the review process, but away from things like features links (I do this now) and bidding (not sure how long this will work with google). You can still have two levels of fees, but the difference should be Express Submission versus Regular Submission.
Yep Yep! Very good news for directory owners, and also a nicely defined framework for us to work within.
Correct this is good news! 1. Directory Owners need to do thier job as editors... Dont accept everything that comes your way just cause they payed or even if they didnt and added to a free directory its your JOB to be a filter and remove and NOT give sites of low quality a link back.... doing so will hurt YOU the directory owner. 2. Relevency.... If your a directory owner and offer another directory advertising then that is ok in my view as its RELEVENT ... adding joes Viagra site to manipulate the SEs is not and you might very well be punished for allowing this to happen... Keep it real! 3. Adding your sites on PR8-9-10 that have absolutly nothing to do with the site your advertising on is a Big NO NO... stay clear if your adding your directory to a site that has nothing to do with webmasters or similar industry content. What ive written above is just my view of it..... You can choose to do as you please don't sit and cry when your site is no longer included in the index. thx malcolm
BTW, we have seen a significant jump in listings the past few days (especially from what appears to be small business DIY'ers) , and looking back it corresponds with the date of this update. This leads me to believe that this customer segment read (everyday) and follow what Matt says (I know, no surprises, but just a point of data to back it up).
I got the latest news from Webpronews http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2007/05/14/cutts-finally-answers-paid-link-questions
I just increased the price in my directory and now including a professional review of the sites submitted.I guess if we provide a service we can deny it is the links we are selling
Do all paid links violate Google's quality guidelines? Not necessarily. Cutts says the only paid links he cares about are ones designed to game search engines. He cites an example of a Linux site with a group of sponsored links for casinos, drugs, and gifts. Aside from apparent spamminess, the links are presented in image format, which Matt thinks is to avoid detection. Cutts doesn't think all paid links violate Google's quality guidelines. it's good news for us.