Well then just change the way paid links work. A directory is really not very different from having a paid link on someone's site. Directories have all different categories while a link on a normal site is just usually just one category. In fact many sites have a links page that actually IS a directory. So its a 10 second change to make all paid links have a need for review before inclusion in exactly the same way directories do. Then we'll have threads like 'I bought a link on someone's site but they rejected me'. Then we're back where we started and all paid links are fine again. At the end of the day, whatever flowery wording you want use to describe it, when you get a link dir.yahoo.com or any other paid inclusion directory you end up with a link you would not have had if you didn't pay money for it. So its a paid link and is in no way natural link building. So if its not any less natural than paid links, why do google support it?
There's a problem with that beyond directories though... Directories (most) essentially have unlimited link potential. You pay. You get reviewed. If your link is accepted, it gets added. With other types of sites, unless we're just talking about a link page and not other areas on the site, can't operate that way. They're actually selling "space," because they'd have a limited amount allocated to paid links. The fee is almost like paying a consultant... you're paying for their time. If they do their job, they'll be reviewing your site to make sure the content is of quality and not in violation of any of their terms. They have to review them yearly or more to make sure people aren't changing their sites after inclusion, and to make sure new content still adheres to the terms and the category they're listed in. You're paying for a service; not space. I don't support Google on this subject by a long shot. But trying to game the new "rules" by pretending to offer something you're not isn't a wise move. And as for why they wouldn't want to attack something like Yahoo's directory.... Why would they do something as stupid as going after links from a well-known competitor? They'd only accomplish a backlash from Yahoo, which is a headache they don't need, and they'd come across to the public as being far less than pure, acting in more of a monopolistic fashion than one of trying to build a better directory. I'm not crazy about some of Google's moves, but I doubt they'd overlook the big picture quite that badly yet.
Why would it be a bad thing to discount links coming from Yahoo's directory ... assuming they haven't already? Google likes to explain their work with the links-as-votes metaphor, and most democracies stopped making ownership of land a criteria to vote. If, as you rightly point out, the $300 is for an editorial review of your content, then you as a customer have no right to demand that $300 also gets you PR or "link juice."
Paid links are fine. Still, not again. They just aren't allowed to carry PR value. That's not at all similar to they're banned from the net. Perhaps the logic you used to get to your conclusion is different from the logic Google uses right now. I actually agree with you here, but just to point out that your interpretation isn't the only one possible, a person could just as easily say that if I didn't spend gobs of money on camera equipment I wouldn't have any content to link to, so therefore all my links are paid. Of course that's pretty convoluted, but...
All that would really hold water if it really were just a directory and no page rank was passed. I don't agree, by not going after the big companies like yahoo this is just like celebrities not being treated the same way when it comes to the law.
Hasen, you're missing some really big points: 1. Attacking your competitor is a major PR disaster waiting to happen. Google isn't stupid enough to do it, and they have a legitimate reason for not wanting to. 2. People know very well when they go to a paid directory that they may be rejected and still have to pay. The same does not hold true for people buying text links on a site in other circumstances. You can't equate "submissions" to "advertisements" unless you don't understand what either means. Whether pagerank is passed has nothing to do with it, because they're NOT PAYING FOR LINKS!!!!! By that faulty logic you'd have to also no-follow any links you placed on your site as a good resource... that's all the directories are doing... you just pay for their time to consider you, which is a fair enough business model. 3. Like I already mentioned, with paid directories, you're paying for a service, not the link itself based on a limited amount of space reserved for advertisers. You can't make any legitimate argument against that fact, and frankly, it doesn't matter if you "agree" or not. Google's made their call, so live with it. Frankly, if you're basing your business model on things where Google can directly shut you down by a policy change, you don't belong in business anyway. No one serious about their business (in this case websites) would put themselves in the hands of another company's whims. I really don't care if you sell links or not, put no follows on them or not, or if you call them sponsored links or "reviews." I couldn't give a rat's ass frankly. I'm running my business the way I want to, with my income streams diversified, because it's simply good business. You can bitch and moan about policies and come up with ways to get around them all you want, but in the end, you'd be better off spending your time on your own business model instead of worrying so much about someone else's.
Fantastic post Jenn. I agree with you 1000% and webmasters should learn not to put their eggs in one basket. I've personally avoided using Google in many cases because of all the horror stories about people banned by Adsense, it's quite the same reason I don't accept Paypal and stick with DGC's or my merchants account. Honestly, I make a verynice living from working at home on my websites, but again, Google's whims have very little impact on my business model. I prefer to use viral and word of mouth marketing anyway. And for monetizing most of my sites I use some AdSense, but also use AdBrite and other affiliate program... The thing that gets me about the "Banned by Adsense" for invalid clicks thing, is why the heck can't Google just do it like adBtite and "audit" invalid or suspected invalid clicks. I mean, how hard is it to remove duplicat IP clicks ???
That's a very theoretical way to describe web directories, one that has very, very little to do with the day-to-day world we all operate in. You really can't equate a web directory with the links people voluntarily put on their site because those links are genuinely useful to the end user. When that happens, it's almost always unrequested, doesn't come with a check. If web directories imagined themselves as a good resource for the community in general and not PR passing profit centers, they would share data on good sites, and add genuinely useful resources without waiting around for them to be submitted. In 99 % of the time, webmasters pay for links from web directories. Nobody cares about being reviewed by sites general web surfers don't go to to find good web sites. That review has zero value; it's not what people are paying for, whether it takes labor or not. Just like large corporations who donate the limit to individual candidates and more to their parties and PACs are looking at their "charitable contributions" as investments that will raise their long term bottom line. Even if there are times when these "donations" don't buy the support the companies are looking for, that's the reason the money changed hands, just like the PR behind the link someone is buying from a directory. That's just the reality of the situation.
Sharing as much as a description is more than many people do with a simple link adding to their site, blogroll, etc. Also, paid directories don't only encompass general directories - Business.com just as the biggest example that comes to mind. The reality is that Google in no way can distinguish a quality paid directory from one without more vigorous reviewing being done, and punishing all could be equated to saying they'd have to essentially publish all sidebar links because you can't always tell what's paid for and what's not, or having to discount all blogroll links, because many are paid for or as a result of reciprocals (still a "payment" of sorts). The motivation of the buyer doesn't matter in this situation when we're talking about Google essentially condemning various business models. The rules and policies are set by the directories; not the submitters. They're bound by those terms the second they choose to submit a site, and Google has no way of disputing it, so they won't.
Actually, my take on the whole thing is different. I'm not going to endorse something that I don't agree with... if someone wants to pay me to endorse them, and I actually check to see if I in fact think they are worth endorsing, then it is none of Google's damn business one way or another if I am paid for it. Like I have said before, this is the same micro-management crap that screws up systems that work just fine by themselves. Google has a much much bigger issue with cleaning up real spam before they need to turn their attention to this. 99%+ of the spam you encounter in Google never paid a damn cent for a link... it's just that people (or at least most webmasters) treat it the same way they do email spam, and tune it out, so Google knows they can sweep it under the rug for now. Since Google can't seem to get a handle on that, they thought they would make a big show out of this, distracting people from the rest. -Michael
I agree with you completely. It's definitely none of Google's business how you monetize your sites, and I'd bet that most of the larger authority sites who haven't been using no follow on their links for a decade or so certainly won't be changing that because Google asked, nicely or not. I don't think personally that anyone should change their business model based on what Google "wants." Google created a certain market for paid links, they're not profiting from it directly, and now they're upset and have an excuse to want it stopped. But even though how we monetize our sites is none of Google's business, that doesn't mean they're going to suddenly ignore it. And those who try to be "sneaky" about it with wording, like some were mentioning with false "reviews" is just stupid. If you don't think you're doing anything wrong, then just keep operating business as usual... that's essentially what it comes down to.
You're absolutely right. But it's also none of any webmaster's business whether Google values the links coming out of their site. People can sell the all the links they want; what they don't have a right to do is demand special treatment for the links they've sold. You can monetize your site in any way you'd like, but Google can devalue the links that are clearly sold, or not merited for whatever other reason they choose. They can also choose to make priorities out of whatever the management sees fit; that's how private companies operate in the free world. Suggesting that Google has to pass on PR to your paid links is a little like suggesting that all movie theaters should be forced to provide a 20 minute intermission to check your voice mail and send those urgent text messages. And a bunch of webmasters throwing a temper tantrum in a forum isn't going to change Google's policy on that. As someone so eloquently put it, nobody "give a rat's ass." People are going to run their businesses as they see fit, weighing risks and rewards, and occasionally businesses that choose to game the system will get spanked.
I've already essentially said this several times in this thread. You can operate your business any way you want, and Google will operate theirs how they want. Directory owners aren't "demanding special treatment" at all... Google's the one that decided to value paid directories like Yahoo's differently. All I've been doing is explaining why, and people seem to have a problem grasping it... which doesn't really matter, because they've already decided and laid down their "law." I never said Google "has to" pass on PR to anyone, so I hope that wasn't directed at me. If they've already said they're not penalizing paid directories based on reviews, then they're not... simple as that, and that's all I've been explaining. And yes, you're right. People are going to operate business however they see fit, and as long as they're within certain legal and ethical bounds, there's nothing wrong with it.
OK - here's a test. When Yahoo makes all their links "nofollow", let's see how many webmasters pay $300 to have their sites "reviewed". We all know Yahoo is selling link juice. You can get as longwinded on the subject as you want, but everybody with common sense sees what's going on here.
See, Forrest, again, you're just not getting it. I know you're going to use this as an "oh, he's attacking me again" distraction, but seriously, you should listen... Google is not a private company. They are a publicly held company. Additionally, what Google does behind closed doors with their algo is fine. HOWEVER... When Google crossed the line is when they came out and publicly stated "Do business in the manner in which we tell you or we will penalize you in our nice pretty search engine." That, as I mentioned, clearly falls under "conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate trade". What they do with a secret algo they don't give out the details to is their business... how they attempt to control peoples business practices is everyones business. Your misconception that Google can do whatever the hell they like is just that... a misconception. There are many laws governing Google's business practices. -Michael
How are they not paying for links? I really don't understand why you say that. I'm sorry but if you want a link on my site you have to pay and I'll review your site pending inclusion. So these are no longer paid links.....either that or I just changed my wording so I could get around Google's new 'law'. Paid links are not advertisements anyway, banners are advertisements, Adsense ads are advertisements. If Google are really serious about this then they should say paid links in directories should be nofollow, just the same as paid links on any other website. Exactly. That's the simple truth.
This whole conversation is getting really repetitive and really boring. Some people are just never going to get it, because the facts aren't what they want to hear. Who the hell cares at this point? Just run your business and stop worrying so much about Google. If you're essentially a slave to them in business, fix it. If not, good for you.
OK i have been reading most of this thread for some time now ... jenn mentioned some valid points but as she mentioned quite a few people keep coming back to the same old non-point . To start with , Yahoo is THE directory ( maybe even BOTW too ) . They take 299 USD per year for the Review and they actually surely have the staff / manpower to keep the directory really useful with worthwhile links . Not every page that sell links , has that . YAHOO Directory undoubtedly gives outgoing PR , but they also give tremendous traffic too ... hope it wont be a surprise to many of you , but people even actually browse through the directory to find links for their locality . This is the added benefit for which , people will continue to pay 299 USD even if Yahoo one day decide ( which they wont) to make links no-follow . People do not only visit Dir.Yahoo.com , 100,000,000 people visit games.yahoo.com , finance.yahoo.com , XYZ.Yahoo.com and thus the Yahoo directory has its own value , which is tremendously more than any other 2006 December made directory . An example you may better associate with : Aviva directory is a worthwhile to some extent simmilarly because people not only visit aviva directory , but also aviva templates download blog , iwebtool has several other facets m besides just the directory . Scenario 2 : Think of any tom dick harry blog which is selling links : you have a PR2 Blog , which you are suddenly ecstatic that it will get PR3 or PR4 next month and bombard DP with the news . Your blog has content copied from movies.yahoo.com or nytimes.com . Another blog owner just starting out a tennis forum , with 7 members which opened last week to earn some adsense money , thinks , hey i should buy a link there ... and also sponsor the footer of 4 newly made directories . And I am sure to get PR 3 in 1 or 2 update . Now , tell me how in the world was any google visitor helped by this ? And i have not even mentioned the viagra and casino webmasters , who manage to sponsor important authority sites like linux , php resources. Now : I have also read jenn's post where she speaks of how , PR is the actual osama ( read nurtured devil ) . Maybe google is unable to tame the beast , but at least they are being reactive . There are so many evils you simply can't control . Think of how the social bookmarking sites and web 2.0 communities initially started as a fantastic way of collecting TRUE popularity . Several DP sub forums are full of Stumble Me _ I wil _ Dig_ Yours thread I am sure google will not click -ban all sites reported thru the webmaster tool. They have mentioned there that it is only for their internal data collection and making long time algorithmic changes .
I agree with the fact that sponsoring other sites may not be positive to google's algo. Yes, maybe someday everyone who is selling links will use the nofollow attribute. But this will occur in the future. This means that all link selling companies and link exchanges will dissapear. Maybe that way a webmaster will be more motivated to mention a good resourse, but until then the link selling industry is a truth. Why do you think that many of webmaster are so anxious about PR update??