knowledge about Directory business

mathias if u meant that there is no need of directory more can you give somw strong and logical arguments.

 

Google said "he who hath the most links wins".

So we all went around getting links and they became a commodity.

Google said "well, that's not what we meant. We meant to say, he who hath the most content wins."

So now that the written word was a commodity like never before, everyone, by hook or by crook, was throwing up words on their sites.

Google said, "well, that's not what we meant either. We meant to say, he who hath the quality content will garner more links and oh by the way, the higher the page rank of the sites linking to you, the higher your site will rank."

So, people ran around chasing high PR links to their multitudes of crappy content. After all, quality content is this nebulous thing that Google left undefined. PR became a commodity to be bought and sold.

Google said, "Wait! No! You can't do that! Buy and sell links? That's unnatural. Why would you do that?"

The people replied, "Because you said so."

Google said, "No, no, no. That's not what we said. PR is our way of evaluating sites for quality. It has nothing to do with the SERPs. We rank based on the quality of a site."

The people asked, "But, if you say the quality of a site is determined by the PR of the inbound links, then doesn't that exactly mean that you rank sites in the SERPs based on PR?"

Google said, "No, PR is just an internal metric. It's how we grade sites for quality. By the way..."thou shall not buy PR or we'll hurt your site. Use nofollow - a construct we made up."

The people ran around like ninnies nofollowing everything.

Google said, "Well, that was nice but we're still not happy. We're going to make some changes that will really shake up the web..."

Then came Penguin, then came Panda, then came Panda II.

Google now has everyone afraid to get links while still saying that PR doesn't impact ranking but does indicate authority. Still an identifiable 'mark of quality' by Google, people continue to buy and/or steal PR. Content continues to be a commodity that people are posting without regard for whether or not anyone would actually want to read it.

Sites that are pure garbage still rank well, while many, who are building something truly worthwhile, continue to sink.

Confused yet?



I give up.

I'm tired of chasing my tail because Google passes another vaguely worded guideline that everyone runs around trying to figure out what it really means for site owners.

I'm tired of letting a group of people, like the Barry Swartz's of the world, try to parlay those vaguely worded guidelines into money-making opportunities for themselves with yet another "do as I say and not as I do" piece of link bait.

Site owners have two choices...join the crazies and let them continue to profiteer off of you and your fear or spend your time building sites, directories and blogs with useful content.

 

Whether in directory listings or on other websites, organic backlinks are going to tend to use, as an anchor text, the name of the site being referred to. If, as a webmaster, I find a site that I particularly like, I might, at time, link to it using text as, "Here is a site that I have found very useful," using "Here" as an anchor text, but more often, I would name the site that I am referring to, which would be the same anchor text that is submitted to countless directories. It seems to me that, by virtue of making a point of obtaining links with different anchor text, you are indeed gaming the system, which is precisely what we are to believe Google doesn't want.

 

This sums it up in a nutshell.

I have completely left Google for search and I have abandoned their adsense program as well. We've been migrating to Media.net and Bing/Yahoo for some time now and are MUCH, MUCH happier, both in terms of the search quality and they advertising styles, placement and treatment.

I think Google may have run its course. 95% or better of the people who's PC's we service are using BING. The search results are better, cleaner and more relevant. I've never been a fan of MS, but they are doing a fantastic job of building a better mouse trap. Their EARTH, Satellite and mapping is a ZILLION times better.. Its 3D, you can see things topographically and can pan and tilt to see just about every single angle from above, side to side.. Just amazing with that Birds Eye View feature.

 

mia i guess for bing and yahoo directories are still important .Is it ?

 

that's knowledgeable.

 

Not just directories.. Bing/Yahoo seem to be less interested in MFA's and more interested in relevant search results and sites with content.

 

HERE HERE! I have always detested the page rank pathetism the Google spreads like the black death on the internet. Google and I have very distinct love-hate relationaship. Its very simply really - we both love to hate each other.

I stopped caring what Google wanted when I realized that the only way Google was happy with someone was when that person whored themselved and their site to Google.

Not happening. My sites are mine and I build them based upon what my visitors and I feel looks good. Google can take their page rank crap and go someplace else. I do not and will never whore my sites out for Google's self indulgence. I don't rely on Google for my traffic and I am doing very well for traffic at 20,000+ hits a day.

 

Google is only happy with those websites that are capable of separating their advertisers from vast amounts of cash.

 

Matthias I like your spirit but how we will define a quality directory.

 

Mia so we should say good bye to directory business?

 

Here's what I learnt when I set out to define and build mine 5 years ago:

First, stop caring about Google and every other search engine out there. If you are spending more then five minutes a day on search engine marketing, you're wasting tome and/or money. One half of one percent of my traffic is from search engines.

Second, if all you want is a cookie cutter directory, you'll end up with nothing but useless crap. If you can't code it from scratch, as I did, you'll need to spend at least a year "making it your own." Its got to be unique in every way possible.

Third, a web directory by itself is worthless. You've got to make it stand out as original. In my case, my web directory is actually a part of my traffic sharing system and every aspect of my directory revolves around that fact.

Fourth, be bold and go different. My web directory is an experiment of multiple levels. Everything from the design to the layout to the rankings methods is entirely unique to my concept. The bottom line here is go for broke and really push the envelope of thinking. If you are doing what everyone else has done, you're already out of the game.

A successful web directory nowadays must be much more then a web directory. There must be some sort of driving concept behind the directory to get it an original edge. At least 95% of your traffic should be anything and everything except search engines. Marketing strategies must change to fit the new dynamics of a modern web directory.

Unless you've spent a year working your @$$ off to conceptualize your directory, you're going nowhere fast.

 

Where did you get that out of my post? Are you trying to be factitious?

Google is not the only game out there. 95% of the computers we service have BING installed as their default SE.

 

They are? I can tell you that before-during-and-after any word from Google I have never tended to link using the "name of the site" as an organic standard. That's conjecture. It's not general at all. It's spoken like it is gospel on Blogs, and Portals all over the place, but you know what. Those same guys (as YMC clearly points out) advocating the "use the site name organic way" quite simply DO NOT DO THAT.

I'm much more likely to keyword link anchor something that matches the phrase I am currently talking about to provide evidence. If I am talking about a "collins class submarine destroyer" I am much more likely to organically link using that phrase than "Big Bob's Bad Ass Subs" as an anchor. By including the anchor as part of a phrase that flows the way I write, it's much more organic. Putting in the site name isn't organic at all. If anything it looks branded and advertorial. One could even suggest it is the exact thing Google is against.

No. They are advocating sameness as the problem, not the differentiation. Yes, by differentiating you are looking to avoid penalty. But by continuing the sameness you are like a deer in the headlights waiting for the 16-wheeler to crash into you.

No offence, but anyone that does that is stupid. The whole reason people play the duck-and-cover game is because they don't want to be a deer in the headlights. Who would? That's why monopolies are scary stuff, they force you to act in a way that isn't natural.