1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Discussing about DirBull.com

Discussion in 'Directories' started by suwandichen13, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. Karen May Jones

    Karen May Jones Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    290
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #121
    Why would they hide THAT? If they sold that link, or own that other site, why wouldnt they want some clicks on it as well as some pr juice? People are so dumb.. and take too many dumb risks in instances like this. If you've got a footer link on your site, don't hide the dang thing. lolSEMrush
     
    Karen May Jones, Feb 19, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #122
    It was 99% hacked and was not placed there by Accredication Council. That is why seeking high pagerank directories can have significant pitfalls. You might be paying money to hackers and not even realize it.
     
    dvduval, Feb 19, 2013 IP
    JoyGoRound likes this.
  3. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #123
    First question I would ask is why a site like this would sell a link to a directory? Second question I would ask is, if I had to ask the first question, the answer should be obvious and the validity of the link should be equally obvious.
     
    Mia, Feb 19, 2013 IP
    JoyGoRound likes this.
  4. Karen May Jones

    Karen May Jones Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    290
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #124
    Okay, got it now. Your post, and the recent video I watched with matt cutts talking about hacking... and links... makes this scenario very clear. I agree with you M.I.A. It seems obviously like a poor action on somebody's part.

    So, if an SEO expert was getting me some juice from high PR sites, and my sites were doing well, I'd be handing out hundreds/thousands of dollars - then later find out that the links were hacked in. Nice. :/
     
    Karen May Jones, Feb 19, 2013 IP
  5. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #125
    Joy. It's another degree of separation removed from that.

    It's not YOUR link that would be "hacked in", it's the sites you'd be listed on whose own backlinks are "hacked in". In essence, they've manipulated their own PR by hijacking the pagerank from other sites (through the hidden hacked link).

    The reason they don't want it visible is because they don't want the webmaster/owner of the site to see it on the site. They only want the search engine to grab it and give them the juice.

    Your SEO doesn't know the directories he's listing on have dodgy backlinks, and manipulated pagerank. All he sees is the big pagerank number and assumes Google trusts the site.

    This is the reason why pagerank has gotta go. It's a huge joke. It doesn't provide trust in a site at all, and it allows ALL people (from SEO experts, to novice webmasters) to be fooled. It even fools the search engine.

    Because pagerank isn't policed, the standard loses its accountability. If you've seen the sites that have PR8's, you'd be scratching your head as to why they have them. Then you do some research and you realise they've either bought very obvious PR9 links, or they've hacked PR9 sites and placed their links in.

    Either way, it's a stupid scenario. Because it then gives those dodgy sites a massively high trust rating in human eyes, because they see the high pagerank number. Whether the search engine gives the site trust or not is irrelevant because they don't trade with the search engine, they trade with humans by suckering them out of a lot of money, based on the fact they have a high PR number next to their homepage.

    It's a really bad scam.
     
    silencer, Feb 19, 2013 IP
    JoyGoRound likes this.
  6. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #126
    The fact that Google cannot see the hidden links and discount them bewilders me to no end. Several years ago, maybe 6 or more??? Can't remember exactly when, Google sent me an email having delisted our main corporate web site for colocation and hosting services. Apparently we had a number of RELEVANT links for our web site and our business ONLY that were a color that GOOGLE deemed as HIDDEN links. The links were NOT hidden, and there was no intentional deception going on. IN FACT - they were NOT links at all.. They were just KEY WORDS that were listed in the footer of the page for the services we offered. Again, relevant, not hidden and never meant to intentionally deceive.

    Yet google, in their infinite wisdom chose to penalize a more than decade old (at that time) legitimate corporation (older than google) and deindex our entire web site.

    Still amazes me to this day that that happened. Even more amazing was Googles ability to detect what they thought was an attempt to stuff keywords. Yet they cannot detect hidden links???

    I'm just dumbfounded...
     
    Mia, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    JoyGoRound likes this.
  7. swedal

    swedal Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    427
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #127
    I think it has something to do with the type of sites being hacked. Legion.org for example. I doubt very much that google wants to slap Legion.org with a penalty and would much rather have Legion update their software and remove the hacked links - which they did along with dozen of other hacked sites.

    What bewilders me is that Google has not de-indexed all the sites that those hacked links pointed to. I am fairly certain that Google now knows about nearly all of the directories in that network - at least they should know about them if they are paying attention.
     
    swedal, Feb 20, 2013 IP
    JoyGoRound likes this.
  8. CanadianEh

    CanadianEh Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    380
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #128
    You are not the only one. It makes no sense. I always thought they were well run for a large company. It is almost as if they are leaving the network up on purpose.
     
    CanadianEh, Feb 20, 2013 IP
  9. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #129
    Of course they are leaving it up on purpose. Same reason every other pimp network stays up. It generates revenue for them.
     
    Mia, Feb 20, 2013 IP
  10. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #130

    Maybe just a weak filter idea that triggered based on a pattern and a colour. So they've gone from an extreme of penalising to the opposite end.

    I'm sure you remember as well as I do, Google's tough talk on paid links back in 2007. They made some strong examples, and people were afraid, for about 6 seconds. Because all the worst offenders were and ARE STILL ignored for their obvious paid links.

    Anyone that outbound links in sitewide from their footer or sidebar without using nofollow should be penalised and de-indexed. THAT is what happened back in 2007 to the directories that google made an example of.

    There's plenty of directories doing it these days and they are much higher PR than the directories that got hit. Now, why is that?

    Demolition Dan aims to find out :)
     
    silencer, Feb 20, 2013 IP
  11. Ibn Juferi

    Ibn Juferi Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Likes Received:
    365
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #131
    Wow, there's someone obviously suffering from serious butthurt here to be pimping about his fictional version of my history. I don't go around boasting about being the greatest directory owner expert on this planet, nor do I push a fake PR2 directory which was once...gasp! a web design company domain site:

    http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.kingbloom.com/

    So he's calling out to others for doing exactly what he did...building directories on dropped domains. A scammer calling others a scammer...how very sweet indeed!



     
    Ibn Juferi, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  12. EvcRo

    EvcRo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,555
    Likes Received:
    48
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #132
    poor dudes that paid xx$ for a link on an obvious "soon to be dead" directory
     
    EvcRo, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  13. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #133
    I own the company and the web design firm and it still exists Menj... Nothing being hidden here. Everyone here knows that too! I've owned KB since 95. I've made absolutely no attempt to disguise that fact. In fact, our about us page even explains that.

    Do you really want me to direct attention towards you're activities again? My suggestion would be to leave this place and go bother someone else.

    It's NOT a "Dropped" domain Menj. I registered it in 1997. I've been the sole owner of it since them. Prior to that I used "kingbloom.mia.net" as the domain.

    http://web.archive.org/petabox/20081205064951/http://kingbloom.mia.net/

    Been doing this a very long time kiddo and I don't run around using high pr "dropped" domains. KING BLOOM is a combination of two last times. KINSEY and RINGBLOM. Want to question MIA now?
     
    Mia, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  14. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #134
    Yeah, it was a shade of gray they did not like. Anyway, it was easily fixed. Just a bit annoying and disappointing that it took the site out of the SE for over a week. We generate quite a bit of business with our colocation kw and generally rank #1 without even trying. It probably was around that time period btw (07) as I recall... And yes, they were pushing hard at that time to try to scare people.

    Funny thing is, that site was NEVER SEO'd nor was it ever designed to rank.. It just does. There's something about ranking legitimately for kw terms that you just happen to actually use because that's just what your selling. Completely natural ranking. Very hard to replicate when you're trying.

    Hopefully DD does find out, because there's a huge double standard and contradiction that lays claims completely counter to any assertion that Cutts or G has ever made on the subject.
     
    Mia, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  15. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #135
    Anyone notice the link is now pointing to directorywide.com?
    Hmmm, who speaks German?
     
    dvduval, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  16. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #136
    http://privatesystems.net, e.g. KNOW HOST (http://www.knownhost.com/) no doubt...
    They all run in the same circles..

    I think you know full well who this is and how they operate dvdduval.... ;)
     
    Mia, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  17. snowbird

    snowbird Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    Likes Received:
    394
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #137
    While a good concept, I'm sure Google gets inundated with webmasters submitting spam reports about their competitors. I liken their reporting feature to a sugar pill that gives upset webmasters an opportunity to vent.

    Fastreplies discussed Dirbull in Google's webmaster help forum almost three years ago. Although Google's forum is poorly moderated, one would think someone from Google would have seen the thread at one point or another. There's enough info in the thread to warrant a closer look by a Google employee IMO. Regardless, Fastreplies noted that he used the sugar pill option at that time by submitting a spam report and Dirbull still survives.

    http://productforums.google.com/for...asters/crawling-indexing--ranking/mJGjM11gi6o

    Too bad Fastreplies is banned here. He was far ahead of the curve on this one, as far as taking action goes, and his thoughts on the subject would be interesting...
     
    snowbird, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  18. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #138
    Whilst we are making assumptions - I doubt anyone from Google looks at those forums, or tells anyone about it. Certainly not with any urgency or priority. The thread doesn't look particularly interesting. It looks ignored. It looks like the type of situation you suggest... a webmaster rant against a competitor. Which isn't a slight on FR, as we know better, they were trying to give Google information about a hacker. But that's the point. What it looks like and what it actually is, are two distinctly different things. It *looks* like an easy to ignore rant to me. The suggestion made to FR is to submit a report. Whether they did or not, isn't clear in that thread.

    The fact remains that Google should be able to detect hidden links without human input. The methods we've noted certainly aren't mind-boggling. Display:None seems pretty obvious to me, as do images with 0px dimensions. If they could do that, surely they would. Since they can't do that, the "sugar pill" method you describe, appears to be all we have to go on.
     
    silencer, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  19. snowbird

    snowbird Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,036
    Likes Received:
    394
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #139
    Very true. The thread did not attract a lot of attention. Though Google employees have and do comment on threads, on very rare occasions, one would hope they would do a better job of observing at least. I'm sure a lot of information they would find useful, in one way or another, gets shared there. Fastreplies noted he submitted a webspam report about Dirbull around the same time he made that post in Google's forum.

    Reporting the sites to Google and contacting the owners of the hacked sites is one route to take, which has made a notable impact on the entire network. I don't agree that this is all that can be done. We can spread the word well beyond these forum threads, who are mostly read by other directory owners that are offended at what this directory network has done.

    After all the bitching and moaning about the press release, someone took the time to write a really nice press release and sent it to me by PM. It would have required releases by the organizations named in it, but was well written and worthy of a better distribution package. I offered to pay for that person to submit it, under their PR Web account, but am understanding why nothing materialized out of it. Regardless, the offer still stands. Write the release Dan, and I'll pay the couple hundred bucks for a decent distribution on PR Web. I'll use my Adwords account to link to it as well, using some keywords that will force a Google employee to manually review the ad. Continue this weekly and someone from Google will eventually see it.
     
    snowbird, Feb 21, 2013 IP
  20. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #140
    The reason it is discussed here is because these are the people it impacts. If we can't get the people who it impacts involved, why would people it doesn't impact care?

    I called an Australian organisation on the phone yesterday to inform them of their hacked links (they had previously removed them and a new and different block has been reinstated). The woman on the other end of the phone sounded bored. She didn't have alarm in her voice. She sounded like their website being hacked into was a boring thing to her. The links are still there today... Do I let it go? What would you do? They've been made aware their website has been hacked - wouldn't you be outraged? 5 seconds after I told her about those links, they should've be removed. Do you disagree?

    So, with that in mind, making more people aware doesn't make more people involved. It pretends. We've been through this. We talk vocally and express disapproval. Others do the same. Yep its a darn shame about that Google not policing the mess it created.

    Talk doesn't actually do anything. It'll be interesting news for a day or even a week. Then people will forget about it - and the problem will return.
     
    silencer, Feb 21, 2013 IP