IF you buy a link, or run a Pay only directory..Uh Oh!

Sadly, it seems you are not joking.

News flash: There is nothing new about Google "wasting their time" by discounting the PR value of links which artifically inflate the PR value of pages in their index. This has always been true.

There is also nothing new about the fact that they long ago turned their attention to directories, the vast majority of which are worthless and exist only to provide paid backlinks. Do you really believe Google isn't fully aware of that?

As for Google caring about charging a review fee, Cutts has already gone on record some time ago in saying they don't have a problem with a review fee. What they DO have a problem with (in terms of PR) is recurring fees.

If you or anyone else wants to buy or sell links in a directory as "advertising links", go ahead. But if you believe that Google will sit back and allow those links to pass on PR, you are dreaming.

Remember pixel pages? What was their value in terms of traffic, after the initial novelty effect? What was their PR value? In case you missed it, Cutts also told us that it was zero.

Google has acres of well-trained Ph.D.'s who get paid very well to remain vigilant at artifical inflation of PR and Google search rankings. It's ongoing, 24/7/365.

What on earth would make you believe that directories are immune? Especially the crap directories that comprise most of them out there...

 

Minstrel, in your argument, you have one flaw, and that flaw is you base everything around PR. Some of us directory owners promote for traffic and not PR; that just seems to come as a perk of sorts. So what exactly is your obsession with PR?
Also remember that a directory is progressive and takes time to expand.
Do you remember our deal about an editor for dump, way back? :grin:

 

If this is true then I guess the links listed in yahoo hold no pr value. Or is it that only these so called "super directories" are allowed to do so? And if that is the case how do we know which directories are considered "super directories" in the eyes of google?

Granted that there are alot of directories out there which would not qualify as a "super directory" but would you say that the directories listed here: http://www.avivadirectory.com/strongest-directories/ hold some pretty good weight in the eyes of google?

I would like to know what qualifies a directory as a "super directory" in your eyes.

 

Brings us back to whats quality and whats not. Some say high PR but if you are not sure whose zoo I would stay away from high PR. Some will swear by the the graphics and an original look but I would be careful of any site that is over capitalised and getting by on a song and a prayer. The same goes for sites that have gobbled up a generous marketing budget. How long are they going last when the bubble bursts?

What are we left with? Where does a webmaster put their money? Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink.....or something to that effect.

 

Hello...

Q: Now when you say “paid links,” what exactly do you mean by that? Do you view all paid links as potential violations of Google’s quality guidelines?
A: Good question. As someone working on quality and relevance at Google, my bottom-line concern is clean and relevant search results on Google. As such, I care about paid links that flow PageRank and attempt to game Google’s rankings. I’m not worried about links that are paid but don’t affect search engines. So when I say “paid links” it’s pretty safe to add in your head “paid links that flow PageRank and attempt to game Google’s rankings.”

Now after reading that ive come to the conclussion that hes talking about
High PR sites transferring PR to less then quality sites..? Am i correct?


Q: Are you interested in things like affiliate links? Are you interested in hearing about directories in this report?
A: Nope, I’d be most interested in feedback like the examples that I mentioned above, or things like paid posts that might affect search engines. If you’re still unsure what sort of reports we’d like to get, that’s okay. Fortunately, the vast majority of people sending in reports are on the same wavelength and are sending in solid feedback like the examples above.

Let me say this minstral...

I do respect your view and concur on a few Truths that cant be hiden under any blankets...
Thier are many directories currently on the web that have nothing to offer (QBC) I can and will not say their are not as I KNOW their are..
Yet at the same time I can name 20-30 members here at DP that care about the future of web directories and will continue to develope
them regardless of comments from you that are inflated with very little factual content to back themselves..



thx
malcolm

 

I will not argue that directories are used for PR most of the time, but I will argue that directories has its place and provide important benefits to webmasters.

Google only wants to guarantee its #1 position forever. I think there is enough support to create revolution and overthrow the dictator and let democracy rule.

Directories are "work in progress" and most of the time they keep the same position because of the many obstacles.

Let's face it there is more than PR and a lot more!!!


If you're planning to increase traffic for your listings, think again!

Anyone has visited www.dogpile.com? Unless your paying for advertising, you will not appear on the first page. Just search for any keyword and see for yourselves.

This is coming to a search engine near you.

 

Would you expect to find this site in a directory on a Strongest Directories list:

http://www.learnhowtomakeballoonanimals.com/

 

To be totally honest... Its possible

When i started i allowed FREE inclusion and i havent had a chance
to work on 1-2 directories to remove a few sites that could have possably
passed threw...
I do the monthly validations and have been removing them as most dont last 6 months to year
BUT the Issue has been addressed I will be hiring a few editors soon enough to handle any concerns ...

Sorry im only human but at least truthful to any fact...

PS.... NO thats site mentioned is Not in mine

thx
malcolm

 

But it wouldnt be accepted after a paid review or would it? And confirm that these sort of sites should be weeded out and dumped from any site wanting to get onto that list.

 

No i wouldnt myself...

ill let you know exactly why i wouldnt

1. I dont like "adsence" 2-3 and you wont make it threw
2. 7 pages total indexed with some content

To be totally honest its not Hidious compared to some sites but yet
I think the webmaster could have done more with the site to make it
a little more appealing to the end user.. + im not a ballon kinda guy

thx
malcolm


thx
malcolm

 

That doesn't make sense. Recurring fees do not equal paying for PR, because websites change. Therefore it makes perfect sense to charge an annual fee and still call it a review fee, because a good directory will have to spider for broken links, and do a periodic manual check just to make sure the websites they list haven't changed purpose.

So if Google start to favour directories with permanent listings over annual ones, they have less smarts than most of us give them credit for.

 

You know i was thinking the same thing...

Where does the (Recurring fees) come into play? THEY DONT...

Lets go ahead and ban half the web cause they offer fees for maintence and up keep

That is the designated owners choice and not anyone elses... Dont like it dont submit!


thx
malcolm

 

I picked a site off that strongest directory lists and started running through it with one of my students. I thought it was safe to use as an example of what they should aspire to but eventually had to give up. This was one of half a dozen that had bought their way onto an Authority site. And no it wasnt Dmoz.

 

Well i have to be honest ...

It was close cause it did give you information pertaining ballons
but it was like ...just not enough and i didnt like the adsence
located were it was cause they do that on purpose to get over
on adsence... but i think the overall conclusion was made when
i found it only having 7 pages...

But in the end i would think some would while others would say
Hell No i dont want that crap in my directory...

thx
malcolm

 

My point exactly. Not the sort of content I expect to find in a so called Authority Site.

And the answer to this is...............? I am not sure

 

Would you judge a directory on one listing? Even Yahoo and dmoz.org have bad sites in them, it happens.

That said, I wouldn't list that site in a directory, It's clearly MFA. It only tells you that you can find information, it doesn't actually give you any information. I'd rather go find some good ones. Try this category for balloon animals, it's not full (yet) but it is quality. And no, they did not submit or pay for a review. I went out and found them myself. Isn't that just one of the ways a good directory gets listings?

 

Yup. Thats the conclusion we came to as well and if I may be so bold as to suggest that this, to me, is the difference between one directory and another. Why stuff it full flaky sites just to give it substance?

No but a pattern was starting to emerge and one bad experience has left a deep seated suspicion that these so called authority sites are nothing more than a very fragile house of cards.

 

yeah I always go to directories to find what I'm looking for rather than clicking google and typing it in... /sarcasm off...seriously you can fool yourself into thinking directories are more than just tools to do better in search engines; I'm not talking PR, anyone with experience in doing this realizes PR is a snapshot and your keyword rank fluctuates day to day. So while PR is important for selling links and a way to gauge a site, there are more important search results through google. But what's the alternative? If I want to sit at my computer and submit to over 2k directories..which I have done, shouldn't I be the guy with my site number one on google? And for this very reason I'm against paid links. What has more credibility?
1) Person buys a couple high PR links from dmoz, "insert random directories" and ranks extremely well due to these "quality backlinks". OR
2) Person like me and many others who have a quality unique niche site and submit to 2k plus free directories to promote their site.

IF google and other search engines are used to find quality sites that are relevant, the banning of paid links can become a necessity. IF googles goal is the ones with most money get to the top then fine. I can play by both rules so it doesn't matter to me. Directories are tools to gain SEO. Paid links is basically paying someone off to do better in SEO. How can you possibly see the benefit of paying your way to the top in a system that is supposed to return the BEST search results? If you buy or sell paid links you must know people are doing it for the sole purpose of SEO and not advertising. Since this is a cuthroat industry we all have to buy these links unless google, which they are trying to do, eliminates this nonsense. It is nonsense....put out a quality site and buy advertsing; you should'nt have to pay to trick google or other engines. I'm gonna go buy a damn link now cause I have to succeed

 

You have that backwards. I am not obesessed with PR. People who pay for directory listings are obsessed with PR. And that is precisely why paid links are being targetted by Google's anti-spam department, and why the PR that might otherwise flow from these directories is being discounted.

Remember when there were hundreds of DMOZ clones? Remember when everyone was claiming that the value of a a DMOZ listing was that it was really hundreds of links, not one? What happened to THAT do you suppose?

Uh-huh. Tell it to Google.

 

Guilty party here. But I have stated on a different thread that I will look up and re-review the listings on my site. I have faithfully added more than a thousand listing across my directory and I am not afraid to list every valuable site that I can list. May it be business, shopping or internet I will add it and I have my own reasons for doing that. Others I dont know. Some of us have been in this situation before especially the Links Quitters owner as we have briefly been together hunting sites to be listed accross a Super Directory. Now there may be be crappy ones but lets go to a fact that there are a REAL THING in this industry some are old and some are young and let us not say that all together these are not worthwhile. In mine I take a recurring review fee for it takes effort to re-review everything on a constant basis may it be yearly or when you go across.

And minstrel remember there are owners still who knows how to use abrypt descriptions here.