Sweet site. 4 total links in Google. Obey that authority. As the original Link Pimp I don't appreciate the term being used in a derogatory fashion.
Roll your eyes as much as you want, I'm not devaluing anything, I'm stating FACTS. People need to stop using lame excuses as 'Internal Bickering' to cloud the FACTS. The points I made can't be argued otherwise you would have at least tried. I didn't get your point John, it was vague to say the least. My point is clear, I don't care what anyone argues, there is no way on Gods Earth is avivadirectory or any other of the minor link repositories 'authorities' as they all claim to be in Google, its a mis-sell period and the owners know it and take full advantage of it, and I'm not lying, I'd do it myself in their position. Just my 2 cents.
Its not petty internal bickering. Its a question of ethics and if you cant see the difference you have a problem.
I smell jealousy. Yes, I have a directory that isn't shaking the foundations of the Internet either. So what? If Google has defined what it considers as an authority site, then anyone who gets that status from Google can claim it. Marketing, and businesses, do this in every market on the planet. Does the general public know what it means? Probably not. Does it sound impressive to them? Probably so. Does it help a business promote sales and income? Probably so. Now, where I do see issue, is if claims are added beyond the simple label. For example, claiming that being in an "authority status" site for some term somehow confers something special to that resource could very well be shady. However, and this is a fact, any earned status, symbol, award, or whatever is fair game for promotion. Hell, many industries that we know and trust worldwide create award granting foundations for the very purpose of being able to declare themselves the winners for this very reason. Winner of the "name doesn't even matter" award for excellence from 2002-2006. Wow, impressive! I'd better sign up!
Were does Google come into this? Google has awarded "Authority Status"? You have got to be kidding. What we are talking about here is a couple of wide boys who believe we are all as greedy and unscrupulous as they are. Either that or terminally thick. Damned right it does. Is deliberate misrepresentation unethical and in some cases illegal? Damned right it is! Why did Google bullet PR?
The question is whether or not the term was created by Google or reputable industry insiders... which I honestly don't know the answer to. I'd guess when those types of listings were first spotted that a phrase was coined to describe them... and if it happened to be "authority sites" then that's what people can claim if they get that type of listing.
I think it would be safer to leave out the word reputable and yes it is just a question of semantics. Google does recognise and confer Authority Status on governmental agencies, universities and other "recognised" bodies but that does not include the Aviva directory no matter how liberal your interpretation of the parameters are. And anyone claiming to speak on behalf of Google is fibbing. If its deliberate its illegal or put another way criminal.
Workshop, I obviously don't have anything special in my own web empire, so I have nothing to gain in this discussion. However, I have to ask, what is the evidence that a site has been conferred "authority status" by Google? Type in Cisco or Apple and see if an authority site for that search term is returned. Now type in Aviva Directory (I don't mean to single them out, the phrase just came to mind) and you get the same style of result. Who, other than Aviva, might be considered an authority site for the search term Aviva Directory? Google is certainly recognizing something when it's systems have created an enhanced listing for this site... so why not simply use the industry term for this phenomenon? Just about every industry has some specialized terminology.
I have seen those same results on sites I own and I am not empire building either. Unfortunately I cant recall which one it was but that is why I know that its stretching a point. It does not follow that just because two sites use the same font that they are identical copies one of the other. But this is the argument you are using. What I object to is the irresponsible use and spin doctoring which distorts all of this from merely being an honest mistake into something more distasteful. By all means use a word like "Established" or even "Recognised" at a push but I would start blanching even at the word "Respected" and certainly not "Trusted". Does this sound like "Authority Status" to you?
About -not answering your facts --I must confess that I didn't understand your point at all. What do you means --directories with less links claiming to be authorities? Will you please take a look at Jude's list of directories and see which directory has how many listing? Check his Strong Directories. Also about Authority sites and site-links -- please do some research on where it the word "Authority Site" was used first. And you will find that those webmasters --in the end of 2005 were mentioning some-one as GoogleGuy who officially acknowledge as being official Google representative. Those webmasters also talk about GoogleGuy's view on Authority Sites. Now who is this GoogleGuy? Just Google about who is GoogleGuy and you know him. This GoogleGuy used to go all over the net and read/comment on SE blogs and forums. But it has stopped since end of 2005. Was not it the birth of a Blog by certain name where all SEO guys visit and interact with the blogger? I understand you guys don't have free time like me for these kind of through research --but I do have plenty of it. And now I have a fair idea about if sites showing sitelinks are authority or not. I don't have to ask some-one rubbishing those sites -to know the value of those sites. If you want more discussion on it--we may do it on IMs. There are few here who are un-desired elements --have nothing to do with directory industry--and just rubbish them to draw attention. I am not going to respond to them. But you are a valued member of the community like me. So we can discuss it in private.
People aren't necessarily jealous when they make posts pointing out blunt hard facts about the BS status of so called 'authority directories'. Actually I'd love to see these directories get on in life, but not by grossly abusing Google's 'Faux Pas' and then callously capitalising on this by charging overinflated prices, preying on the naive. But that's my gods honest opinion and without even a hint of jealousy.
I dont give a fiddlers fart for how long its been going on. Its dishonest. Period. You have got this all back to front. Link pimping , with all due respect to Lexiseek , is not the directory industry and most people understand this. Why do you think they are ducking and diving and leaving you to wave the flag? When is the penny going to drop? Personally, I take exception to people that believe that they have licence to prey on those who are not as street wise and who believe all that they are fed by the so called icons in the industry. If thats you
Yup--Yup--Yup So when GoogleGuy=Matt says it as authority-link-score who the hell are those questioning it ? Any authority they have? So we-are much alike. I only post things when I know it. I don't have habit of rubbishing some-ones view if I don't have any idea on it. Those lines were not for ya --it was for someone who has nothing to do with our industry/market but just rubbish everything without showing facts. I too don't hold prejudice --but if we discuss here-- some un-desired elements would come and spoil our points/arguments/facts etc. I don't want our discussion to go to the dustbin. Hope you understand.
As a matter of fact, that is the current definition of it... when an automated system decides that a certain set of criteria are met. If my directory ever meets that criteria (seems to be going in the other direction at the moment) then I'll claim it too... it's an achievement!
Yep, its why we were just chatting in IM. Off to watch France trounce Wales in rugby now. Good thread this though, lots of learning curves.
No need to get all coy and petulant. Its quite simple really. Are you suggesting that sites that trigger site links in the Google search results rank along side Yahoo as Authority Sites? If not, do you believe that its ethical to be seen to be representing that they do? Every single one of my sites is work in progress. Some of the domains have been around for awhile and some rank well for uncompetitive key words. I have even tried my hand at some deep linking. And at least one of them has gained "authority status" (damned if I know which one). Does this mean that when found I can get it onto Aviva's list alongside Yahoo? Does it mean I can get away with charging $200 a year to review submissions? Pull the other one. Whose trying to fool who?
ROFLMAO ! I have seen this and its hilarious. But for the original one which is Yahoo I did submit and STILL waiting for the result.
You've quoted two people in your post... so I'm not sure if you meant to address myself or someone else with this. It has nothing to do with claiming sites with "authority status" are all of the same stature... it just has to do with whether or not Google has conferred "authority status". Everybody with "authority status" can claim it... it doesn't mean they are declaring themselves equal with Yahoo. It's a verifiable attribute that has been given a term by those in the industry. If the market will bear paying for $200 a year, then sure, go ahead. I can't believe people pay $199 or whatever to Yahoo, but it doesn't seem to be going out of business. Apparently, Yahoo, as a brand, is something that businesses to whom $199 is chump change are comfortable spending their money on. That's the thing about business, it's pretty wide open. Have you ever taken a long hard look at the concept of branding? Whether or not you care about brands, a ton of people do, and they shell out big bucks for certain brands. You could sell something as good but not have established a brand, and charge less. In such a case you could call the brand names rip-offs. However, often the consumer wants the "status" that comes with a brand. Who are you and I to second guess what consumers want and what they are willing to pay for? Is Yahoo really worth $199 per year? If I don't think so then I don't have to pay for it... and I never have so far. I'm really not sure why you think branding, or attempts to capitalize on a status indicator, are not fair game in the business world.
There's a saying in business, "...it does what it say's on the tin..." Many of the so called 'authority directories' claim to be something more than what they based on the kudos of gaining a false status based on Google 'Faux pas' Good point with consumers wanting association with status brands, like wearing a good item of clothing. But what if you find out that the brand you thought was so good in reality was not as good as it made itself out to be, what then?