Did Site-Sift Get Whacked?

Discussion in 'Directories' started by GuyFromChicago, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. GuyFromChicago

    GuyFromChicago Permanent Peon

    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    529
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #21
    Being talked about here too.

    I'll ask the same question here that I asked there - why would Site-Sift get whacked but the other sites advertising there, at least so far, have not? Any theories?
     
    GuyFromChicago, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  2. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    Well, how would G know that those people wanted to be there? I mean, you cant really ban sites because of an incoming link because that is somewhat out of your control. Besides, advertising is a big part of our world and I dont think it would be a good practice to harm websites because they advertise.

    My two cents
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  3. GuyFromChicago

    GuyFromChicago Permanent Peon

    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    529
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    A lot of it was being hashed out here yesterday. Long, but a good read none the less. I don't think there was any doubt that they were paying to advertise there.
     
    GuyFromChicago, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  4. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    This brings up a new concern. I have been featuring Site Sift on my directory for quite some time as I actually believe it was a good resource. Now I am concerned on what to do. Should I remove the link? I still think it is a good resource but now I feel I may be in hot water for linking to them.

    I dont really see this as a good move by G. It just smells bad alltogether.
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  5. samsam

    samsam Peon

    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    53
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    as far as I can think, I feel this is a dup content issue.
     
    samsam, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  6. GuyFromChicago

    GuyFromChicago Permanent Peon

    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    529
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    I had links on some of my sites when Bluefind got the ax and never took them down. No problems came from that that I am aware of.

    I would say if you feel it's a good resource continue linking to it. Afterall, don't Google's webmaster guildlines say: "Make pages for users, not for search engines.":)

    Disclaimer: 9 times out of 8 I have no idea. Please take that into consideration when evaluating my opinions.
     
    GuyFromChicago, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  7. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    It is either that or the buying links issue. If it is for buying links than G is going to come across a lot of anger IMHO.

    Google pays for links through Adsense, how can they begin penalizing others for doing the same through different methods? G first put all the focus on links so I think it is thier problem, not ours. They should discredit certain "off topic" links but not ban sites.

    If it is for duplicate content then that makes more sense.

    What do you guys think about linking to them? Remove the links? Leave them there?

    Opinions please. :)

    EDIT: Well, they do say make them for users and not the SE's but now we have to constantly look over our shoulders for fear of what the SE's are up to.
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  8. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #28
    I read the first few posts on the other forum about it. The oreilly network of sites (osdir, etc) are all very high pr sites, with monthly links that are a little pricey. What amazes me, though is that that network has never been hit with a penalty of any sort. They will sell high PR sitewide links (they know thats what they are doing) that will probably never get any traffic.
     
    lorien1973, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  9. Colleen

    Colleen Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    430
    #29
    Colleen, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  10. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    So it looks like Site Sift was completely dropped and it may stick. That sucks, I mean really sucks.
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  11. -Spanish-SEO-

    -Spanish-SEO- Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    #31
    AGREE, they make the rules and when they don`t like them, they change them.
     
    -Spanish-SEO-, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  12. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Right, and they have every right to do so. My problem is that they continue to tell us to build a site for the user yet I have to now ask questions about who to link to. How can I freely build my site for users when I have to constantly be thinking about what G will think of what I do?

    This could be totally unrelated, it could be for duplicate content and if that is the case then I understand. If it is for buying links then I am concerned because I advertise all over the web and spend quite a bit of money on it.

    Just wanting to know why because I never would have thought Site Sift would have gotten chopped from the index. :confused:
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  13. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #33
    If site-sift was doing the things alleged on the other site (buying tons of high pr links, poker links in the footer, etc) - then it was bound to happen soon or later, wasnt it?
     
    lorien1973, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  14. GuyFromChicago

    GuyFromChicago Permanent Peon

    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    529
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    I'm sure site-sift is/was a good directory but it seems to me that directories that buy there way to PR 8 and charge for submissions are a prime target for G.
     
    GuyFromChicago, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  15. fryman

    fryman Kiss my rep

    Messages:
    9,604
    Likes Received:
    777
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    370
    #35
    Good point
     
    fryman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  16. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    According to what appears to be G's "rules" yes. That is what I am trying to figure out though. Was it the amount of links bought at any given time? Were the links bought "bad links"? I guess I just dont see how G can make that decision, how can G know what -site owners- want to link to for the good of the user?

    The reason I say that is because I have featured Site-Sift for several months now and he never paid me or ask me for it. I simply thought it was a great directory and even used it myself from time to time. Now I find that G thinks it should be banned? From a users aspect I thought it was a great resource, yet G seems to be looking at it from an SE aspect. Would this not hurt the theory that you should ignore the SE and build for the user? Granted, link buying should be done carefully and not for rank or PR gain, but that should just be "overlooked" by the ALGO rather than ban the entire site no?

    EDIT:
    Right, so could G not just drop any credit being passed on from links they feel are not valid or authentic?
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  17. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #37
    Or they could think, where there is smoke there is fire. If the site is doing this thing we hate - what if they are doing other things we hate.

    They can't go thru every site that raises a bunch of flags. The easier tactic is to wipe them out, right?

    Personally, if I were google and I wanted to get rid of bad sites, I'd start in a different direction but that's me. I think amazon/ebay/overstock/allposter affiliates would be the ones I'd run out first.
     
    lorien1973, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  18. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #38
    Absolutly!

    And then start looking at what kinds of links give what kind of credit. This will fix a lot of the link problems. Require them to be relevant or related in some way shape or form in order to actually pass ranking credit on. If it isnt relevant, it could still be a valid advertiser so there shouldnt be a ban, rather there simply shouldnt be any credit given.
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  19. GuyFromChicago

    GuyFromChicago Permanent Peon

    Messages:
    6,728
    Likes Received:
    529
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    Nailing a high profile target like a PR 8 directory gets them more "exposure" in the webmaster world. None of us would even notice a few PR5 - 8 aws/affiliate stores getting nailed - none of us would ever have a reason to visit them in the first place. The only perosn that would notice is the webmaster who owns the store.

    On the other hand, G knows that just about webmaster on the face of the earth spends time at directories...pick a popular one and smack it around...words spreads like wildfire in the webmaster community...G's mission accomplished.
     
    GuyFromChicago, Aug 26, 2005 IP
  20. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    That is very possible.
     
    zman, Aug 26, 2005 IP