Forum Moderators: open
Nevertheless, don't expect directories to carry the day. It's an easy way to build up some distributed one way invbounds but you still need to determine other ways to get more links.
The 'don't pay for links' is really a general warning. It may be applied in specific instances, but is certainly not applied wholesale. Heck, I just spent $300 on a link from a directory called 'Yahoo!'.
If a dozen different directories listed your site in very similar categories, that would send a fairly reliable signal to the SE's whether you paid for the links or not.
That is useful information for the search engines regardless of whether the listings were paid or free.
A link is a link is a link for the most part
It has been generally considered for quite a while that certain links carry more weight than others.
- Some consider .gov and .edu links to be "above average".
- Others consider that the PR drain of x amount of links on a page will reduce the value of your one link.
- Other people will argue that a link from on-topic page / site is more valuable than random_link_101.
- It's generally accepted that links to and from "bad neighbourhoods" are, well, bad. Even Google says this. ;)
From the patent document posted the other day it can be seen that at the very least, Google is able to take more factors into account, from scoring links based on their source, their age, the rate at which they are introduced, etc etc.
Whether or not they actually take these factors into account or not is another story! ;)
It would be easy enough for them to build a database of all the directories that charge to be listed and simply ignore links from them.
I suspect that Google have a large number of sets of URLs that they treat differently (for better or worse). It would probably be an extreme case where they would negate the value of x, y or z completely though.
An example:
The patent document that was released last week suggested that if a domain is registered 10 years in advance, then the site could be considered to be more credible (or words to that effect). Whether or not this is the case is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that they can monitor when a domain name is renewed and, for example, create a set of domains that were renewed for 10 years after 31st March 2005 and before 30th June 2005 (for example). OK so there are going to be a few innocent people caught up in there, but IMO, that would be a fantastic way of creating a "highly likely to be SEO'd" domain list, which could subsequently be scored down in some way, or at least monitored more closely for unusual activity.
In the same respect, it is equally conceivable that Google could create a set of known directories and score down or score up the value of links from them as they deem appropriate.
I'm not saying that this is how it is, but IMO it's a reasonable possibility.
Scott
Links that are paid for go against everything that G tries to do with PR.
It would be easy enough for them to compile a db of directories that require payment for a listing.
Thus, why would G give a site any link pop and/or PR benefit for paying to be listed in any directory?
It would be easy enough for them to compile a db of directories that require payment for a listing.
A directory not charging, may start charging, and vice-versa.
The entire google philosophy is to automate everything.
TJ
It can be argued that even random directory_no_15437 holds at least some value for keyword_xyz. Why remove it completely?
Google are out to index the web and that means taking the good with the bad and ranking them accordingly. The ones that get booted out are the ones who try to screw with that process on a large scale.
Thus, why would G give a site any link pop and/or PR benefit for paying to be listed in any directory?
You could argue that free directories are more of a danger to artificial link popularity than paid for directories. But that's the web - everything is subjective.
One person would value the fact that company_x had the money to spend on getting listed. Another person would value the fact that company_y is mentioned on a blog. And so on. Which is right and which is wrong?
It's a very difficult area to go into and start judging yes or no. It's much easier to simply tweak scores here and there.
At the end of the day, directories have been around in one form or another much longer than Google. To say they have no value is a fairly large step to take, particularly for a company like Google.
Scott
I believe that some directories provide much more value than others, and that this is independent of whether they charge or not to be listed. Asking google to consider directories that charge to be not as good as free ones is asking them to rule out some very good content. I'm talking about content that people searching for the topic of my directory find valuable and interesting. Isn't that what google's goal is? To deliver relevant search results.
I can't work full-time to maintain my directory's high level of relevance that search engines seek unless I get paid to do it.
Definitely true, you could argue either way. But ... that's not information, that's just monday-morning quarterbacking: beneath contempt and undeserving of notice by anyone seeking information or trying to build a good search engine.
What Google does -- all the time -- is try out different potentially random factors, and ask: in the current scheme of things, is THIS factor positively or negatively correlated with overall quality of search results (as measured by actual people looking at specific datasets)? and by how much?
It doesn't matter what Brin thinks is important. What matters is the cross-checking.
About once a week I get an email from a webmaster thanking me, saying that they had not been able to even get listed in Google until they were listed in my directory, so obviously it works. My directory is free with paid premium listings, but most importantly, we work to make it relevant.
In my directory, I don't care is someone has a $1000 or $0 to spend on links, they get listed if I, or one of my reviewers, like their site. End of story. Google respects and will give you credit for any respectable directory that offers you a link, paid or not.
About running a directory, check out the one in my profile.
It's doesn't matter if it's a free listing or a paid listing, Google has no way of finding out which, a link is a link.
I agree that Google can't tell and doesn't care whether a link is paid for or not. The statement that a link is a link is another story, however. The anchor text makes a huge difference in the value of a link to the recipient (target) site. Directories can charge more for better links, when better means improved placement on the page and having desired text appear as anchor text.
But if you pay for a listing why would G count that as a backlink for link pop and/or PR purposes?
But aside from Y and DMOZ and a few other authority sites, why would G give you credit for link pop and PR when they know you paid for a link? Doesn't that go against everything they are trying to do with their algorithms and PR?
Are you serious? Take a look at PFI directories and then those reciprocal link directories and/or link pages everyone and their brother has - notice the quality difference? Reciprocal links do far more to skew SE results than any PFI directory can/does. PFI is as natural as an advertisement on TV, newspaper, radio commercial, or magazine.
Reciprocal links do far more to skew SE results than any PFI directory can/does.
Very good point!
Yes, a link is not a link, I didn't mean it as a general statement.
Yeah, I understand, my statement wasn't directed at your post.
I run a few directories for a living, and I'm just tired of having them lumped in with "scraper scum" sites in these discussions. A good directory provides a valuable service, though I recognize that running directory farms have become stylish lately...
If someone is looking for anything related to arts and crafts, I think they be better off coming to my site first, instead of Google. If they use my site to search for dolls, instead of Google's engine, they won't get any blow up dolls in the search results!
[google.com...]
I also run a directory which is ran as a value added high quality resource. I list sites for free I have considered algos that could be used for directories and it does not take too much time to create an algo that would do a great job at filtering good directories from directories that don't link to the quality sites related to the keyword of the directory.
My site is not in my profile, if you search for add url keyword, and your keyword matches my directory topic i come up first.
Are you serious?
Yes I am serious. I think you are missing my point ...
What Google is trying to do, now more than ever, is accurately rank sites. A big part of the way they do this is by analyzing links. What they are looking for are "natural" links to a site. A link you paid for is not a "natural" link.
Let me put it to you another way ...
Say you have a new site with no incoming links. If you go out and pay for 5,000 ROS links to your site, do you think you are going to rank very well? Even if you do today, I guarantee you won't for very long.
And for those that say Google can't tell the difference between a paid link and a non-paid link, you are only partly right. Sure they can't tell with 100% certainty but they can definitely tell a lot of the time. If you don't think they are analyzing this type of thing and figuring out ways to discount paid for links, well, I think you're wrong. :)
Say you have a new site with no incoming links. If you go out and pay for 5,000 ROS links to your site, do you think you are going to rank very well? Even if you do today, I guarantee you won't for very long.
I don't see how 5,000 ROS links would have anything to do with your original question. Run of site links by definition would not be directory links. Sure you can put a link on every page of a directory, but that defeats the purpose of a directory.
There is a lot of assuming going on here, which is because Google doesn't give us much specific information as to how to rank well. Google does say that webmasters should submit their sites to "relevant directories", and they didn't specify paid or free directories.
The general consensus has been that links from category-specific pages are weighted more heavily by Google. What is more category-specific than directory pages, whether they are paid or not?
But Google isn't primarily your enemy: either in fact or in intention or in self-definition, except insofar as you're committing the kind of organized crime they are trying to detect.
So Google doesn't give (or withhold) credit to your site based on THEIR perceptions of your MOTIVES. Google gives credit based on incoming links -- OTHER sites's EVALUATION of your ACTIONS. Obviously this approach can be abused, and is most often abused for ulterior motives rather than for amusement or general misanthropy -- but it serves nobody well to try to speculate as to WHY the abuse is occurring.
So a Yahoo can get public credit by being the archetype of a directory (with some paid links), and a Looksmart can buy public visibility (for awhile) with PPC links, but even the ODP can have for a time links put there for ulterior motives. How should Google choose between them? By a single person's opinion of the relative value of free/prepaid/postpaid/whatever links? Or ... the same way it evaluates everything else: let the entire web pick the best?
Google has often repudiated the kind of a priori speculation that you're engaging in here, preferring to go with web consensus and actual experiment. I predict they'll go the distance.
And for those that say Google can't tell the difference between a paid link and a non-paid link, you are only partly right. Sure they can't tell with 100% certainty but they can definitely tell a lot of the time. If you don't think they are analyzing this type of thing and figuring out ways to discount paid for links, well, I think you're wrong.
So, they know that you paid for a advertising/listing...uhm...like I say, I think reciprocals do more damage to Google's algorithm (I think anyone would agree with that) than a paid advertisement or listing in a directory. I have a program that can map links/sites visually don't you think Google can do the same? What do you think it looks like to see 95% of someone's links being reciprocated? Why are they/site owners going after all these reciprocated links?
Don't classify ROS links with a real paid listing not even close. Anyone that values their site/work wouldn't put 8-10 ROS links to off topic (or even on topic as far as I'm concerned) for the sake of money....
I think dataguy and hutcheson said it best...
I think reciprocals do more damage to Google's algorithm (I think anyone would agree with that) than a paid advertisement or listing in a directory
I strongly agree with that statement. The point of a good directory is to deliver relevant results, not results among link-partners. A link is supposed to be a vote for the "value" of a linked-to site. A paid link is a sign that the site owner thinks a site is worth a visit. That's at least one vote for a site. The site owner who's unwilling to vote for his/her own site with a paid listing may be trying to tell us something about the value of the site.
The best links that a site can get are the unsolicited ones from relevant sites, with no strings or expectations of anything in return. I think that paid links are the next best thing.
A paid link is a sign that the site owner thinks a site is worth a visit.
By site owner do you mean the owner of the site selling the link, or the owner of the site buying a link?
In my experience, the majority of sites that sell links will link to ANY site that is not a direct competitor and doesn't sell kiddie porn.
As to the latter, I disagree - it just means they have the resources to pay for links. That means anyone with a big budget can buy lots of links and get ranked #1? That doesn't lead to quality search results ...
In my experience, the majority of sites that sell links will link to ANY site that is not a direct competitor and doesn't sell kiddie porn.
You are obviously looking at all the wrong places. You will not find the good directories out there by visiting SEO blogs, sites, or forums. Good directories do not want to be associated with these types of sites in any way shape or form.
As to the latter, I disagree - it just means they have the resources to pay for links. That means anyone with a big budget can buy lots of links and get ranked #1? That doesn't lead to quality search results ...
What you are saying doesn't make sense. So if Pepsi runs more ads on television than Coke – Pepsi should be punished along with the channels running their advertisements?
It was Google's choosing to factor links into their algorithm – not website owners. Complain to Google that their algo doesn't suit your SEO desires or pocketbook and you would much rather have them count all the spam ridden reciprocal link directories for twice the value of the PFI directories or those that actually use quality as a basis for a listing.
Advertising was around long before Google and it will continue to be. If you are looking for "links" than you will find most of the quality directories very uncooperative.
