| 12:13 pm on Aug 6, 2013 (gmt 0)|
If by link buying you are referring to spending money on a process that will lead to a backlink, there are many websites that you can legitimately do this without facing a Google penalty. Google has no problem when you spend money on a quality & relevant directory submission that requires you to pay for a legitimate editorial review. Or you can pay for a legitimate press release service to announce a new product/service in the hopes that newspaper writers will pick up your story and link back to you.
What Google does not like is blatant link manipulation. When you buy a directory link from a directory that doesn't even cover your industry - Google does not like that. Or you buy text links from blogs that sell off-topic links to anyone - again not Google safe. Or you pay for a press release just to get links from the scrapers that auto-repost that press release rss feed. Those links are not going to significantly help you and can potentially endanger your Google rankings.
There are ways you can buy links that Google would not like and get away with it at least in the short term. From my point of view that is often not the wisest long term business move.
Google tends not to forget about bad links and websites caught taking shortcuts. I also think that Google is moving towards usage signals which off-topic manipulated links will not deliver. I tend to invest money in processes that will deliver long term backlinks that send me direct traffic. The backlink juice I get for my Google rankings is a secondary benefit to me. The more I make my site less reliant on Google traffic by developing and keeping direct traffic, the more Google tends to reward me with higher rankings.
| 5:28 am on Aug 8, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|What Google does not like is blatant link manipulation. |
If you're looking to buy links and scale - don't do it. Better to build a good website and know the sorts of folks that have the capacity and would want to link to your site if you marketed to them.
Google disregards a lot of bad links , but you risk getting a penalty even if you do, as Google wants to send a clear message to dissuade spam linking practices. The number of Penguin casualties should be a lesson for anyone thinking of playing this game. What Google seems to be doing is wanting an admission of guilt via the disavow tool for previous offenders and future abstinence from this behaviour.
| 10:43 am on Aug 8, 2013 (gmt 0)|
The directory sale representatives who try to poach my clients with scaremongering about google penalties for non-mobile sites have stated to some of my clients that advertising with them will boost their current websites rank thanks to the link from their trusted website. Clearly selling links in my opinion but apparently okay because they are the directory….
Anyway non link side note, I had one client go for advertising with the directory and the salesman had copied and pasted the text and photos from the site I provided (already top of google) onto their directory page. A couple of weeks later the client rang me to say his website had disappeared from Google.
I did a quick check and the directory copying the content was the only scraper/reason I could find. My client went mental at them for loss of business, they rewrote the content and his site came straight back.
From the directory’s point of view they don’t care if the clients personal site tanks, it may even help them to sell their service.... but without me investigating my client would have NEVER known why the site vanished. Very bad mojo going on at the directory but that's what you get from a large company, no personal service just flunkies who get commission on sales..
[edited by: goodroi at 7:36 pm (utc) on Aug 8, 2013]
[edit reason] Please no specifics or hints to specifics [/edit]
| 2:37 pm on Aug 8, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Off topic, but...
Regarding directories: Would it not be better if google had a consistent policy regarding the value of links from paid directories?
Why would a paid link from some of the well known directories pass page rank yet a paid link from a lesser known directory not pass page rank or, in fact, even harm a site.
They are both paid links. Both should be treated as nofollow abd be done with.
| 6:21 pm on Aug 8, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Regarding directories: Would it not be better if google had a consistent policy regarding the value of links from paid directories? |
I believe that Google does have a consistent policy, mentioned it the second post on this thread. It's just that there's been so much evolution in search in general that the details can get hard to follow sometimes. And the details do change, or rather they get refined... but I don't think that these have.
There are several well-known paid directories that charge for review and for editing. I won't mention their names here... but note that the review and editing are key components of why Google allows them.
The review is to check your site. You are not guaranteed inclusion. In some cases your review fee buys you a retry option.
Editing includes both the editing of your submission and the ongoing editing of the directory itself. A well-edited directory is well-categorized, puts you in good company, and most important, makes the content of that directory unique enough that it's not simply cookie-cutter dupe content.
Assuming that the directory uses the fee to maintain a certain level of quality, Google does not consider these links paid. There aren't many directories on my list that pass Google's test.
I should add that from what I've experienced, if directory listings aren't confirmed by other signals on the web, the temporary boost you get from them is likely to fade.
| 10:11 am on Aug 10, 2013 (gmt 0)|
>>>I believe that Google does have a consistent policy<<<
In you opinion, if Google is against link buying/selling as a service...why do they let companies use their addwords product to *sell* link building services?