Did Site-Sift Get Whacked?

[GuyFromChicago]

http://www.site-sift.com/

I swore this was in the not-to-distant past a PR 7 or 8 directory. It's been PR 0 and showing 0 indexed pages for me for the last day or two.

[zman]

Ouch!

Hopefully it is only temporary. I really like that directory. :confused:

[spdude]

It was a PR8 just yesterday! Also hope it is only temporary...

[samsam]

It is a nice directory.

[Pink Chair]

It was just the matter of time when this is going to happen. It happens to all directories that acquire PR fast by getting high PR sidewide paid links. I don't have anything against Site Shift but they got what they where asking for.
Remember Blue Find?

[macdesign]

Looks like they copied a lot of site descriptions from ODP - without stating that fact.

Maybe Google knows and dropped them along with others who are not providing unique content.

[macdesign]

It this right?

Digital Point Solutions
Offering accounting, billing, management and security software for a variety of industries.
http://www.digitalpoint.com/

That's what they have listed.

[fryman]

Yup
http://www.digitalpoint.com/products/

[macdesign]

Also compare http://www.site-sift.com/105 and http://www.qqsites.com/105.htm

[macdesign]

Yep, fryman, I looked at that page, but accounting software seems wrong.

I think

Internet services including database development, data conversion, and business software. Includes biographies, links, and contacts.

is better, but of course you know I'm biased :p

[fryman]

So, are you suggesting a duplicate site penalty?

[macdesign]

No. I'm just hacking while waiting for something, and I discovered the two seemingly related sites. I wondered why.

[Pink Chair]

It is not that they just lost PR, the directory is de-listed from Google, completely all the pages.

[fryman]

Well, whatever happened, it is just sad it hapened to a fellow member that we all appreciate, I hope things get fixed up soon

[digitalpoint]

It this right?

Digital Point Solutions
Offering accounting, billing, management and security software for a variety of industries.
http://www.digitalpoint.com/

That's what they have listed.It's not ODP descriptions, it's what we submitted to it.

[charless]

Shoot. That sucks..I have a site submitted to Site Sift although it did help with rankings before and after. Hopefully this is just temporary.

[frankm]

looks like it is completely gone from google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.site-sift.com%2F

all pagerank scripts I have return 0's
too bad, is a nice directory - and run by a DP member if I'm not mistaken

[spondishy]

So is this a general nail in the coffin for Directories, dup content penalty, sitewide link penalty?

[l234244]

Sitewide penalty theories is rubbish because statcounter.com has been requesting them to use their service for years and its not banned.

[Pink Chair]

There is a thread about this here http://seo.anthonyparsons.com/forum/thread1019.html as well.

[GuyFromChicago]

Being talked about here (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=7513) too.

I'll ask the same question here that I asked there - why would Site-Sift get whacked but the other sites advertising there, at least so far, have not? Any theories?

[zman]

I'll ask the same question here that I asked there - why would Site-Sift get whacked but the other sites advertising there, at least so far, have not? Any theories?

Well, how would G know that those people wanted to be there? I mean, you cant really ban sites because of an incoming link because that is somewhat out of your control. Besides, advertising is a big part of our world and I dont think it would be a good practice to harm websites because they advertise.

My two cents

[GuyFromChicago]

Well, how would G know that those people wanted to be there? I mean, you cant really ban sites because of an incoming link because that is somewhat out of your control. Besides, advertising is a big part of our world and I dont think it would be a good practice to harm websites because they advertise.

My two cents

A lot of it was being hashed out here (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/search_engine_s_2.html) yesterday. Long, but a good read none the less. I don't think there was any doubt that they were paying to advertise there.

[zman]

This brings up a new concern. I have been featuring Site Sift on my directory for quite some time as I actually believe it was a good resource. Now I am concerned on what to do. Should I remove the link? I still think it is a good resource but now I feel I may be in hot water for linking to them.

I dont really see this as a good move by G. It just smells bad alltogether.

[samsam]

as far as I can think, I feel this is a dup content issue.

[GuyFromChicago]

Now I am concerned on what to do. Should I remove the link? I still think it is a good resource but now I feel I may be in hot water for linking to them.

I had links on some of my sites when Bluefind got the ax and never took them down. No problems came from that that I am aware of.

I would say if you feel it's a good resource continue linking to it. Afterall, don't Google's webmaster guildlines say: "Make pages for users, not for search engines.":)

Disclaimer: 9 times out of 8 I have no idea. Please take that into consideration when evaluating my opinions.

[zman]

as far as I can think, I feel this is a dup content issue.

It is either that or the buying links issue. If it is for buying links than G is going to come across a lot of anger IMHO.

Google pays for links through Adsense, how can they begin penalizing others for doing the same through different methods? G first put all the focus on links so I think it is thier problem, not ours. They should discredit certain "off topic" links but not ban sites.

If it is for duplicate content then that makes more sense.

What do you guys think about linking to them? Remove the links? Leave them there?

Opinions please. :)

I had links on some of my sites when Bluefind got the ax and never took them down. No problems came from that that I am aware of.

I would say if you feel it's a good resource continue linking to it. Afterall, don't Google's webmaster guildlines say: "Make pages for users, not for search engines."

EDIT: Well, they do say make them for users and not the SE's but now we have to constantly look over our shoulders for fear of what the SE's are up to.

[lorien1973]

I read the first few posts on the other forum about it. The oreilly network of sites (osdir, etc) are all very high pr sites, with monthly links that are a little pricey. What amazes me, though is that that network has never been hit with a penalty of any sort. They will sell high PR sitewide links (they know thats what they are doing) that will probably never get any traffic.

[Colleen]

For our last update at Directory Source, which was only a few weeks ago, they were PR8, you can view a history of their PR info at http://directorysource.info/ they are the fourth site down and be sure to check out the archive pages for more info.

http://www.directorysource.info/

[zman]

So it looks like Site Sift was completely dropped and it may stick. That sucks, I mean really sucks.

[-Spanish-SEO-]

So it looks like Site Sift was completely dropped and it may stick. That sucks, I mean really sucks.

AGREE, they make the rules and when they don`t like them, they change them.

[zman]

AGREE, they make the rules and when they don`t like them, the change them.

Right, and they have every right to do so. My problem is that they continue to tell us to build a site for the user yet I have to now ask questions about who to link to. How can I freely build my site for users when I have to constantly be thinking about what G will think of what I do?

This could be totally unrelated, it could be for duplicate content and if that is the case then I understand. If it is for buying links then I am concerned because I advertise all over the web and spend quite a bit of money on it.

Just wanting to know why because I never would have thought Site Sift would have gotten chopped from the index. :confused:

[lorien1973]

If site-sift was doing the things alleged on the other site (buying tons of high pr links, poker links in the footer, etc) - then it was bound to happen soon or later, wasnt it?

[GuyFromChicago]

If site-sift was doing the things alleged on the other site (buying tons of high pr links, poker links in the footer, etc) - then it was bound to happen soon or later, wasnt it?

I'm sure site-sift is/was a good directory but it seems to me that directories that buy there way to PR 8 and charge for submissions are a prime target for G.

[fryman]

Good point

[zman]

If site-sift was doing the things alleged on the other site (buying tons of high pr links, poker links in the footer, etc) - then it was bound to happen soon or later, wasnt it?

According to what appears to be G's "rules" yes. That is what I am trying to figure out though. Was it the amount of links bought at any given time? Were the links bought "bad links"? I guess I just dont see how G can make that decision, how can G know what -site owners- want to link to for the good of the user?

The reason I say that is because I have featured Site-Sift for several months now and he never paid me or ask me for it. I simply thought it was a great directory and even used it myself from time to time. Now I find that G thinks it should be banned? From a users aspect I thought it was a great resource, yet G seems to be looking at it from an SE aspect. Would this not hurt the theory that you should ignore the SE and build for the user? Granted, link buying should be done carefully and not for rank or PR gain, but that should just be "overlooked" by the ALGO rather than ban the entire site no?

EDIT:
I'm sure site-sift is/was a good directory but it seems to me that directories that buy there way to PR 8 and charge for submissions are a prime target for G.

Right, so could G not just drop any credit being passed on from links they feel are not valid or authentic?

[lorien1973]

Or they could think, where there is smoke there is fire. If the site is doing this thing we hate - what if they are doing other things we hate.

They can't go thru every site that raises a bunch of flags. The easier tactic is to wipe them out, right?

Personally, if I were google and I wanted to get rid of bad sites, I'd start in a different direction but that's me. I think amazon/ebay/overstock/allposter affiliates would be the ones I'd run out first.

[zman]

I think amazon/ebay/overstock/allposter affiliates would be the ones I'd run out first.

Absolutly!

And then start looking at what kinds of links give what kind of credit. This will fix a lot of the link problems. Require them to be relevant or related in some way shape or form in order to actually pass ranking credit on. If it isnt relevant, it could still be a valid advertiser so there shouldnt be a ban, rather there simply shouldnt be any credit given.

[GuyFromChicago]

Personally, if I were google and I wanted to get rid of bad sites, I'd start in a different direction but that's me. I think amazon/ebay/overstock/allposter affiliates would be the ones I'd run out first.

Nailing a high profile target like a PR 8 directory gets them more "exposure" in the webmaster world. None of us would even notice a few PR5 - 8 aws/affiliate stores getting nailed - none of us would ever have a reason to visit them in the first place. The only perosn that would notice is the webmaster who owns the store.

On the other hand, G knows that just about webmaster on the face of the earth spends time at directories...pick a popular one and smack it around...words spreads like wildfire in the webmaster community...G's mission accomplished.

[zman]

On the other hand, G knows that just about webmaster on the face of the earth spends time at directories...pick a popular one and smack it around...words spreads like wildfire in the webmaster community...G's mission accomplished.

That is very possible.

[smindsrt]

Also compare http://www.site-sift.com/105 and http://www.qqsites.com/105.htm

I have never seen that site until you posted it. qqsites dot com has clearly copied all of our content. We have sent an email to the administrator of that account demanding they remove all copyrighted pages ASAP. From first look it looks like some site in Asia.

It this right?

Digital Point Solutions
Offering accounting, billing, management and security software for a variety of industries.
http://www.digitalpoint.com/

That's what they have listed.

As Shawn H. has clearly stated he submitted his site to that category himself. Macdesign- you should not accuse people unless you have all the facts.

A lot of it was being hashed out here (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/search_engine_s_2.html) yesterday. Long, but a good read none the less. I don't think there was any doubt that they were paying to advertise there.

Did we buy advertising from O'Reilly??? You bet we did! XML.com has tons of traffic take a look: Traffic Rank for xml.com 9,665 (from Alexa)

We could have bought much cheaper advertising for the purpose of "buying pagerank" if that was our goal. Our goal was to advertise on high traffic sites. Trust me when I say this.... we could have bought 6-7 PR8 links for the price we paid for one O'Reilly site. BTW, the O'Reilly sites have something like 300 links (internal and outgoing) per page. Do you really think if we were buying for pagerank we would buy a link with 300 links on it?

We also do lots of banner advertising but it's funny how nobody mentions this at all. Just about all the banner advertising that we have done does not pass pagerank. This has been done on numerous PR7 & PR6 websites/forums. How many other directories can say that? (without an affiliate program)

Again, we choose to advertise with O'Reilly for the traffic and it is disheartening to hear people assume otherwise. Our goal has been simple we are building a brand. To build a brand one must advertise.

Why did Site-Sift.com get banned??? At this point we can only speculate..... if and when I get an answer back from Google I will share that information.

[frankm]

I just want to say to smindsrt that whatever it was that made google did this, I appreciate your hounesty on this forum. I wish you good luck sorting things out with our friends at google.com.

But just to make sure: site-sift.com did NOT do any black-hat thingies?

[joeychgo]

Also compare http://www.qqsites.com/105.htm




Banned from Google adsense it seems

[Blogmaster]

Who woulda thought ;)

[Crazy_Rob]

But just to make sure: site-sift.com did NOT do any black-hat thingies?

Is it any of your business? Who the F. are you?

[macdesign]

Macdesign- you should not accuse people unless you have all the facts.What accusation? I never hesitate to make accusations if I have any to make.

1. I found several descriptions copied from DMOZ - that's just facts and is relevant to discussions about Google removing directories with DMOZ content.

2. The description for Digital Point Solutions just looked wrong, makes them look like an accounting company, maybe I should not have posted it, it was not relevant to the thread.

3. I found mirrored content on two sites.

That's all I said.

[smindsrt]

What accusation? I never hesitate to make accusations if I have any to make.

Sure sounds like one to me.

Looks like they copied a lot of site descriptions from ODP - without stating that fact.



1. I found several descriptions copied from DMOZ - that's just facts and is relevant to discussions about Google removing directories with DMOZ content.


I would imagine that some webmasters submit the same descriptions to numerous directories. In fact I tend to do it with my sites. You can go to Dmoz, UTN, BOTW, SS, Goguides and numerous other directories and most of my sites have the same description.

For the record.... we have never copied DMOZ.

2. The description for Digital Point Solutions just looked wrong, makes them look like an accounting company, maybe I should not have posted it, it was not relevant to the thread.

I think that Shawn knows how to describe his site better than anyone. ;) BTW, just in case you missed someone else's post http://www.digitalpoint.com/products/

3. I found mirrored content on two sites.

You found copyright violations. A site which blatantly copied our entire directory word for word. I guess the person doing the copying must of thought our site was good and wanted one for himself. lol

[clasione]

I have actually tryed many times to save a txt doc with my descriptions so I do not have to rewrite them each and everytime I submit somewhere....

Lots of my links have the same descriptions in many places, but not all....

So it looks like site-sift did get targeted directly by Google.... If I had to guess I'd say that Google probably personally reviewed the site and thought that it had a higher PR than it should naturally...

I guess someone there at Google has the authority to make a well rounded decision on the overall importance of a site and if they do not feel like allowing a site to continue holding such a high PR rating, they will just remove it rather than lower it....

I don't want to bash the site becasue I know just how much effort was put into that directory, but in a case like this it's really just a wake up call to all of us who own directories.....

Your time could be at any moment..... Make sure your directory is clean, unique, and as useful to the web as possible.... If someone at Google doesn't like the look of it, or if they think you are surviving on PR alone, they wont carry you to success...

[frankm]

Is it any of your business? Who the F. are you?

Ofcourse it's none of my business, but there seems to be trend of directories getting whacked. Site sift has a lot of time and money inversted in it, and I think it is very concerning if some sites just get whiped out for no real reason other than 'too high pr'.

and smindsrt is a big boy, if he doesnt want to answer that question, he won't and does not need you to throw in one-liners.

and besides that, I happen to like the site sift directory and feel sorry for the webmasters.

[Old Welsh Guy]

I have to say that in the BULK of submissions we use the same title description keywords for directories. After all, if you write them properly then how can you have lots of different ones? I edit on a few directories, and can honestly say that I do not copy and paste. it is simple really, I look at the site, write the description and away to go.

The times I mention that the title is changed is when submitting to a specialist niche directory where deep links are accepted, so obviously the title and description would be different.

[dcristo]

sorry to hear Stuart, I hope things get sorted out for ya!

[Agent47]

SO sad to hear that. SITE-SIFT is one of my favorite directory and I wish it gets back to normal soon :)

[GuyFromChicago]

Again, we choose to advertise with O'Reilly for the traffic and it is disheartening to hear people assume otherwise. Our goal has been simple we are building a brand. To build a brand one must advertise.

Why did Site-Sift.com get banned??? At this point we can only speculate..... if and when I get an answer back from Google I will share that information.

hey, I'm totally on your side when it comes to advertising you bought - I don't know the price you paid but the site you were on gets tons of traffic. If I was working on/for a professional directory I would have done the same. My intent in starting this thread was just discussing and hopefully learning from waht happened, that's it.

Hopefully the big G responds and you guys can get back into business. Best of luck and please keep us informed.

[Alucard]

Sorry if this is a dumb question - I'm not an SEO or anything, but the comments you guys are making implies that the only reason the directory is in existence is to get a high Google ranking and, since it no longer has a high ranking, the whole thing is somehow out of business...

If the directory is good, then it is good, no matter how well or poorly it ranks in Google, no?

Unless, of course, the directory was built solely to get good rankings in Google. If that was the case, maybe that's why Google dropped it (along with other directories which it perceives to be doing the same thing)....

So which is it - is it a good, functioning directory, or is it in existence only to get good G rankings?

[zman]

So which is it - is it a good, functioning directory, or is it in existence only to get good G rankings?

I actually have had quite a few dealings with the owner and can say that they wanted it ranked good everywhere, not just Google. Who doesnt want to rank well everywhere?

The thing is, being banned from Google hurts you in more ways than one. :rolleyes:

[stoner3221]

Directories are being scrutinized by Google differently it seems then other websites. A reply I received a few months ago from Google clearly stated that Directories can not buy or sell page rank. The average directory is a PR 5 or 6. Anything above that is apparently going to be closely scrutinized by Google and manually removed if found to be in any way not keeping with their standards for a directory.

I strongly feel this is an unfair trade practice and directory operators should not have to look over their shoulder every time they purchase advertising to bring traffic to a directory, or sell advertising and worry about uncle Google looking.

[Crazy_Rob]

I strongly feel this is an unfair trade practice and directory operators should not have to look over their shoulder every time they purchase advertising to bring traffic to a directory, or sell advertising and worry about uncle Google looking.

Especially when the PR is assigned to sites BY GOOGLE!

[stoner3221]

Especially when the PR is assigned to sites BY GOOGLE!

I personally don’t care about page rank and the majority of my users and submitters don’t know what it is or have the Google Tool Bar on their computer. The page rank hounds are a pain in the neck. I was running directories long before the page ranking system and we somehow survived.

[Crazy_Rob]

I personally don’t care about page rank and the majority of my users and submitters don’t know what it is or have the Google Tool Bar on their computer.


Why don't I believe that? :rolleyes: :D

[dejaone]

high PR (PR7 and PR8) directories have the highest risk of being whacked than any other sites. No mater what the intention of the directory owners is - ads for traffic etc. As long as you want to make money from the directory, the directory is in trouble - the reason many want to pay for a listing in high PR directories is for PR.

UTN could be next on Google's list. This has nothing to do with duplicate content or quality of the diretories. It does tell one thing that PR is still very important for Google's ranking algorithm.

[GuyFromChicago]

high PR (PR7 and PR8) directories have the highest risk of being whacked than any other sites.

So when does the 100% for profit Yahoo directory get whacked?

[Liminal]

So which is it - is it a good, functioning directory, or is it in existence only to get good G rankings?

In Google world, a good, functioning directory is nowhere to be found in its search results if Google has banned the site or has assigned a poor PR. So, the site may as well not be there if Google's traffic is/was essential.

[dejaone]

So when does the 100% for profit Yahoo directory get whacked?

When Yahoo whacks Google's directory :)

Yahoo and MSN directorires are different story.

[Alucard]

Ah ok, so what I think you are saying is that no matter how good a site is, if people can't find it, then it's useless. And if it's not in Google, since G is the main search engine right now, then people won't find it.

OK, that makes a load of sense - thanks for the insight.

Does Google treat other search engines (other than its own, I mean) the same?

I am wondering if Google are taking the attitude that sites that just point to other sites and offer nothing else are of less value than sites with the content itself.... hence my question about search engines....

It's possible, of course, that G sees other search engines and directories as competition, and don't want to give them any more publicity, I suppose.

[stoner3221]

I think you will find it is all about content and the quality of it. A directory is nothing without a well developed database. If you’re a directory operator and you don’t have a well developed unique database and have purchased advertising to build an artificial PR then you’re going to get axed eventually. If you have a small database but Good quality content you’re going to end up with a low PR.

[Liminal]

Ah ok, so what I think you are saying is that no matter how good a site is, if people can't find it, then it's useless.


Useless for you, the webmaster of this site, to slave away working on enhancing the site if the traffic is not likely to be there.

And if it's not in Google, since G is the main search engine right now, then people won't find it. OK, that makes a load of sense - thanks for the insight.


Unfortunately, most of my sites get 80%+ traffic from Google alone. So, yes in my case, it's essential.


I am wondering if Google are taking the attitude that sites that just point to other sites and offer nothing else are of less value than sites with the content itself.... hence my question about search engines....

It's possible, of course, that G sees other search engines and directories as competition, and don't want to give them any more publicity, I suppose.

I highly doubt Google is trying to kill the competition (search engines or directories) this way. Smaller general directories and search engines are hardly any competiton to them or the other big two any way. A directory is not endorsed by Google (I think) if:

1) Excessive (Google or other) ads. Ads appearing before the actual search results or instead of them within empty categories
2) High PR but no organic back links. Next-to-zero sites making references to them as useful resources.

[Web Gazelle]

My question is that if this recent occurance of site banning is because of possible duplicate content then what's up with all the DMOZ clones? Google needs to ban their own directory for duplicate content. :rolleyes:

[Liminal]

My question is that if this recent occurance of site banning is because of possible duplicate content then what's up with all the DMOZ clones? Google needs to ban their own directory for duplicate content. :rolleyes:

It will ban directories that it feels do not provide any value of its own and are purely there to make profit (from DMOZ's db). Google directory does provide some value. It shows sites' PR and can be sorted that way. The directory has much better internal search functions. They contribute to DMOZ database by having a Submit a site link to DMOZ on every page.

In G's own words: "The content of the Google directory is based on the Open Directory and is enhanced using Google's own technology."

[Old Welsh Guy]

Google works on the clustering principle. Most DMOZ clones do no more than clone DMOZ. It is when you start cloning DMOZ for rofit by linking out on a sales basis that you are likely to raise a flag. That would be my take on it anyhow.

[Alucard]

I think the last two points made are very good and make good sense to me. Even if I also believe that the original statement was made to be a little tongue-in-cheek.

[Web Gazelle]

My comment was sarcastic if you didn't notice the smily. :D

[clasione]

If you’re a directory operator and you don’t have a well developed unique database and have purchased advertising to build an artificial PR then you’re going to get axed eventually.

Definetly agree with that, the more sophisticated and useful, the more likely to exist and dodge the axe.......

[WhatiFind]

Stuart, sorry to hear your directory has dropped out of google..
I was away for a couple of weeks so maby this question is already asked; Did you send an email to google asking what happend with your domain/website?
Did you alter your future plans with your web directory? / Or what are your future plans with the web directory?

It's still a great web directory and I believe you'll still have great traffic to the directory, good luck and keep us updated what happens with G.

[l234244]

Its disappointing to see a directory like site-sift.com get hit by google. Cant help but think it has something to do with the O'Reilly advertising, even Matt Cutts left a comment so he may have something to do with it.

Bluefind took a while to recover and get reindexed, (still has no pr) lets hope site-sift can aswell.

Alexa stats (not really reliable) seem to indicate traffic levels are the same or higher since being banned so I presume most of the traffic was coming from the other engines or advertising. Still worth submitting.

[GuyFromChicago]

Looks like Site-Sift is back. It does appear that most of it's pages are part of the supplemental results but at least the pages are showing up again. I see the PR on the toolbar as well.

[mystikmedia]

The supplemental results issue will go away in a few days. Good news about Site-Sift.

[obenix]

I'm glad for smindsrt...
site-sift is showing 6540 indexed pages and PR8...
Welcome back..:)

[zman]

Congrats Stuart!

[lorien1973]

Looks like site-sift cancelled ads on the o'reilly network, wonder how much that had to do with the re-inclusion.

[WhatiFind]

Congrats Stuart with getting back into the index!

[l234244]

Looks like site-sift cancelled ads on the o'reilly network, wonder how much that had to do with the re-inclusion.

They dont need to cancel the ads, just need to demonstrate that the advertising was not just for the Pagerank, i.e use the rel="no follow"

[Agent47]

congrats staurt. I am gald to hear that :)

[Blogmaster]

I second that :)

[charless]

Nice! I have a site listed in there. :)

[honey]

Congrats Stuart, the PR8 guy :)
Good job to get it back.

[Web Gazelle]

Back to a PR 8, thats sweet!

[clasione]

Very nice... Glad to see it back...... I thought it was gone for good....
What a relief right?

Congrats.... ;)

[Blogmaster]

I knew it would come back, just not that fast :)

[gabs]

Great news :)

Stuart you dropped the site wide's... ?
Was it casino related?

[CanadianEh]

Glad to hear it is back. Glad that all the hard work is not wasted. I'll add them back in my best paid directory listing (http://www.best-web-directories.com/paid-directories.htm).