phpLynx: Unexpected SEO benefit?

Admittedly it may be just coincidence but, after only a short time using phpLynx (after converting three directories from phpLD to eSyndicat and then recently to phpLynx), I am noticing an unexpected benefit:

Since installing phpLynx, both the number of pages indexed by Google and the number of individual listings pages in the index has shown a sudden and dramatic increase.

Now all three scripts offer mod_rewrite (so-called SEO friendly URLs) and that feature has been enabled for all three scripts. In the past, the home page and categories were indexed - and not all of the categories - and that was pretty much it. My Google alerts and site: queries are now showing all of the categories indexed and already several individual listings pages.

I can't swear that this is due to the switch to phpLynx and I can't tell you what is different about phpLynx that might have created this benefit. At this point, I'm simply reporting it as an unexpected but obviously happy result.

It might be the case that there is something about the directory or database or URL structure used by phpLynx that gives an advantage both to directory owners and to webmasters listing their sites in phpLynx directories.

Has anyone else using phpLynx noticed anything similar?

 

There are three but in various stages of development, population, and promotion - the oldest is http://directory.psychlinks.ca

 

This is a long shot...but it makes me wonder if Google doesn't search for the "Powered by: PHPLD" in the footer and then flag the site as a directory.

I've only used phpld...so no, I can't say I've experienced the same but I've often wandered if I would benefit by paying the $50 and removing the link.

Again...long shot but your post makes me think...

 

As I said in the OP, I'm comparing my very new experience with phpLynx (I only purchased it January 20, 2008, and then it took a few days to a week to get it set up and import my listings from eSyndicat, so we're talking about less than 3 weeks) with both phpLD and eSyndicat, so your hypothesis seems unlikely unless they're targetting eSyndicat too.

 

actually i think that google flagging phpld sites is a possibility; it's much more popular than phpLynx and it's used by most general web directories, i also saw matt cuts mentioning something about Phpld, (i don't remember what exactly but it was negative), all what we can do is speculate, but it's an interesting experience so thanks for sharing.

 

For some reason your pages on phpld could have http header status 404...
Phpld doesn't apply 200OK ststus in automatic way.
If custom rewrite method used, and no update for http status function - all pages can be seen with header 404.
Of course such pages won't be properly indexed.

3.2, 3.3 versions offer forcing 200OK header status for any page, however this is not smartest way. You always should take care about http_statsus function if used custom rewrite method.

A don't think "Powered by Phpld" link can matter.
Many do not use it or use with different anchor.
Many do not use phpld version meta in header.
Personally my links are contextual somewhere in the middle of content text.

- D.

 

Okay. I can accept that as a possibility but then you would have to also assume that eSyndicat forums are being targetted in the same way. I was seeing only slow growth until I switched to phpLynx less than 3 weeks ago and now I'm seeing a virtual explosion of pages indexed. I'm not seeing that for my other (non-directory) sites so I attiorbuting that to the siwtch to phpLynx until I see something to contradict that preliminary conclusion.

I suppose it's possible that both phpLD and eSyndicat are being selectively targetted. It just seems a bit unlikely to me. I suspect it's more likely to be something about the way phpLynx handles navigation and litings.

I should point out that 99.999% of my listings are free and about 75% were added by me personally - I didn't create these directories as a money maker but rather as a niche resource to compplement my other mental health sites. I avoided many of the other mistakes that directory owners made prior to the big "directory penalty" of a few months ago and I've made no other changes in policy, etc., other than the change in software.

 

let's assume that you don't have any paid options in you directory, now let's just use common sense, google is still just an algo, they can't tell if a webmaster contacted you and paid you to list his site right ? especially when you own a niche directory and you list only relevant and quality websites. i don't think that paid or free has anything to do this, also about the big "directory penalty", as far as i know most of the websites affected, if not all of them were directories owned by DP members, i won't talk about the causes and "persons" but IMHO i believe it was a manual and a "one time" Human intervention not an algorithmic penalty.

i'd like to see more people switch to phplynx and see of they get the same improvements as you, that would be definitely interesting.

thx.

 

minstrel, how much are you getting paid to push phplynx? jk

 

I added those details merely to point out that the jump in pages indexed has nothiung to do with recovery from a penalty, since I didn't have one. As for the point about "Human intervention not an algorithmic penalty", I have no interest in debating that - there is no doubt that there was a penalty and I agree that it was probably manually applied in anticipation of future algorithmic changes.

Not a cent. I paid them for three licenses, and I paid more for a custom template. I have no financial interest in phpLynx whatsoever. I'm merely reporting an observation.

 

I'm going to be damned if I do and damned if I don't, so will just say this, we did work very hard at phpLynx when looking at the SEO friendlyness of the script and the way spiders index. A few lessons from the more popular scripts made it clear there were a few things wrong and we worked on that, it seems to be paying off which is great.

 

I do remember a while ago, they was good reports from several users here on the forum of the phplynx script which good results within google.

Its good to hear.

Thanks
aubenrey

 

minstrel congrats with the good results, a couple of things crossed my mind when reading...

Is it not possible that Google (and other search engines) are seeing these pages as "new" pages due to the change in software, e.g. new urls, different html, etc. and is therefore eating them up because of this?

If it is purely because of the switch to phpLynx then I think that is good news as it raises the game for all software developers.

Ref. the other points made by people about Cutts and Google targetting phpLD, IIRC they were specifically looking at the submit page of phpLD which in their observation "forced people" to reciprocal link when paying to submit. And Cutts advised people to remove the recip. option from the page.

 

I've just been told by Gary, the lead developer with phpLynx who can't post here that the category structures and url's should have been exactly the same as they were in esyndicat as he imported them, so perhaps making your up from that might help.

Won't go over my last post but we did do a heck of a lot of work on making the script seo friendly and it seems this is paying off. As you rightly say if it is the case we've hit on something it does indeed raise the bar.

 

JamieG, if you believe this is a direct consequence of PHPLynx's efforts/features, why don't you point them out? What is it that makes Lynx better for indexing? Any facts, data, or case studies you could point to?

You may not want to 'stir the pot' here, but I would think you would want to point out advantages of the script, and I would think that would be a pretty good advantage.

I'm aware that there may be some history here with the directories forum and PHPLynx advocates (don't know that for sure or why), but I think there's a few grownups left on these forums...so why not?

 

Basic category URLs are exactly same on all mentioned scripts.
There's no seo adventage in this.
All the rest is in user's hands how titles and metas are assigned.

If changed the script - most probably changed titles and metas, so I'm not surprised Google indexed it again as it all changed. Now wait some time and watch how pages again disappearing or go to supplemental results.

Minstrel, create completely new (new domains) directories based on both scripts, before you say of seo benefits.
I can bet phpld category pages will be indexed faster.

And all seo techniques first depend on you - what you do with the script.
But seems most of directories owners do nothing with that, using only what basic script offers.

And last - not the number of indexed pages is important but how high and on what keywords it is ranked. The number is only number - gives nothing.
Long time ago I stopped being excited of having websites with 100K indexed pages...
There's a time to discover things, there's a time to grow up.

 

Hi there Artifex, your right that I don't want to 'stir the pot', my predecessors before me were all banned for even mentioning phpLynx but we won't go there as it's history.

As for letting people know just what it is we've done to achieve such results, you going to think this a bit of a cop-out but your expecting too much for me to reveal that, it's a bit like asking Google to release their algorythms?

This has nothing to do with adults, it has to do with property protection, what I can say is we've simply learnt from others and the mistakes they made and worked around these.

I hope and trust you understand that even though this seems to be evasive it isn't, we simply can't be expected to reveal what we've done because as much as I respect there are many genuine members on this forum there are a small minority who are not so adult.

As, if, and when we go open source then perhaps people will see what we've done, but until then it's up to people to judge for themselves whether it's our script or just fluke that it is getting indexed so well.

@Dargre, you can go for whatever theory you wish, it's clearly not in your interests to admit phpLynx has succeeded in what other directory scripts, )including the one you have a vested interest in), have failed. Your doing quite a bit of talking for minstrel here when commenting on any changes he may or may not have made, why not ask him, as I've already told you that Gary imported exactly the same content he had in esyndicat and into exactly the same folders so NO urls were changed as your theory suggests. I may be wrong but I'll wait for minstrel to pick up on that as he has no vested interest in either lying for phpLynx or in discrediting phpld.

Hope that answers your theory.

 

Think again. How the navigation structure is set up can have a large effect, for starters.

No. Good guess but it was a direct import. None of that changed.

I'm not claiming SEO benefits - did you actually read my first post here? I posted an observation. If anyone has another credible explanation, I'm open to it. As far as I can tell, as I said in the first post of this thread, all I changed was the script.

If you like to gamble, feel free to do so. However, as I said in the first post, I have previously owned the paid/Pro versions of both phpoLD and eSyndicat and I am posting about a result I didn;t see with either of those scripts.

You think? Then please provide an explanation of why simply changing the script and nothing else would have such an effect.

I'm open to a credible explanation. What have you got?

You really did NOT read my post at all, did you? I'm not trying to claim anything other than what I posted in the first post of this thread. And as for number of pages indexed meaning nothing, I think perhaps you'd better take that SEO 101 course over again. How do you expect to get pages to rank if they're not indexed?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, beyond a cheap shot? I don't need to grow up. I know that a good few DP members need to but I think I've already done most of my growing. Thank you for caring, though...

 

JamieG, I wouldn't expect you to reveal it to be honest. It was your time and effort that went into finding and learning from others mistakes.

In my previous post I raised the question about the URL's and HTML, one of which has been answered. I am still curious to know about the HTML... now obviously there is going to be *some* change, but are we talking a completely different template design or was the old template ported over from OldDirSoftware to phpLynx? Were any improvements made during the port?

minstrel, perhaps you could come back in a month's time and give us an update?