Authority sites

1) There is no "faux pas" on behalf of Google. It's an algorithm. If Google wants to change their algorithm for some reason they can.

2) If people are making unsupported claims that is a different issue. Stating whether or not you have been recognized by Google's algorithm is a verifiable statement of fact.

Well, what then? As a child were you not disappointed that eating cereal for breakfast was not as fun as the commercials depicted? Nobody says that your breakfast table will have dancing leprechauns that deliver a pot of gold, but they certainly imply breakfast is going to be fun. So what? Marketing is about raising desires and offering solutions.

Now, if the cereal companies actually promised dancing leprechauns and happy parents and children, then there'd be trouble. Everyone who bought the item would want their money back... and if they couldn't get it back, then the reputation of the company would plummet. If the company had broken any laws they could be sued and so forth.

All the arguing I see here, at least without any example statements showing improper claims, sounds like bellyaching of some sort. Please, take a long hard look at how business operates. Beer commercials with beautiful girls, spray on cologne that makes all the young women horny, cereal that turns breakfast into a party, dancing and talking animals that grab the attention of children, cars that impress women or that will make you cool, clothes that will make you look attractive.

The only thing is, the association is all in the minds of the viewer, it's not like anyone is promising anything. I don't know about you but I've always remained the same old boring schmuck no matter who's products I've purchased!

The same is true with being a Google "authority site". Google isn't telling you to submit your site. The recognition doesn't promise you anything, but it does certainly suggest that a whole lot of work has gone into promoting the site and it's quite likely that if any link will help you achieve your goals, that a link from such a site would. It certainly wouldn't be of lesser value than any old link purchased from any old directory.

Again, if Google's algorithm were to decide I had an "authority site", I'd crow about it until the cows came home. It would be an achievement and if I could turn that little "award" into increased prestige, branding potential or profits, then I'd do it.

 

The reason I have a problem with this is that there are a lot of people who are out of pocket right now and who are now wondering what they have been building on for the last however many months.

We are not just talking about consumers. We are talking about trust. We are talking about ethics and an emerging industry. What about the guys that are left holding the bill? You and I we will move on with a smirk and not even a backward glance. And this is the problem with pyramid marketing, branding or whatever you choose to call it. Thats why its illegal.

Who do we blame? Google? I dont think so.

Google recognises Authority Sites. We all know that and I dont think we have debate that point. Google also recognises Site Links but where does Google tie the two together? They dont. Site links are just that. They are site links and Google tells us that. Why shouldnt they? There is nothing more exciting to it than that. Most sites have them and Google will display them where they consider it to be appropriate to the use them. As I have said they have graciously conferred that exalted status on me as well as others that know full well that they dont deserve it. And they are certainly not awarding Aviva and Alive licence to pretend that their sites carry the same weight as Yahoo. Thats reckless an blatant misrepresentation.

Google has gone as far as to trash PR just to make the point that they dont support this sort of spin in the market. They are going out of their way to press this point home and it would be the sensible thing to do to pause, to take stock and listen.

 

Listen to what? All I'm hearing is someone expressing their comments and ideas about an interpretation of sitelinks and bemoaning about a couple of directories that are allegedly comparing themselves to one of the most popular on the Interent.

I've yet to see where either of these directories have suggested to you or anyone else that they are of the same caliber as Yahoo. I'm sure we're all able to distinguish a difference and are not under the impression that they are trying to pass themselves off as an equivalent.

Having sitelinks does not make you equal to every other site that also has sitelinks diplayed in the search results; and I'm not aware of anyone who would believe it did.

 

Why did Google pop the PR bubble or is this see no evil, hear no evil and we will leave the last one out?

Lets assume, just for one minute, that that someone was reckless enough to make use of the words Authority Status out of context.....
....what would you call this? Agressive marketing?

 

you might want to change your location to planet lala! Of course it's a major F*** UP by Google, even if its a F***** up Algorythm, do you seriously believe they intended to give so called 'authority status' to little link farms like avivadirectory with hardly any value let alone 'authority'? And yes, they probably will change it when they see the errors being made, they're all for accurate results, calling avivadirectory an authority is about as accurate as saying we're winning the war in Iraq.

I NEVER make unsupported claims. Take a look at the definition of the word 'authority', then come back here and post to me which one if any of the terms people like avivadirectory satisfy in order to be deemed as an 'authority'.

Cerial companies don't 'promise things' or make false claims, well none that I know of, but directories like Avivadirectory do. Take a look at their affiliate program and read this line. Our directory is one of the most popular and powerful directories on the internet, so you can have confidence promoting it. Um Yeah Right, and I'm George Bush jr's Lovechild.

I think I answered your question pretty nicely above, without using analogies that most won't understand.

Has anybody once said Google tells you to submit to a directory? NO. Get back on track and stop working so hard on trying to justify 'authority status', you're not seeing the wood for the trees here. It's the directories, who, after paying a small fortune no doubt, and using a few tricks to mislead Google into thinking its worthy of 'authority status' that tell you to submit to them because of this false status. Aren't you getting it yet?

Then you'd be as guilty as the rest of the abusers of misrepresented status, so shame on you, that is unless you actually had a site to crow about which would merit both status and pride. Our directory is one of the most popular and powerful directories on the internet, so you can have confidence promoting it. That isn't crowing, that's BS'ing.

You see Grokodile, contrary to what people, perhaps you as well believe? This isn't about not wanting people to succeed, its the opposite, I want the directory industry to succeed and if some directories do get authority status that's fantastic, but they have to do it by merit not by manipulating a clearly manipulative system. Defintion example here.


I rest my case.

 

Quote Avivadirectory: Our directory is one of the most popular and powerful directories on the internet. What are they suggesting then Creed?

 

Sorry if my interpretation doesn't parallel your own.

 

Why are you sorry--whereas you don't have to (you know that very well)

I am really dis-appointed.

Pls ask them to support their claims with evidential facts.

 

Every legit company makes claims about being a responsible, respected and recognized site in their field. Don't be so silly as to imagine that Internet directories cannot also do the same.

Given high PR rankings, tons of inbound links, good Alexa rankings, and other measurements, compared to my own directory, the statement you are calling out probably sounds accurate. For example, define "one of the most". How close to the top do you have to be? What is the measurement? Who does the measurement? It doesn't specifically make a comparison to any other directory on the Internet. In fact, it doesn't say anything specific, much like the commercials I mentioned as examples earlier.

There is no other system. I'm aware that Alexa rankings are subjective, that social bookmarking sites can be manipulated, that links can be purchased, and so on. However, this is the system we live in. Hell, even in the non-Internet business world there are many strategies available to position oneself in the market.

I think you need to get a bit more sophisticated about what is or is not appropriate in the business world. Direct lies are of course wrong. However, suggestive statements are used by all business worldwide. As always, caveat emptor.

Finally, I'd say that the directory business will live and die at the hands of Google, at the moment, but that could change. The big question, for me, is whether or not directories can eventually become a means to drive traffic. Some appear to drive a little bit of traffic, but their value mainly comes through other means at the current time.

For example, I've chosen the name Grokodile for my directory because I believe it is "clever" for North American consumers. I think that if I can spend enough money (perhaps some day) I can brand it. I'm thinking hard (but not having much luck yet) about finding ways to entice users into the directory in order to help send traffic out to the blogs it contains.

I'm still having trouble promoting it, getting good SERP's, getting reasonable numbers of backlinks, and so forth. As such, I don't feel confident making claims at this point. However, if and when I am comfortable making statements about Grokodile, I will do so. They will be suggestive and their purpose will be to allay the fears of potential customers and encourage them to make use of my services.

That's business. If my customers remain satisfied with the services they get after making use of my services, that's good business.

 

To quote myself--here is what i am saying--
Now folks already know who is GoogleGuy---- don't you?

GoogleGuy=Matt Cutts
Any more questions NOOBs? --( there is only one noob I am referring) --folks --now you see the fatcts--don't ya?

 

Where does this say that the presence of SiteLinks conveys Authority status?

 

why do you ask me?isn't Google there for ya? Just try to understand those words and Google it accordingly--you will know all about site-links and authority status.
I leave it to ya to know more.
I wish you know more.

 

Okay, wise guy. I have "Googled" it. Google doesn't say anything officially of the sort at all.

Are you being paid to promote these "Authority Directories"? Perhaps you should disclose that in your postings.

 

Yes. That's the $64 dollar question.

And the answer is...

At some point, someone on a forum like this one heard about Google and authority sites and later noticed that certain sites got site links status in Google listings and put 2 and 2 together to get 5.

The web being what it is, that unfounded conclusion gets repeated ad nauseum on every webmaster forum in existence and becomes "accepted fact" for many.

I've said it before: There is more mythology and superstitious thinking about Google and it's practices than any other aspect of the internet. If you step back and look at it all from a few feet away, it's hilarious. Up close, it's just pathetic.

 

Clearly "GoogleGuy's" quote says nothing of the sort.

 

Ofcourse I am being paid to promote them. But not in $$$rs--its in traffic--

Rank high

The thing is-- I always stand for what I believe.

You have Googled and found nothing. But --just ask me-- I'll Google for ya and give ya the results in relation to Google guy and sitelinks.

Seems you have not yet got the jist of this thread --so Googling with wrong terms.

 

That ridiculous search doesn't prove anything to me.

LOL. Get real. So you're saying that website is yours and you're the one pushing this idea about "Authority Directories"?

 

Can't help any-longer.
Read what minstrel said. its nothing but an accepted fact.
If you don't accept--you don't have to. But if others accept--why do you have a problem with that?

 

I did read what Minstrel said. He said Authority status is B.S. Same as I said.

I have a problem with it, because it's a lie and misleading advertising. I don't believe for one minute that buying a link from one of these so-called authority directories is "more powerful" than one that doesn't have sitelinks.

BTW, the only link listed in the Authority Directory under Bidding Directories is the UpperName Bidding Directory. The site doesn't have ONE link listed in Google. How could that site be considered an "authority directory".

That whole directory appears to be some sort of scam with listings like that. It has hidden Whois info, too, so it's not too legit looking to me.

 

I didn't find the GoogleGuy quote very informative at all... ?