Are paid directory submissions dangerous? Worth doing or not?

[whitehat]

ok guys and gals.

My dilemma is I am trying to increase my sites backlinks (a lot). The site has good content and is a valid resource, but has a low PR going on the toolbar, and a medium PR going on Googles webmaster tools resources (more accurate)

is it worth paying to use a directory submitting service (a manual service) or is it not worth risking it?

As many webmasters will now...submitting to hundreds or directories using different descriptions etc is a lot of work and very tedious...so does anyone have a 'preferred' or trusted service they use to speed it up?

I have one in mind that seems very good but I dont want to be tagged by the serps as a spammer.....and I have a feeling these submitting services will use the same text in all descriptions and titles....

[megri]

Yahoo charge 299$ for listing is paid listing. I think directory listing is not a paid links as directory drive traffic particularly if they are niche specific More important question is quality of web directory wither it is for user or a directory which is just selling links.

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by megri

Yahoo charge 299$ for listing is paid listing. I think directory listing is not a paid links as directory drive traffic particularly if they are niche specific More important question is quality of web directory wither it is for user or a directory which is just selling links.

Agreed Megri.

I kind of know the answer to my question I think in that getting a large amount of links (by buying) in a short time is frowned upon by Google.
But everything is grey in SEO and I dont know 'how many' links they call BAD

I think I will stick to submitting by hand to the best directories (paid and free) and see how it goes.
I am about to submit to Yahoo directory but am going through a rigorous checklist to hopefully give my site the best chance of being accepted.

Does anyone know of any good links or info on Yahoo directory submission please? (as in what to do, what to avoid etc)
I have read Yahoos own guidelines but they are not very detailed at all

[briche]

i much prefer free submission even it take time, it has the same result and gg will much consider your site..

[BuckfastMonk]

Paying anyone to submit a site for you is a complete waste of time and money. For the most part, they use software to do their job which you can download your self. Dont be fooled. I don't advise you do this

These guys couldn't give a crap about you or your business.

You are the only one who cares so get your fingers out . . . D.I.Y

check the forums for advice on yahoo submit

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by BuckfastMonk

Paying anyone to submit a site for you is a complete waste of time and money. For the most part, they use software to do their job which you can download your self. Dont be fooled. I don't advise you do this

These guys couldn't give a crap about you or your business.

You are the only one who cares so get your fingers out . . . D.I.Y

check the forums for advice on yahoo submit

ok. Thanks for the confirmation on this!
Must repeat to myself daily....'i will not shortcut'....'i will not shortcut'......x1000

DIY it is.
Ive been doing 20 submissions every other day (quality paid and not paid) so hopefully in a couple of months things 'linkside' will be looking up.

I hope G doesnt think that kind of link building is too fast? but I doubt it somehow as its minor compared to some campaigns....

[BuckfastMonk]

No, its not. It's not about quantity with Google, they are looking for consistency. Of course, if you went out and got 10k links then there would be a problem but you are doing it right. Always mix it up a little too and don't rely on directories for each link. IMO, they still help but I would also be looking elsewhere.

Slow and steady wins the game

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by BuckfastMonk

No, its not. It's not about quantity with Google, they are looking for consistency. Of course, if you went out and got 10k links then there would be a problem but you are doing it right. Always mix it up a little too and don't rely on directories for each link. IMO, they still help but I would also be looking elsewhere.

Slow and steady wins the game

I think you hit the nail on the head here.
If theres one thing Ive learnt with SEO its to talk in months rather than weeks in relation to results!

[simons1321]

I wouldn't waste my time with Directories. 99% of directories are going to pass extremely diluted "link love" because of the vast number of sites that it already links out to. If you take the original PR formula (which has changed vastly) and apply it to the potential amount of PR that would be passed by a directory with 2000 outgoing links... you're looking at a miniscule amount of benefit compared to one decent link on a website related to yours. Now what would you rather waste your time on? Spending 10 minutes on one link from a related site that is going to pass a much higher fraction of PR or 2 hours submitting to 20 directories that in total will probably pass less PR combined?

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by simons1321

I wouldn't waste my time with Directories. 99% of directories are going to pass extremely diluted "link love" because of the vast number of sites that it already links out to. If you take the original PR formula (which has changed vastly) and apply it to the potential amount of PR that would be passed by a directory with 2000 outgoing links... you're looking at a miniscule amount of benefit compared to one decent link on a website related to yours. Now what would you rather waste your time on? Spending 10 minutes on one link from a related site that is going to pass a much higher fraction of PR or 2 hours submitting to 20 directories that in total will probably pass less PR combined?

I agree.
Some Directories do not carry much link weight any more...but googles algorithms do not seem to apply equally to all sites

So older established directories or those run by the big names are still definately worth listing IMHO.

Also, they are a good way to get a sites PR off the ground to enable better link requesting and avoid PR snobbery from site owners

[whitehat]

I agree though. A link on a decent PR pageon a high relevance site is still king

[BuckfastMonk]

Originally Posted by simons1321

If you take the original PR formula (which has changed vastly) and apply it to the potential amount of PR that would be passed by a directory with 2000 outgoing links... you're looking at a miniscule amount of benefit compared to one decent link on a website related to yours.

Simons please enlighten us all by explaining what the original PR formula was. Since it has changed so much, perhaps you could explain a little more about which parts of the formula have changed now

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by BuckfastMonk

Simons please enlighten us all by explaining what the original PR formula was. Since it has changed so much, perhaps you could explain a little more about which parts of the formula have changed now

and what they have changed to

It would be super to know this!

[jhen]

It's hard to tell how the 'PR' thing works. IMO, there are 2 things about PR: 1st-It's just about the links; 2nd - only Google knows...

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by jhen

It's hard to tell how the 'PR' thing works. IMO, there are 2 things about PR: 1st-It's just about the links; 2nd - only Google knows...

Incisive