Previously Paid for Directory Links

[riospace]

Way back when, I paid for directory links. Most of the links that I paid for were one time payment, permanent links. Most of the directories I submitted to had strict quality guidelines, but the submission was still paid for. Now that Google wants people to report paid links, am I going to get thrown to the wolves.

I am following the "rules" now, but at the time I thought it was good advertising to pay for links on good directories. I still believe that this was advertising and not SEO, but who knows what Google will do with these paid links. I did not keep a list of the directories that I paid submissions to, so it would be a hard to contact all of them and ask them to remove my links. Besides, I do not think I should have to do this.

I am also worried about my competition maliciously and wrongly reporting some of my links.

Also, what is going to happen to these huge high ranking paid directories and why has Google not addressed this? Is there a double standard?

[Quadrille]

Google has addressed this.

Paying for a directory entry - in a quality directory - is a fee for the exact human input that Google wants; a review and recommendation (and classification) of a web site.

That is not a problem now, never has been, and likely never will.

Please note, I am talking about quality directories - not paid-for link farming / link exchanges where the 'editor' is simply taking a wheelbarrow load of cash to the bank.

Anyway, at this stage, it's the link sellers who should be looking over their shoulders ... or investing in brown trousers. ;)

[riospace]

Could you please point me to where Google has clarified this.

[Conard]

That has NOT been clarified by Google in any way shape or form.
I have been trying to get a clear answer on that topic listed on Matt's blog for a week. The only response I can get is from someone "thinking" they know how it should be done.

The vast majority of the replies seem to be to nofollow any paid for review links or use Java script or redirects to keep Google from following the links.

I don't see the links hurting anyone. I see them just plain not counting in the algo.

[proboscis]

I wouldn't worry about that, as far as I know you can't be penalized for buying links because then I could buy links and get you penalized. And even if someone does report those links probably the worst that could happen is you will lose some or all of the weight from those links.

The link sellers may be in trouble in the future but I don't know of any that are suffering yet, for example I know of a guy who has 800 directories that advertise links for sale as "pagerank" he has been reported many times and he still has adsense, still has pr, and still shows up for searches...but we'll see.

[Quadrille]

He's the kind of guy they're talking about ... keep your eye on his sites ;)

riospace; apologies, I cannot find an explicit reference.

However, I've always distinguished between link sellers and quality directories, and I'm quite sure Google do too.

I see no way that a 'genuinely' editied quality directory will lose anything in authority - let alone the sites listed.

However, I wouldn't say that for the 'editor' who offers "five links for premium listed sites"

And as Conard says:

I don't see the links hurting anyone. I see them just plain not counting in the algo.

He's right; and no-one will know, as page rank won't show it.

[BillyS]

It's part of Google's webmaster guidelines [google.com] They talk about submitting to directories including Yahoo (which is a paid directory). The point here is quality directories - not PR directories...

[Conard]

Bill, I made that same point on Matt's blog and included a link to the guidelines.
It was pointed out that the links from Yahoo! probably do not pass PR as they are paid links.

I don't know if that is a fact or a dream and don't really care.

My worry was the directory I had questions with could be zapped from the index. I don't think that will be the case.

[mattg3]

Yahoo quality directory ... nice one... nearly as good as DMOZ....