Are these paid directories culprit for throwing me out of Google's SERPs?

Mr Kumar let us look them a bit more closely.

Case 1: laike.com

• metadescription is missing on laikee.com
• the website is linked from a chinese website.... what the heck its going on??

Case 2: littlew.net

• metadescription is missing.
• the website its linked from werbach.com which is blocked based on security preferences.

Case 3: trailace.com

• metadescription is missing.
• look more closely at trailace.com/Business/Clothing/ they have a listing without a description.

Case 4: korekom.org

• again were is meta description?
• some of their back link are coming from cms.hr and magyarszo.com .pff i cant understand why?

Case 5: indexlogic.org

• pff.... again were is meta description?

Without mate description and with a suspection link profile im not suprised to see that G slaped them.

 

Not sure if we understood each other or not -- I was referring to the no (#) of root domains linking to a site - and page authority/domain authority which are not attained so easily.
I am not sure what metrics they use - but I believe their metrics surely reflect the strength of a site based on domain age - total root domains linking to ( yes even no-follow links are counted in their metrics) - and strength of those sites from where you are linked from.

I try to improve my sites metrics but commenting on relevant niche sites/blogs and I would say I am moderately happy with my own work and the result in their metrics.

 

I've done some pretty extensive research with OSE back in 2011. Whilst there are some instances where the reporting is way off, it's generally quite close to what you would expect in determining the strength of a domain. There is a heck of a lot of good and strong directories out there according to the SEOMoz tool, and in most cases they are exactly the ones you would expect. Very few surprises.

I think using 40+ as the benchmark is probably being too generous... Anything under 50 for the domain strength is probably not strong enough. Also, given that there are literally scores of paid directories over 65+ domain strength, if you are looking for serious contenders you might want to use 65-80 as the starting point and work back if required. The very best directories top out at around 80. Exceptions are DMOZ, Yahoo, Business . com, Internet Public Library which are all 85+

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree Dan.

I tried the tool again and put 5 sites in my niche into the comparison tool. The results would imply that PR means more than anything else. The sites had PRs from 1 to 5. And, coincidentally we were ranked in that order as well.

 

I would expect that to be true in most cases...

PR9 through to PR6 is generally going to be a downward slide in terms of authority. I don't think PR is what they are relying on solely, but it's always going to look like that.

If I put up a list of the directories with the highest domain scores, I doubt you would find one below PR5 that is also a 65+ on OSE's tool. But, you also wouldn't find a dropped-domain PR ranking there. If it was, and this is the way I am evaluating the current list I have compiled, then a minimum of 5-6 years age would be needed to qualify that 65+ score (when I say 5-6 years this would be a sliding value as it's now 2012, and in 2013 and each subsequent year I would add another year requirement). That would create a concrete, established-only directories with established-PR.

 

Oh, I think we agree about most things Dan. This might be the exception.

Only 1 of the 5 was over 65 but 4/5 are 5+ years old. And, the one that ranked the highest on both PR and the tool is a reciprocal only directory - something I thought Google was supposed to frown upon.

Beyond the overall score, my beef is with the individual numbers like incoming and outgoing links. They just don't match. How can a directory with over 900 links only have 26 outgoing links? Even if they don't count multiple shops on Etsy or Artfire and blogs on Blogger or Wordpress, 26 still isn't even close.