Authority Directories List

This is the problem we have. Despite that the fact that the answers should be obvious there are still a lot of people who still cant see the wood for the trees. All I can say is that its dishonest to use the term Authority Site in any context other than that used by Google. The forum I belong to referred to those sites as Trusted Sites. Why do you think that was?

Secondly I believe that not only is it dishonest and reckless but if it was deliberate misrepresentation then there is a good argument for calling it criminal misrepresentation. And I sincerely hope that if we ever do get a representative body off the ground that they will seek legal advice and clarity on this issue.

Were do you stand? Do you believe that Alive is an Authority Site?

 

read this then you will better know ...

http://directory.sootle.com/directo...google-sitelinks-are-not-a-sign-of-authority/

Here ya go... heres an authority site HERE
Now take a look at that site and tell me if you would ever call that "authority"

Avivas strongest list was derived from Page Strength (PS) or seomoz's tool........ nothing more then that.

thx
malcolm

 

Try explaining that to CR. He is having a problem getting his head around this. But he is not the only one.

Aviva not only flagged these wannabee authority sites on their Strongest Sites list but if I am not mistaken they had another list which was titled Authority Sites. What does that make them? Confused, misguided, inexperienced, noobs,aggressive marketeers or just downright and deliberately dishonest? What does it say for guys like Alive and all the other mindless drones who posted the same garbage over and over again. Were they being paid to do that? Is that how it worked or did they actually believe in that clap trap?

 

Why do you continue to say I have posted garbage over and over? As mentioned before, I have not posted anything on the subject other than what has been mentioned in replies to you.

 

Lets try "what does it say for guys like Alive". The answers to this are there for everyone to see, give or take but the thread I am really interested in is this one

 

With respect workshop Chris is doing something with his directories especially Alive and I personally advised him some. If we could just give him time changes would occur and I am sure Chris is doing his very best. Matter of fact I will be bringing some good changes I hope as me and some editors could bring fresh idea to Alive. It's on process, its a project and most of all its voluntary on our part.

Thanks

 

Understood but we need change and Alive could reach a lot of people I can never hope to get through to. Instead of acting like the injured party he could help straighten things out for all of us but I don't think he is going to. Like many others I have got a vision for the future but his short term thinking and the attitude of many in these forums has already cost me dearly. I cant spend time every day making small talk with obnoxious people who think they have every right to dip into the pockets of every passer by.

Have we really put this issue of Authority Sites to bed? I don't think so. This lot are just waiting for the dust to settle before getting back into the thick of it. Despite this, this is not personal. I just use Alive as an example because it was the site I was familiar with.

 

Honestly, I have discussed some future plans with Chris. I hope we could go ahead with these and that includes some traveling on few conferences that would take place sometime in the future.

Hopefully in 3 weeks time I would be in Camp Lejeune if things go well with my personal business then we could talk and eat in Red Lobster but him paying.

 

Good luck. It would be nice to see something constructive coming out of all this aggro.

 

Exactly right. I too have some examples of crap sites displaying such links. Their official term is "Sitelinks" and i would humbly request all confused babies here to look at this page before speaking anything

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=47334

Its totally 100% misleading and crap to term sitelinks as "Authority Sites"

regards
Aditya

 

I've got no problem getting my head around the points being discusses. If you'd like to discuss the points I'll be glad to debate - if you wish to make this personal - enjoy yourself.

Evidently there are some qualities recognized over other sites by Google or it wouldn't offer it's users the additional site links

I'll rephrase my comment in a way that maybe it's easier to understand what I'm suggesting and that is that these sites have some qualities about them that Google recognizes and determines that listing additional site resources is a benefit for their user.

These "qualities" could be as simple as having more than one additional page relevant to the search query. Google in the past has limited the indented results to show a single additional related result from a site.

Look at the Alternative Baby Names example everyone is throwing around:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...num=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=alternative+baby+names

I'll venture a guess that all of the indented results may be relevant to the search term in enough instances (content, url, citations, etc.) that G feels warranted to display more than a single indented result for the benefit of their user.

I've no problem with what the webmaster/seo community has coined this. The term has been used for as long as Google has been displaying these reusults. I do not see where webmasters/seo are declaring that these sites are the equivalent of one another, nor do I think that he average webmaster believes this either.

 

You have dropped the term authority site, so no problem. The question was whether it was ethical or not to use it in this context.

 

An authority site would be cnn or bbc etc etc etc.

No matter if they have the site links or the news writers eat pasta on bread for breakfast. It's easy enough to spot one when you see one, but the site links are often a good indicator to what sites are "authority".

 

Yes you are right. But some group of people here started calling sitelinks as authority sites

 

hmmm... well what am i chopped liver?

I want to go also or when you both decide to come here to the "west coast"
and hit one off the conferences then i could handle the arrangments for that.

Hey i wanna mingle with "matt" and the other guys also ...

thx
malcolm

 

Easy for you to take swings at the directory community now that Google has dropped rankings for many directories. Prior to this issue, Alive and Aviva were authoritative in my opinion and many others. Even Google had supplemental listings for them prior to this algo update. The reality is: Alive and Aviva are both better quality than 99% of all the directories out there.

And, why do you keep making references to legal issues. It has nothing to do with the law. The words "authority directory" are more based on strong opinions as opposed to actual facts. No one is forcing you or anyone to submit to Alive or Aviva. If its too expensive, move on. It's like a company saying they have the "best tasting food" or "superior cars"...these are just a matter of opinion; no one said these were facts. And, if Aviva wants to publish a page of what it considers "authority directories", then it certainly has a right to. Who are you to tell people how to conduct their business?

For you to character assassinate some of these people is simply wrong. These people have worked long hours to make their business as successful as it is. Yes, they make good money, but they also pour lots of money back into advertising and marketing. This is what creates a successful economy; give and take. No one has taken business away from you, they are simply better business people.

Don't blame others for your short-comings.

BTW...this message isn't sponsored by Alive or Aviva.

 

As I said above, I've no problem with the term coined by webmasters/seo. If the vast majority of webmasters prefer to refer to a site displaying site links as an authority site, so be it - I've no problem with that. I'm able to see a difference between sites and by labeling a site as an authority doesn't automatically make it the equivalent of a Yahoo or Adobe, except maybe in your own eyes.

If your goal is to change the terminology used, fine. Continually bashing a couple of sites does little to help your cause.

 

I'll settle for a much more lower page rank anytime of the day just to see my site have those extra links. (Authority)

 

But its not the vast majority of webmasters unless you subscribe to the belief that influential and vocal confers the right to deliberately misrepresent the situation.

A little smug this, don't you think? There are a lot of people who never question. They are vulnerable and particularly so, in an industry where there are no checks and balances and where the recognised authorities don't know the difference between right and wrong.

I have got better things to do believe me. But it a tough one. There is so much vested interest it makes it difficult get the message through and I think you must ask yourself what contribution you have made.

 

I'm comfortable with what I have or have not contributed. And I'll leave it at that. Best of luck with your crusade.