Note: This article hasn’t been reviewed since 3/2/13, and thus I cannot guarantee its accuracy since 3/2/13. Please let me know if it, or some of it, no longer applies and I will be happy to review it. This article is my opinion.
Attorneys that have listings with a link, in their profile, to their website in Lawyers.com directories may have reason to be concerned. Both sites may be violating Google’s guidelines by selling links that pass PageRank. I do not recommend that attorneys include a link to their site in either directory. Google states that:
“Not all paid links violate Google’s guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:
1) Adding a rel=”nofollow” attribute to the <a> tag
2) Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file”
It appears that the only way to get a link, on an attorney’s profile, to an attorney’s website in Lawyers.com is to pay for the link. Lawyers.com charges $49.95 for an “an Enhanced Profile” which includes up to 3 website links. A basic listing on either site does not appear to provide a lawyer with a link to their website.
The source code for lawyer profiles on these directories do not appear to me to designated a link (on an attorney’s profile) to an attorney’s site as advertising. According to Google:
“Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results. Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank.”
Attorneys that have listings in these directories may want to remove a link on these sites to their website because Google could negatively impact their website in Google’s search results. I think that probably at least 95% of the attorneys in these directories are not familiar with the concept of buying links that pass page rank.
Although I would not have my website designed by Findlaw, at least Findlaw lets an attorney (on their profile) add a link(s) to the lawyer’s website(s) or blog(s) for no charge. That is a step up from Lawyers.com. So far it doesn’t appear that Google has penalized Lawyers.org or attorneys’ websites that have a paid link (in their profile on) to the attorney’s site on either directory. But this doesn’t mean that it will not happen in the future.
Before deciding not to market with Lawyers.com, please be sure to check the source code of Lawyers.com as perhaps that have changed this practice since I wrote this article. If they have, I would appreciate it if you would let me know so I can edit this article to reflect it. Thanks.
Do you think that Google will negatively impact (in the search results) attorneys’ sites that have a link, on their profile on Lawyers.com, to their site? Do you think Google will negatively impact Lawyers.com?
I will preface this with: “This is just an observation, my opinion, and not an accusation”
It seems that there are 2 kinds of Findlaw Attorney Profile Pages. You can tell them apart by the url. One type, a short url along the lines of pview.findlaw.com/view/1234567_1 and the other in a lengthy one along the lines of pview.findlaw.com/lawfirm/john-Doe-associates/ca/san-diego/MENTKKTHRKEKRKRK… Both types of profiles have links to the firm’s website, but.. the ones with the short url’s also use findlaw for their webpage and the ones with the long one’s don’t. The ones that use findlaw/firmsite for their marketing can list more than one of their websites on their findlaw page (blog etc) The ones that don’t use findlaw for their webpage cannot. Selling back links? You tell me…
Reuben,
Thanks for the comment. When you state “webpage”, I assume that you are referring to a website. That could be a violation but I think the more clear case of buying/selling links on Findlaw.com would be an attorney that purchases a listing so that it appears in the top 5 for a category (e.g. personal injury) or in the directory. This is because there isn’t a ” rel=”nofollow” attribute to the tag” for each link.
Justin,
I think that Google SHOULD penalize hg.org and lawyers.com for selling their links. That is clearly what they are doing. “If it looks, like a duck; walks like a duck; quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.”
Google may be intimidated by the fact that these are attorney sites and they could risk litigation if they pursued it. I mean, they could certainly prove that they’re selling a listing. But, would they want to stir up trouble like that? I don’t think they’ll go there.
Meghan,
I don’t think Google is afraid of litigating. I just think Google may be to busy doing other things.
Links at HG and Lawyers.com, fit, I believe, within Google’s allowance for advertising links as a normal part of doing business. I doubt Google will ever “ding” or penalize lawyer websites simply because they have a link on a legitmate legal directory…at least I hope not.
DLF,
The problem isn’t that a lawyer has a link in the directory. The problem arises when the directory doesn’t tell Google (in its code) that it is a paid link and gives the lawyer’s website “link juice.”
Paying to list in a directory is pretty common – for example the Yahoo Business directory, which costs $300 per year…..SEOs have recommended doing it for years, and Google certainly hasn’t done anything about it in terms of penalizing sites due to having a link from it.
It is weird, because you are right, it IS paying for a link (literally), yet seems to fall into that “gray” area that it’s “acceptable”….not really sure why though….perhaps because it’s Yahoo?
Thanks for your comment Jeff. Does Yahoo put “nofollow” code next to the link?
Hi Justin,
I’m Jackie and I do digital marketing for Estey & Bomberger. As of last year Yahoo didn’t add a nofollow attribute, but I’m sure sooner or later they will and Google will penalize their site if they choose not to. In general buying links is against Googles T&C but things like Press Releases, high quality directories etc. still get past Google and its algorithms. Im sure there is a time in the future where that will all change though
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you said. I haven’t recently looked to see whether Yahoo added a nofollow attribute.