I am not sure. I dont use site maps but it could very well bring it on. All I do know is that its no measure of quality or link strength as some directory owners would have us believe.
But if the extra indented 'site links' are not the mark of an 'authority' site but simply helpful navigation, why do so few sites have them? Very informative thread by the way, I'll be spreading some green.
I dont have many of the answers but if I am being labelled as an Authority on these matters I will need to do some fancy foot work to avoid getting tarred with the same brush. Someone might just get the wrong impression. Cheers!
Google prides itself on doing no evil but the question that needs to be asked is whether they also see no evil. They have made it quite clear that they take a dim view of anyone misrepresenting the features and tools they provide to users. And if you are in any doubt about this ask yourself why everyone is talking Authority Sites, PS and Strongest Lists all of a sudden. The word Authority is being used out of context to add value where none exists. What do you call this other than misrepresentation? If its deliberate and for personal gain what is Google going to call this?
Without starting another argument, Yesterday most of your posts were kind of different from what you stated here. I linked it to my server http://www.directoryjunction.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441
Don't feel your post is qualified enough to be answered. Its a post of a NOOB. I don't think its of much difference. i have been stalking these sites with sitelinks for sometime now as I want them myself. I realized that its not easy to achieve it unless you have a unique software --thats is used by many. Those sitelinks signifies ( ofcourse in my own views) --you are the ultimate destination in your respective field. This site is PR3 with just few links --but it still has those site links. Why???????????? Bcoz-- this is the official site (and ultimate authority) of a software called digixmas . It has only few backlinks --but still parent of a unique software and authority in its field and there is no parallel to it in regard to a software called by its name. Thats called authority. So is true of phpld, esyndicat, site-sift. There are many more things that goes into these sitelinks being shown-- but what is the use of telling them to you --who is so stubborn to discard them without knowing anything about them? If you want to know more about them contact me on my YM. Anyway--no harm done about our past arguments. You r entitled to ur views --n--I--am entitled to mine. cheers
OK let me spell it out for you. Both of us know that the use of the word "Authority" is arbitrary and reckless. We also know why and the question I am asking is whether there are not grounds for a civil or even a criminal action against anyone deliberately misrepresenting the value of their directories. How many people are or are going to be out of pocket now that the PR bubble has burst. Many of us rely on this industry and I for one wont allow a couple of wide boys to manipulate the market and threaten my livelihood just so they can cash in and make a few quick bucks. We are going to form a representative association and when it happens I am going to suggest that this would be a very interesting test case. Something to show that a class action is possible and that deliberate and reckless dishonesty is not a good policy. Finally if we are successful make no mistake that Google will take note of it and we will get the "recognition" we need to make the association work. I guess we know where you stand. Maybe go and have a chat to an attorney and see what they think. If nothing else just for interests sake.
Jude - I have to say that Blaze Bid Directory --is a authority link. I have though a lot about it and decided that a link from it would qualify as an Authority link. My LOGIC for it is -- We get authority link from Abilogic for the URL http://www.abilogic.com/dir/Internet/Directories/General_Directories/ If we take same logic --we should get a link from Blazemp like http://www.blazemp.com/dir/Blogs/ So -- it looks the same.
I think you are still missing the point. There is no way you can rank these sites alongside Yahoo and Dmoz no matter how much you huff and puff. They are not in the same league and never will be. Nice one But name dropping is not gong to help you either. When times get tough you will find your friends are few.
i've a short list of directories that i just recently started compiling that has a nice summary of PR, backlinks and alexa ranks. You might be interested to check it out. I am not saying whether they are quality or not as it is subjective, so i'll let the stats speak for themselves http://blog.linksfactory.net/directories-sorted-by-google-backlinks/ You can add your directories to the list by posting here or on my blog: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=432591 Cheers
You can fool some people for some of the time but why go to all that bother? Why are you doing it? Buyers are not terminally stupid. Inexperienced maybe but when they figure out that they have been had and that this is just a song and a dance, all you will have succeeded in doing is to discredit both yourself as well as the sites you are so desperate to promote. We are not debating the mechanics Google or the other search engines use to display their listings its the ethics or rather lack of, when using the word Authority to add value where there is none. Aviva is not a Yahoo and it never will be.
You knew that this was working for you. But did it never occur to you that this sort of misrepresentation might backfire on you one day?
I have and I think you are still being dishonest. You knew exacty what was going on and were party to it.
You're certainly free to have your own opinion and judgment, and I guess there's not much more that can be said. I have not been a party to it, and I already said I knew about the list. It would be great if you could consider the situation, review my posts, and see what I am saying is the truth rather than stating false assumptions. That way, it would be clear, but if you do not want to do that, all I ask is that you do not state your opinion as fact in posts.
I'm not sure that I've seen anyone bosting that these sites are the equivalent of Yahoo and Dmoz. Evidently there are some qualities recognized over average sites by Google or it wouldn't offer it's users the additional site links.
I cant accept that theory sorry... The other day lexiseek showed an example of a "Baby Names" site that brought up a website with all the same traits as what i thought was a "Authority Site" within googles search and would have been rejected in even the lowest quality directory as it had no business having such said "Authority" status. Could what we believe is "authoritative" be in another metric that a site automatically triggers in googles algo or was it an error from a previous site? thx malcolm
The use of the term Authority Site is enough. What more evidence do you need? It is a term that's used by Google and certainly not in the context these clowns wanted us to believe. But if you are in any doubt let me ask you if you ever saw that list of Authority Sites that Aviva was banding around. Has it just been hidden or have they dumped it? Do you actually believe that garbage?
Enough to what? I'm sure that I'm not the only one who can grasp the concept that not all levels of authority are equivalent.