Ok look at it from this point of view... lets say I work under Cutts web spam team and he has given me the task of seeking out every one of those zillion crappy directories you just mentioned. Now I could go to google.com and search for the terms 'directory', 'web directory', 'business directory', 'link directory', etc, etc.... get a huge list and send them off to the manual review team. Or, I could do what I was being paid to do as an engineer and find the fastest and most direct route. That would be to "target" using a common factor, no one is saying that they ONLY target phpLD but it would be the most obvious choice. Out of the zillion web directories that you say are started every day, I would say 95% are done on the cheap, e.g. free software which of course = phpLD version 2. No it's not the only one but it is the most common. So now I run through the google database looking for the phpLD footer link or their generator tag and send that list off to the manual review team instead. A much smaller list with a much greater chance of finding and removing the spam. For all of you who say they don't target this or they don't target that I'm sorry but your talking rubbish. It's the web spam team it is their job to target spam and remove it. It doesn't matter if it is phpLD or WordPress, if it is causing spam they will target it and find the most common denominator. And for those who say they wouldn't waste their time.... well considering myself, an0n, or any other decent programmer around here could build something in a day that could carry out this task. I am sure given Google's vast skillset in engineers they could knock something out that would take less than half a day. Time is not an issue for Google when it comes to dealing with spam. Do you allow spam sites in your directories? No, if your sensible you target it when it comes to approve / reject. Some of us do it manually, some use tools and Google is no different. @Obelia, I dont think anyone is suggesting that they are targetting a script whether it be phpLD or any other for "penalisation", but rather for further investigation. Just IMHO
It's wrong of you to say the rest of us are talking rubbish SilkySmooth because you have absolutely NO proof other than your theory, which may be rubbish itself!! Although I happen to have the same view I could never make a bold statement until I could support it which is what I said in an earlier post. Until you can prove otherwise with more than just a theory you should not dismiss others, you could end up with egg on your face. Give people who have differring opinions a break, everyone has just as much right to their opinions as you do, and at this present time your opinion is no more backed up by evidence as the one's who say there is no targetting.
JamieG, this is the second time now that you have quoted me out of context, I am beginning to wonder if you dont have something against me Lets be very clear here, I did NOT state the "rest" of you were talking rubbish. I quite clearly stated: Which would imply those people who believe that Google do not do any form of targeting are talking rubbish, not the "rest" of you and or any of the other theories that were posted.
Not at all. Their index, they can do what they want with it. They can target anybody that links to Yahoo, if they want to. Why not? How hard would it be? Not hard. Here's my PERSONAL OPINION: It's probably a 'flag' that when combined with a number of other factors, triggers a penalty or PR hit, or a manual review. I wouldn't be surprised if the googlebot 'knew' when it crawls a directory, whether it has the link or not. Every time the googlebot hits a web directory for the first time, Matt Cutts gets a spam notification in his email. Think about it, if 80% of the directories are crap, like everyone says they are, wouldn't it be smart of google to consider that as a factor in evaluating the site? Combined with X number of other 'flags,' a directory could be seen as 99+% likely to be spammy/low quality in google's eyes, worthy of a smackdown.
I'm not think so. One of my directories running on phpld3.1 is still indexed well by google and went from PR1 to PR2 in the latest PR update.
I'm a gonnabe Lawyer, I NEVER misquote. Isn't that what I said you said? Someone just posted that Google was 'probably' flagging? There's 'probably' life on other planets and we're going to be invaded and blown out of orbit but we haven't got an ounce of proof so we shouldn't start causing mass hysteria until there is.
If you're referring to me, then you also know that I clearly stated that was my PERSONAL OPINION. I'll also probably get a ticket or get hit if I run red lights all the time, so I don't. You 'probably' don't either.
No, I said, I NEVER quote out of context, or at least try not to, I was referring to silkysmooth who in his post http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6588636&postcount=21 DID suggest everyone else was 'talking rubbish'. He said he never his post said he did. I don't run red lights, it's against the law.
It was referring to your comment but the post was referring to another using you as a reference. (Sorry about the confusion there A). 'Probably' doesn't cut it in this world, the balance of probabilities is 51/50. It has to be very strong supporting evidence for someone to make a claim and expect others to accept it. People say things like, could be and probably but it isn't backed up. Bringing this thread back on track people probably think someone was making a calculated post to scare phpld script users in a bid to get people to pay a lot of money just to remove footer attributes and make the script owner rich, but don't say so because they could never prove that. There is NO evidence of Google flagging phpld point blank, until there is we should all assume there isn't any flagging. Life is full of probably's.
JamieG, you are quoting me out of context and highlighting sections of the text to support your claim. This is now the second time that I am stating: IT WAS NOT A COMMENT DIRECTED AT THE "REST".... the 'who say' makes it group of people, but you dont want to highlight that bit. If you cant accept that, tough because everyone else appears to have understood me.
Decisions are made on probablies all the time. Rarely do we ever have enough information to declare ANYTHING with 100% certainty. 'Probably' isn't 51%...it's anywhere from just over 50% and just under 100%. And sometimes we're even wrong about the 'probably' - but life goes on.
Say what you want SilkySmooth as it certainly looks like anyone who disagrees with you, which I take to be 'most', are talking rubbish? The fact is they can't be, as we don't make wild theories that can't be supported; we just dispute ones that have been made. I can't understand what are you getting so wound up about though, we're all entitled to our opinions, right or wrong? I repeat myself.... even if you said just ONE person was talking rubbish because they don't agree with your theory, you'd be wrong to do so, your theory is just that, 'a theory' you've no support to it so to rubbish anyone else would be wrong until you do.
@SilkySmooth @JamieG I requested to both of you...We are here for healthy discussions about various topics about web directories...No one is not against any one of these forum members..We are getting great opportunity through this DP and make us together here to getting mutual benefits...Both of you Understand i think...We will fight for healthy topics and result will be very useful to everyone..I hope more DP members will discuss in this issue and in Future it will be Sticky by DP moderators if it is very useful for every directory owners...Help other wed directory owners by make this topic as sticky..Hope healthy fight continues..Not like earlier discussions between both of you.. We need Different thoughts and Ideas..Every one is working very hard here to drive more traffic to our website and Earn more through that..So please be cool..
For the love of god, I didn't say anyone was talking rubbish because they didn't agree with my theory... Your worse than a journalist putting words into peoples mouths. I said and I will repeat for the last time because your clearly not understanding. People who think that Google do not target: YOU ARE TALKING RUBBISH. Google do TARGET. That is not a theory that is a FACT. That statement has nothing to do with ANY theory not even MINE! It was originally stated as a SEPERATE paragraph AFTER I presented my theory. If you cannot read a post thats your problem. I am tired of explaining this to you and won't detract from this thread any further, think and say what you like, I really dont care.
And I'm sick of asking Can you prove that Google are targetting phpld which is what this thread is about? If you can't then accept that we all have a right to disagree without throwing a tantrum.
Maybe google is...maybe they "ain't". BUT (<-Big butt & Big if->), IF they are targeting phpld directories and do admit to it (which they won't...ever), David would make an absolute killing overnight from people paying the 50 bucks to remove the link.
you got that right Tim also maybe thats why google is on my directories so much as they are targeting all my phpld directories I wish they would take a break
If you're that worried about it hurting your rankings, pay the upgrade price, and replace 'Powered by PhpLD' to 'Powered by Google Directory'. That'll throw all speculation to the wind. Seems Google do fiddle the serps when it comes to directories. In Google UK, a search for directory brings ridiculous results. Google Directory, a clone of the ODP, with as much original content as the 'Adsense In A Box' package, is fourth, behind BT.com's 'Directory Enquires', 192.com and Thomson Local respectively. 'Web Directory' gives near enough the same story. Cutts wrongful impression of phpLD just proves he can be a twat at times