Bidding submissions down to zero

i`m still getting submissions and increased bids on my Bidding web Directory

 

Yes.

I am open minded (basically it would not be the first mistake I made ) so lets look at what you suggest...

Ok, so we agree the only reason one site is higher than another is they have paid more.

I have yet to see a niche bidding directory. Not one. Why? Well maybe just because one site owner has deeper pockets than another is not a quality parameter to justify a higher position in the page.

As I said, I am open to arguements that list the virtues of bidding directories.

regards
patrick

 

Mine has actually gone up. Maybe because of the unique layout. This is my Bidding Directory.

- Prilep

 

Your layout is quite similar to mine:

www.bidfortop.com

 

I'd have to agree; I've been looking at some of which are indexed by Google and pages seem to be decreasing and decreasing while some seem confused with 3 different skins indexed and two variations of detail pages.. lol

 

Lol I wasn't going to name any names to be honest. But as long as your sorting out it's all good

 

Minstrel - I've come to the conclusion that you either will, or already are, profiting from any drastic changes in how Google treats directory links. You're all over these forums spending a conspicuous amount of time pooping all over directories and their owners.

Either you need to consult with one of the many fine psych resources in your own psych related directories because; if you don't stand to gain then you are spending an insane amount of time here AND you take PLEASURE in our pain, OR you stand to benefit from our "pain".

Which is it Minstrel?

 

No argument required. Google's business model is a bid for placement model. As is most every other website on the web today. The more you pay the more prominent your ad (banner OR text). Bid directories are only unique in that the content IS the actual listings or text ads. But, if they have traffic then they offer advertising value. Personally, I find it interesting to follow the bid wars and I revisit several bid directories, which I can't say about 99% of the other sites I've visited.

Now you can argue whether a particular bid is worth the exposure or not, but that can be said about every ad placed anywhere online. I know I've received traffic and revenue from being listed in some bid directories and I'm 100% positive BigWebLinks, for example, has generated a lot of traffic and business for it's clients.

 

That question has already been asked and answered in another thread but here goes:

The answer is that what I've seen over the past few months especially is a lot of directory owners and especially bidding directory owners trying to scam and spam Google and webmasters to sell links in directories to the extent that watching all this going on sickened me. Google finally took action against these people.

So, "which is it?"... it's the first: I take pleasure in seeing these scammers and spammers outed and penalized, the same way I take pleasure in seeing criminals caught and pubished. I also take pleasure in watching Google clean up the collateral damage done by the antics of the directory owners in question. They know who they are and what they did; some have even publicly admitted it and some are now trying to clean up their acts. From my viewpoint, it's all a good thing and long overdue.

And, since you asked, no, I don't profit personally from any of this. I have three small niche directories which are all free for submission and intended to list resources for my site visitors, period. Whether or not the spammer-and-scammer directories live or die has no impact on my traffic whatsoever.

 

what is the urls of your directory sites,may i ask...? thanks

 

He won't tell you... because they are the only quality sites on the net... there's no way he's going to let that "secret" out... It's too easy to just talk about how everyone else is a scammer and has no quality...

 

Two of them are in my signature. The third, the newest, is reachable from there but is less developed than the other two.

Sorry to bring reality into your little fantasy world but see my reply to templates.

And yes, they are "quality sites" in the sense that the listings are held to strict criteria - I reject 80 to 90% of submissions and most listings are sites I've found on my own - you cannot buy your way into my directories and I don't spam and scam anyone, Google included, and I have never paid for a link in my life.

Perhaps that's why I haven't been affected by the latest Google "war on spam and paid links".

Oh, and none of them are bidding directories, by the way.

 

Another observation :

I have visited a couple of bidding directories, and what I saw was a general patern were in the front page, were I believe the top bidders get prime space, all the top bidders were other directories.

Seems a bit pyramidal to me.

I am not enjoying anyones discomfort in seeing there hard work lose value. I have serveral directories, (mostly crap general ones, am working on some niche ones now), and have a 1yr old blog on directories, which as the sec tor losses value, also loses value.

I dont know Ministrl, but his comments appear to ADD QUALITY to this discussion. And the response to his meditated, thoughtful posts, has been in some cases insulting, and few have actually been able to state a case for most directories. Rather than make a positive arguement for directories the tendency appears to be either completely ignore the need to do this, call google evil and a monopoly, or so they do it so there!

 

.....and one hopes that there is no going back to way it was. Like most we are hurting but I still believe that Google has done good this time. There is still some lead left in that pencil.

 

First, thanks for responding to my post re: your "motive". Obviously you knew I wasn't seriously trying to offend you.

Second, it may shock you to learn that I visited ALL of the sites in your sig awhile back. I try to spend some time searching for quality sites to add to my directories so they'll increase in value (to the VISITOR) over time.

I chose to add your support group site to my niche directory for moms. I would have added your directory of psych resources as well, but you beat me to it by adding it back in January. So it's obvious you REALLY do know a quality directory when you see one.

As you know it takes precious time to find, review, describe and add sites so it doesn't get done often enough, but I, for one, truly DO care about the usefulness of my sites. Currently they all have some "lameness" to them, but I continue to work on them (adding listings, pruning the weakest sites, adding useful information via blog posts, etc...) so over time they'll improve and ultimately become solid resources full of quality websites that are often missed by the major search engines.

At any rate I thought you of all people would appreciate knowing this.

Finally, you should build a list of directories YOU believe are worth a visit as you clearly have beat this horse to death AND you know the difference between good and bad. Perhaps name it the "DirectoriesThatDontSuck" or something along those lines.

Cheers

 

I'm not just an owner, I am also the # 1 client... excellent.. I am glad you are getting help my friend..

 

Ok, Minstrel I apologize for the last post, I looked at your directories and I am hoping to finally get some answers out of you, since you seem to be this biggest proponent for a "flight to quality".

What objective measure are you using for Quality? I really don't understand and still don't from looking at your directory.

Is it you directory itself that is quality or is the sites that you accept?

Seriously, what makes a quality site? Or is this just your subjective measure? I mean is Mattel.com a quality site? Or are they not because they import lead laden toys from China? What if 1 person somewhere had a grudge or bad experience with one of the groups listed on your sites? Are they still quality?

I am just trying to understand your argument here ..

Lance

 

I listed my criteria above (or was that in another thread?) but basically the answer is I do have some basic objective criteria to define quality - relevance to my directory, evidence of some work being out into the site and not just articles written by other people - I don't list sites merely selling "natural" remedies and I don't ever list online pharmacy sites. The first question that needs a "Yes" answer is "will this be of any significant use to visitors to my directory?" since that is the point - to build a directory of resources for visitors.

But the overriding criterion is my sense of smell. I visit every site submitted. If it stinks or just doesn't smell right to me, I delete the submission.

It is the sites listed versus those that are not listed. The sites the owner or editor chooses make the site either a quality site or a crap site. The specific script or template used is just window dressing. I'd list a black on white no logo directory if the quality of listings was good.