Matt Cutts Says use nofollow for PL,than how is site supposed to get indexed ?

Hi,
Just went over matt cutts presentation said the following :

Now, I wonder how, say u got a new site and domain going, and have no other ways to post its link anywhere in the world, u pay for a text link on some popular site, and it so happens they use no-follow, so how does that site get indexed by google in the first place, if everyone used no follow for that fellows site link which he paid for in full ?

And how can matt cutt and google ignore the fact that dir.yahoo.com is a paid directory all links are paid for for obvious pagerank juice as all links do not have no nofollow, so why google not penalize yahoo dir and give it a pagerank of 0 ? Is yahoo not making money selling links to its directory ? Are they innocent and other directory owners guilty ?

I wonder why google/mr. matt cutts not talk about yahoo anywhere ? Is running a site with sitewide links that bad that google cannot digest that fact ? Would it all stop if google just removed the root cause (aka killed pr altogether ? ) .

Anyways abusers abuse lots of things, but why should everyone suffer for select few ? Why start with directories first , why not start with blogs and other sites which offer sitewides ?

Anyways almost posted this in directories category pheef that was close call !!!

 

Directories has been penalized only for buying too much links in a short period of time ...

There is nothing to worry about it..

SERPS will be back soon

 

You could submit to Yahoo, DMOZ and other industry specific expert sites.........I read it somewhere

 

yeppie. Make new start up sites pay $299 for a paid link on yahoo because it will give SEO juice. why else pay $299 to be listed?

then submit to DMOZ where you have a 5% chance since its become so large that the acceptance rate is ..uh..zippo.

your not 2 clever r ya?

 

yeah now they also want to include it to block pr juice. Before it was to help webmasters prevent linking to a bad neighbourhood site.

 

I totally agree with you on the Yahoo dir. It's a paid link with an annual fee! I'm pretty sure they don't need to a thorough review of the site every year!

But you don't need paid links to get indexed. There are lots of sources of free links that can get you indexed.

 

What is "not clever" about following the guidelines - which also tell you how to "kick start" your site???

 

The point is with Yahoo, paying your $299 DOES NOT guarentee you a pace in the directory.

The fee is alledgedly for a review of the site that allows (if the review is positive) inclusion in the site.

What this means for Google is that the Yahoo Dir is VERY selective, it ONLY allows (in theory) quality sites into its directory thus helping Google in its quest for quality returns from its searches.

XYZABC123 dir (for example) on the other hand will allow anyone who pays its 50c fee to be listed on its site, it has no review or even rejection policy, it just builds links for cash.

Now if you were compiling a list of sites on the internet (which after all is what Google does) and were wanting to a) Rank those sites with some sort of 'quality' rating and b) provide the results in some kind of relevant order - who's directory would you choose to trust the most Yahoo or XYZ123ABC?

That is in essence all they are doing.

 

Are you absolutely sure about this?? I thought it guaranteed you a place within the directory but not places with you keywords.

 

It would probably be best if people stop comparing their directories with

yahoo directory, which is part of a Billion dollar corporation,

which is Googles closest rival

which is totally unconcerned about Googles page ranking system..



Yahoo, as far as we can tell are not anxiously waiting for google to update their page rank



All Yahoo is interested in is beating Google at the search game

 

Aha - some sense at last.

It seems to be that 99% of Google bashing and crying wolf in these parts is coming from directory owners - I wonder why that is

Also, anybody who is comparing the plethora of general directories to Yahoo Directory is perhaps borderline delusional.

Yahoo has MASSIVE trust - and is unique in this repect as a paid directory. Nothing else comes even remotely close - Google even says submit to them by name.

 

Yup, look here https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/reference/cost

 

I'm sure this won't happen. If it does, the pagerank system won't be worth much value for webmasters.

By the way, nofollow doesn't affect your indexing, it only stops you from getting quality back links, your web site can be indexed without any backlinks, just use the manual way

Meti

 

Yahoo directory free is for review - not for inclusion.

So, if you made an MFA site and pay $299.00

Yahoo is happy to keep the money and not include your site.
-- If your site is good they will include your site.

Thanks

 

Exactly - and this is why they are light years ahead in the trust of Google - your post is spot on (plus I doubt they ever buy links)

 

Google Strike.

Get everybody in the world to change their links to Nofollow and see how long google'd last

(unworkable I know)

 

Yaa right google strike, than no one will even have any sitewide links on their sites anymore !!!

ITs simple googe wants everyon to use adwords, its becoming so clear now. No advertisements other than google. Google must think they are loosing revenue when webmasters are doing exchanges and advertising on their own without involving google . ITs all about money money money

 

Lol...popular topic

From; http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/the-best-policy-for-googles-antilink-buying-and-selling-policy

 

Again, I have to point out Google has never said "dont sell links for traffic"

Adwords sells links for traffic and Google has consistently said they have no problem with others doing the same