Matt Cutts Says Not to Use Article Directories for Links

At some point that may be their only avenue. They are currently treading a very thin line towards anti-trust.

 

They've already crossed that line (IMO). Its just a matter of time before someone has the guts (and money) to take them on

 

Even if it's true, still i don't want this to be happen. adsense is really a best thing that at a point no one can offer!

 

If you enjoy separating advertisers from their money; I guess I could see that. What I have found is that for more than a decade Google taught me specifically how to defraud their advertisers out of money by specifically telling me where to place their ads so that they would be CLICKED ON. Now that their advertisers have dropped off and realized that they are not converting sales on those "CLICKS", google has run around and smacked their advertisers and or all but removed those "specially placed" ads in an effort to not only appease their advertisers, but ultimately to save face from something they themselves articulated, orchestrated and created.

 

Well, that only happen when your income range hit over $100 day! If income doesn't hit $100 a day, then google not even bother about ad placement. A student like me $1K+ extra income is not that bad, even for CPS offers I need to invest few percent to get ROI but these extra income doesn't even need a penny other that hosting & domain!

 

No where in your analogy are you talking about whether the advertisers are benefiting from their ads on your site which was Mia's point

 

somewhat, I'm talking about publisher benefits.

 

Even article directory is officially blocked by Google, people can still pay for bloggers to write paid contents.

 

The only way advertisers will continue advertising is if they get a positive return on their investment. Otherwise the publisher's income is only short term

 

you can still submit your link on high quality article directories don't submit same Article on on every article websites , use different content for different article directories.

 

But he's basing that response on his assumption that you're building with spammy content that gets sprayed all over the web. As with all things, there's a good and bad, a lot of grey between the white and black. He's simply saying that uploading junk, syndicating it out to a million crappy sites and expecting it to work for link building is wrong. But then we already knew that.

IMHO, his "NO" answer is targetted to the imbeciles, not to sensible people - you know, all those people who still think spun content on 250 sites is a good idea, who spam blog comments, who email you 400 times a day with the same ad...

As always, it depends on the particular circumstances. A broad statement will (almost) always say "avoid it" because such statements are intended for the mindless masses, not the careful few.

 

I was beginning to feel I was the lone voice in the wilderness. Nothing that Cutts says is black and white. It is always vague. Even the way the NO is in parenthesis and after the link seemed off to me.

 

Matt Cutts is a spokes person for a publicly traded company. Everything he says to the public has a intention behind it=To increase profit.

Allstate doesn't care about your families house- They sell formulated policies and publicly traded shares that need growth.
Audi doesn't care about your families safety- They sell cars and publicly traded shares that need growth.
Google doesn't care about your search results- They sell advertising and publicly traded shares that need growth.

It's all advertising and public manipulation with one intention= To increase profit.

 

That pretty much sums it up. Cutts is no different than a presidential press secretary. Spin, spin, spin...

 

So How about Article Directory like enzinearticle or articlecity ??

 

Makes me wonder if they will knock link directories all together as well...

 

If you look at their Alexa states, which is about the best anyone not affiliated with the site has for a measure of traffic, you will see their traffic cut in half from 2012.

Quality can be debated all we want, and Google can run for cover under a flawed algorithm that elevates their own sites and those they are investors in, but the truth remains that there is a shift in wealth online. Anything that serves as a search alternative is a competitor of Google in their eyes, whether its links, a directory or social networks. It's time we all stop ignoring the facts and contact our elected representatives to demand that the agencies responsible for ensuring fair trade are held responsible for their inaction (ie. FTC). Google's future growth is dependent on your silence. If you remain quiet, you are partially responsible for what the internet will look like in the future through the inaction of your representatives.

 

You sir are a true optimist

 

Anti-trust time!

 

I know there are all kinds of conspiracy theories, but you have to admit they have a point. The quality of content on sites like enzinearticle and the like is pretty bad. In all honesty, on most search terms enzinearticle should not be a high ranking result, because their quality is so bad.

It sucks from an SEO standpoint, but then it was all the SEO companies pumping low quality content into those sites that made them so bad in the first place.