What Makes a Good Web Directory, and Why Google Penalized Dozens of Bad Ones

Great!

In the future, we should all consult you and rand for Google & Search Engine advice.

I mean who would know more right?

I guess the outlines given to us on GoogleWebmasterCental & Matt Cutts blogs are for pleasure only.

But for real information, I guess u guys would no more.

 

Just to add to the discussion.

First he seems to applaud DMOZ and Yahoo Directory. What he doesn't mention is the $299 Yahoo charges....no problem

"General in subject matter - this isn't a bad thing on its own, but it's certainly a signal that you may be getting a manipulative directory) . While there are a few good general subject directories that Google probably does want to count (Lii, Yahoo!, DMOZ) there are far more who simply build general subject because it maximizes potential revenue (as anyone can apply)."

"Anyone can get in - If you don't filter out low quality, spammy websites from being listed in your directory, even a pretty badly built algorithm can easily spot and remove you. Besides which, Google has been on a tear for years about bad links and bad neighborhoods and how they use the sites you link to as a signal for spam identification".

I have to ask if he considers porn and gambling as low quality spammy websites

http://search.yahoo.com/search/dir?p=porn&ei=UTF-8&h=c&x

http://search.yahoo.com/search/dir?ei=UTF-8&p=online+casinos&h=c





http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=porn

http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Casinos/Browser_Based/C/


http://www.google.com/search?q=porn&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&cat=gwd/Top

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cat=gwd/Top&q=online+casinos&btnG=Search

I find it ironic and hypocritical.

Now I'm not whining or bashing Google. They did what they did and life goes on. Soon as I learn from Google or someone in real authority that I need to change something great..no sweat.I just get tired of reading stuff like this when it seems to contradict it's self at just about every turn.

 

Interesting read! saw this thread yesterday,
but skipped it thinking this is just another directory bashing thread!
thanx to adnan who pointed to the right thread!

as a newbie to the industry this just DOES makes sense, ...!

BUT,,,,

Niche rocks no doubt about it, u can cover the chapter in depth with niche
but why constrict ur vision!

facebook is/ was niche! ...but myspace is global! ...hit me!

Support this thru and thru,.... yep....

Its the same as the diffrence between link farms and directories,
an eyecatchy banner, or a "just another zombie banner(signature)"

and between a good signature or a .... not-so-good (linkfarm type) signature

IMHO presentation counts!
its not what u do, its how u do it?

Any suggestions for an alternative here Rand,.... i believe uve listed all the tricks of the game

and blog templates,.... [RANT] i need a high PS(Page Stength, by SEOMoz), i need more technocrati links, ..... solution?
so who are u hitting again?

Is he hitting deeplinks? If yes:

deeplinks, yes may be seen as manipulative no doubt, but the core idea rocks!
If i have a ....Lamp site,.... i sell lamps, i need to showcase my site,
the directory wont allow me to put in my products page as my main URL

With Deeplinks i get a better chance of marketing my site,
and highlighting my products at the same time!

It is for humans, though some sites allow otherwise.

on the whole interesting read, thanx Rand

Regards,
M.

 

Sort of surprised no mention was made of AS on empty category pages, a feature common in many of the first wave of "SEO friendly" directories which were also "disappeared"....

 

Will someone point out good directories that are not penalized ? It is for a company website I work for and I need to submit for promotion.

Deisam

 

I think perhaps you might want to go back and read the sources you mentioned. They are among the sources for my opinions and doubtless for those expressed by Randfish as well. You've apparently misunderstood them.

Perhaps you'd also like to quote those parts of the afore-mentioned sources that you think contradict what Randfish is saying in hbis article... if it's not too much of a strain.

 

I don't have any reasons to be afraid of.

My directory aims to deliver traffic to the owner rather then a good backlink. Even in my promotional campaigns, I write only about traffic and nothing about backlinks.

Besides, it's a gaming directory and most of the incoming backlinks are from Gaming Sites and not from other directories

So I'm ok with the penalization!

 

What surprised me in the article was the awful examples he used to demonstrate good directories. Is this the best that can be done? He says that there are thousands of good examples. Where? I don't know anyone who uses directories in lieu of Google. Are there any real success stories of valued, informative directories other than Chamber of Commerce directories, which I actually do find useful when travel planning? The article is useless, in my opinion, if all it does is point out bad examples. Good examples, of real successes, are mandatory, if directories are going to have a future. Anyone with a great example?

Rich

 

Weak argument, why would porn and gambling sites be low quality and spammy just because of their niche? There are quality porn/gambling sites just like everything else.
Many of the links aboves sites are as old as time and established and trusted resources. Your either a prude or an idiot to label any adult site as low quality.

 

I believe this to be true also
people are very quick to jump at the adult and gambling sites and label them as low quality
I really dont see that within a niche these sites have as much right to be there as much as any other and i don't see why google would see it any differently

 

- Agreed.

Porn and gambling doesn't have to be classified as spammy just because of its niche.

And no, I don't own any gambling or porn sites

 

Agreed that most are indeed not "spammy"... but have a place in "niche" directories

I will accept them providing thier are quality sites that have something to offer.
Nobody will ever tell me different on how and what type of sites i review and add.

Again i can agree on a few off "Rands" points but a few are just weak.. like the deep links...
they have been around for years and just now started getting popular again and a a very nice option with many benefits.

None off mine where ever penalized nor will they as i dont chase the PR or involve myself in these type of games to manipulate rankings.

As for the Links in my "sig" ... Ill place anything i want in my sigs as well as those whom advertise with me will in thiers... end of comment

everything else seems to be correct and a nice writen article indeed..

PS... i might be heading over to Seattle soon for a business arrangement/dealing and
might stop by and visit "rand" to meet and discuss a few issues if i get the time or he has time in his busy schedule

cheers
malcolm

 

Rand is spot on! adding additional services will not only create a great directory but a great resource for people looking for information. The key is hit a niche, wrap some services around it and continue adding content. Aswell some of these additional services can be added streams of income.

For those who don't believe in what Rand is saying. I suggest you create a directory as outlined in Rand's post and give it a little bit of time to get out there. Then do a comparison of traffic and revenue against your other turn-key directories.

cheers

 

Very Well, lets go over some of the sources I used and see what they say.

Source #1 Matt Cutts Blog

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/

Some points I highlighted

Source #2

Google Webmaster Guidelines

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769

What I see more is taking a situation around and claiming that somebody has an answer to a situation not controlled by them while it's really not, but more or less an assumption.

There is a big difference.

Do u actually think participating in forums which allow sig links are against google's guidelines?

Now lets talk about irrelevance on rand's post.

Points 7, 10 & 11.

Many major directories including Business.com allow for several links to a site within a listing.

Talk about bid for postion, truck on down to dir.yahoo.com and go to the business category, you can pretty much 'bid for position' there as well 'not exactly but pay a premium' and move ur listing ahead of the crowd if ur ready to fork out an extra $50.00 p/month in addtion to their submission fees.

The order of displaying sites in a category is up to you. Google Lists them by Pagerank, I list them by seniority, Yahoo lists them alphabetically......


Furthermore - I don't really think that Google dislikes or is actually out to go and kill directories. Or sees them as potential competition with their services.

What I do think that they would like to do is keep their search results as good as possible and they do have a right to do that.

I would believe the issue right now is

PAID LINKS WHICH ATTEMPT TO GAME SEARCH ENGINE RESULTS

Please look at the image examples from Matt Cutts blog

When I type in Text Link Ads in Google, the text links site doesn't come up either.

 

@adnan

It would seem that the adult and gambling sites where the most notorious at
trying to catch that sitewide juice flow and im sure a few directories weren't far behind...

The thing is that "matt" specifically mentioned "sitewides" as hindering his algo results and passing
off more pages of page rank. (in that event then add "no follow" to those links since your just "advertising")

Thats an fix is easy... make the "front page only advertisements" and add darges "category sponcer" mod and
then theirs no need to use "no follow" as you can only "sponcer that category" and the transfer off PR from
all those pages is now significantly reduced to 1-2 pages...

You guys wanted the fix.... there you have it...

thx
malcolm

 

I posted the following quote as a reply to his post over there and Minstrel, I would love for someone to explain this to me after reading what I posted there:

Mostly like what the hell is the difference between "appearing natural" and a "naturally built directory". Sorry if I'm having a brain fart here . . .

 

I think the point he was making is that adding a few quality sites to a category and then leaving it untouched thereafter is a little like the "stacked" teen gal who has the tissue paper sticking out of the side of her bra. It just isn't going to pass the credibility test.

I suppose if one continually builds content by adding sites, like DMOZ, will get beyond the credibility test, but I'm not aware of a business reason to expend those kind of resources.

In my opinion it's time to stop debating and get started on evolving or diversifying.

 

"appearing natural" and "naturally built directory".

 

LMAO hahahaha I just about pissed myself!

 

hhehehh i just seen it also ...lol

and i must agree "some" went way overboard adding links themselves..