enlighten you guys about directories

Jim the real problem is how 'legitimate' the tweaks really are, number one, just because a site decides to sell links for advertising purposes but refuses to alter their code for Google does not make that site any less relevant or 'good' so that is probably why they don't penalize SERPs, just visual page rank. And if they are just penalizing visual page rank then what value does that rank actually have anymore.

Secondly, gooogle indexes all kinds of terrible content, if someone wants to buy advertising from me and I review their site and deem it to be of sufficient quality that I am comfortable with my visitors seeing and clicking the link then why should that 'vote' not count for page rank or whatever other ranking algorithim factors gooogle has?

Thirdly, gooogle gives top spot to whatever website pays the most (via adwords) so the whole bigger picture of quality search results being the overall goal is more than a little hypocritical.

 

I will say that at least Google separates the adwords from organic results unlike the search engine redzee (for example) who just plops the paid placements right on top of the results with no differentiation.

That makes it hard to believe the search results from places like redzee have any credibility to them.

 

@ Swedal

Why no credibility?

 

Ya they put the paid results above number 1 organic search result so regular web users probably just think the sponsor is the number one result anyways.

 

A study awhile found that only like 40% of users even trust sponsored ads as most of the "uneducated public" think they are like popups and will kill your computer. So even if they are above them all, they are losing around 40% of those Google searches because some people don't trust the sponsored ads over the generic ones.

 

Mikey, that's a great link, thanks.

Matt's final paragraph should put to rest (in the affirmative) the oft-debated question on DP as to whether PR affects SERPs. Matt makes it very clear that it does.

 

This whole PR = quality debate is one that always confounds me because so many here believe it to be true.

When I look for sites to add to my directories, I use the search engines and start anywhere from page 6-10 of the results. I look at old Geocities sites and check their favorite sites lists and I also look at the links on many of the sites that I've already accepted. That's where the real quality sites often can be found; the real hidden gems. Those folks are not chasing PR, many don't even know what SEO stands for, and most actually have unique and quality content.

Some of them have decent PR, many don't. PR has always been a measurement of backlinks. In the old days when a link equated to "Hey, I think this is a great site you should check out!" - backlink counts as a measurement of quality worked. Today, in the days of "SEO Experts", gaining backlinks is simply part of the game which often has very little to do with an honest referral or vote of quality.

Think about the last 10 sites you've accepted into your directory. How many of them would you tell friends or family to check out? How many of them would you actually recommend in person? How many of them did you accept simply because they had a nice PR score? Did you add any of them to your own bookmarks? How many of you actually use your own directories to find things like you would your bookmark file?

 

nicely put and it is true what you say there, but this whole pr thing today is also about just staying competetive because everybody else is doing it then so do you. Things have changed and google themselves has brought these changes as they benefit them, it gives them the sense of power and control, we as webmasters only try and keep up do date and competetive.

 

I don't have much to say here, but I just have to say thats an excellent point. Rep added

A point to add in this is that some sites are there for pure money. Webmaster that run thousands and thousands of sites are there to simply set-up a forum, then let dedicated members run it while they rake in money. And even though 99% of sites I visit I do not bookmark or decided to return to later I think its partially because my mind has become to biased against websites that aren't perfect. And I'll admit, not even my site is perfect, but its mine, and that means a lot to me.

And not being biased at all, when I come to a website from a visitor standpoint I look at how the content is delivered, is the content new and fresh, is the site trying to scam me, is it a waste of time, and should I return?

But when I come to a website from a webmaster standpoint I look at the Alexa rating, the PR, the number of ads the site has, if they are going to scam me, and if the site is purely for money.

My thoughts on sites change a lot when I go from a visitor to a webmaster...

 

Jim, maybe back in 2006 when that article was published, but lots has happened since then, BigDaddy update for example.

 

Google's recently updated ©2008 comments on PageRank make it clear that there is still a PR-SERPs connection — "Pages that we believe are important pages receive a higher PageRank and are more likely to appear at the top of the search results." This is a current Google publication. Google has unwaveringly published the fact that there is a PR—>SERPs connection, right up to the present. This if strongly and often denied by many DP posters. But Google's published comments consistently make the connection. On what basis should we believe otherwise?

EDIT: Here's the link. Some of the language is new. It's a good read. http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html

 

Very well said Jim, kudos to you, sir

Not only do Alaska produce freakishly fine films (seen 30 Days of Night last night and was creeped out) - they also have a good stock of mighty fine forum posters!

 

Jim, I didnt say that PR wasn't counted at all, just pointing out that a lot has changed since 2006 and as a result so has the way in which Google calculates and values PR into their rankings.

 

While this may or may not be true - it could also work both ways, in that PR is still valued the same, but another factor has risen in value, which has made such effects on SERPs. We speculate while Google accumulates - always have, always will

 

hmm sounds fishy to me

 

It still seems many low or zero PR sites rank very well for search terms, often way above higher page ranked sites. So maybe there is still a relationship but PR is less important these days. Like some of the above say, gooogle wants to keep us guessing it is in their best interest.

 

PR is a PR... it has almost no meaning. But it can in a webmasters eyes, maybe not much, but it can.

From a previous point I stated:

Not being biased at all, when I come to a website from a visitor standpoint I look at how the content is delivered, is the content new and fresh, is the site trying to scam me, is it a waste of time, and should I return?

But when I come to a website from a webmaster standpoint I look at the Alexa rating, the PR, the number of ads the site has, if they are going to scam me, and if the site is purely for money.

My thoughts...

 

we are just in a time of transition.hey general directory that sits around and wait for links to come to them is not likely going to work very well anymore. When it comes to niche or local directories, there are plenty of opportunities and there are even a number of experts talking right now about local results and directories.if you are still stuck in the old mentality of page rank, you are probably missing the boat.

 

@dvduval this isn't exactly related, but these days it seems fresh, contextual content is given a far higher priority than fixed directories.

Sometimes I see new blog posts i make get top ranking for their most relevant keywords over the next 3-5 days... then it begins to lose rank. I get the disctinct impression that if you keep it coming (fresh, relevant content) you can float to the top more quickly.

has anyone else seen this?