JoeAnt, experience and conclusion?

call it petty if you like but I call copying someone else's site more than that
you are also the one throwing his opinions around so if you cant take it don't give it
so you are satisfied with a ripped design..ok
well what about the actual content?..wherever it is

from your about page:
"The Cantufind Directory is the largest independent 'Family Safe Search Directory', and most comprehensive human-edited family safe search directory on the Web with a presence online since 2000."

oh really?
maybe you should have a look at your own about page before throwing accusations around
oh and while you`re at it get some links added too
cantufindanysites.com

 

As pathetic as you sound try going through the site, you'll find a few links there. http://www.cantufind.com/Computers/Internet/Web-Design-and-Development/Website-Promotion/being just one example, although you'll probably say I put all those links in during the past two hours.

I've already explained that the owner of this site had very good reason to let it become second priority to something called life. That's been dealt with and now you'll find that the re-review of its old database will move swiftly. The link above is a good example of that, there's many more but as I said I don't feel the need to justify to insignificant people like you.

 

OK Guys. Get a room.

 

lol; nice one, made my night.

 

I don't quite get you Mike? Are you saying the quality of the descriptions are poor? http://www.cantufind.com/Computers/...e-Promotion/Search-Engine-Optimization-Firms/

 

I hate to say this Jamie, they are poorly written.

They just copied was written on the homepage and its not even a review. LOL

It's a cheap site as most offer brick and mortar address nowadays especially if someones going to pay an amount you don't know and it should have at least a good contact information. If I were a client I would like more info otherwise I'll just take DP members and choose. Lot of them like amit patel, majnoon etc.

Also as paid directories we allow a few anchor text but since overdoing such is bad. Most allocate 1 or 2 without ruining editorial integrity.

Just my 2 cents.
Can recommend you some editors but they are a little bit costly.

@mikey
Long or short descriptions are both good provided they speak about the site and services in general.
Your doing good and surprised how you've grown in such a short time. Keep it up Mike.

 

Glad to see you've grown 9 inches vertical and horizontal.

Anyway back to editing sites at my suggestion. Maybe some directory owners could pick this up too and apply it. I have tried to put the anchor text in red for some to see. It also covers what the business is doing which is SEO and advertising and another point is its with the parameters of its Meta Keywords.

A 3rd anchor can also be accommodated but don't go beyond.

Hope this helps.

 

Your entitled to your opinion, but in this case you're actually wrong, I'll tell you why. Some text is taken from the content of these pages because it ACCURATELY describes what they offer, it does not mean they haven't been reviewed, it simply means that after taking into account meta descriptions, site content, accuracy and so on we then make an accurate description, and if that happens to be the text on the front page then so be it.

Less is more is the aim with our reviews. There's no need to go into war and peace when giving a site description which is where a lot of people go wrong. We also take into account meta descriptions, site-wide content and so on before putting a brief description, check and you'll see that.

These sites are certainly fully reviewed right through down to disqualifying them for linking into bad neighbourhoods and so on. We don't just look at the index page, we go a whole lot deeper.

Perhaps your idea of a review differs from what ours is? You seem to think a review is to give it a long wordy description? Our review means we actually check the site for a certain amount of things (not telling you what) and then deciding whether they qualify for entry into our directory.

Giving a short but 'Accurate' description is more likely to encourage the visitor to enter the site. Giving a long description might be just enough for them to think, 'no need for me to visit now I already know what's in there'.

You'd be hard pushed to find any site listed with us that doesn't meet the description it has been given. If you do then we'd happily remove it.

Thanks for the comments though, we can take criticism as well as give it. I never made an issue of reviewing your descriptions but seeing you commented on mine I'll do you the same courtesy.

Go to your Art category and you'll see a link description like this..

Looks like there's nothing wrong with the description but if you visit the site its actually a blog not a photo agency like I assumed it was from the description.

When I clicked on the 'Read More' I was expecting to do just that, but all I got was a duplicate of the description with no extra description to read added, but a load of statistics which were of no interest to me.

This isn't a criticism of your description, its just demonstrating how different methods are used. As ours are totally accurate and are only followed AFTER a full review of the site we have no plans to change.

On a technical note, we use a word counter to check our descriptions, on average we use between 15 - 20 words. We try not to deviate from this.

Now check your own descriptions and you'll see that you often use as little as 9 words in many of your descriptions, so perhaps Mikey would have been a little bit fairer by commenting on yours as well?

As Mikey said though, he's a fan of long descriptions, we're not, and for the reasons given above. Neither is wrong.

I haven't looked into Mikey's just yet but will, and although I won't post my comments here if they contain any sort of negativity I'll p.m my views to him, that way it doesn't look like we're trying to disrespect one another.

 

As I said before if you cant take it dont give it out
you`re quick to try and pull apart other sites like joeant and botw but when your own failings are highlighted you cant take it
the site you represent is a very poor example of a directory never mind the "largest independent 'Family Safe Search Directory"
next time spend a little more time on your own sites before criticising others

As for sending me this PM:

You've now made it personal

"I can take as much as you can throw at me as I have fuck all to hide. You do, which includes failing to declare income tax etc. Be careful who you call out, they just might put up more of a fight than you expect.

You can only hide so much, and you need a good memory to hide forever. You have a bad memory, trust me on that one.

Put up or shut up."

Okay now firstly you are not smart enough to know that how you act both in the forum and in sending PMs like this is only damaging the product you are supposed to be promoting.
I would now never recommend anyone use your script or have anything to do with cantufind/phplynx after I have seen how you behave and what you are prepared to do to aggressively promote your product.

I am not scared of your pathetic threats, you don't know anything about me and we shall see who has something to hide soon enough.

If even one person reading your PM is made aware of the real people behind Phplynx and Cantufind then I am pleased.

You think sending me a PM like that will shut me up?
Ive only just begun

 

Remind me the purpose of a Private Message facility? At least part delete the expletive I used for the sake of other readers who might not wish to read such language.

 

if you cant stand by with what you say don't say it
you think you can threaten me in private?
you don't deserve such a luxury