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.

Link removal requests? What to do with them?

Discussion in 'Directories' started by olddocks, May 3, 2013.

  1. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #21
    Funny how businesses pay seo companies to remove links and directories are encouraged to not do the same. I guess a seo companys time is worth more than everyone elses.

    Bad directories are dropping like flies anyway. People will have to find somewhere else to post their spam at soon I think.
    SEMrush
     
    tornado!, May 8, 2013 IP
    greatlogix and stoner3221 like this.
    SEMrush
  2. stoner3221

    stoner3221 Notable Member

    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    285
    #22
    That came right from the mouth of Matt Cutts and his propaganda machine. Do you honestly believe it.
     
    stoner3221, May 8, 2013 IP
  3. ronrule

    ronrule Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #23
    Google will always have it in for directory sites, period. Google wants to give people what they want, and returning a directory site in the results just creates an extra layer between the user and what the user wants.

    Their goal is to directly return the results people are looking for. Think about your own searching patterns ... when you're looking for something, you want results. Unless you specifically use words like directory, list of companies, providers, etc. in your query, then you aren't looking for a directory where you have to browse, click through, and start over on that company's home page. You want Google to figure that out for you based on what you searched for.

    For that reason, I don't think there is any "right way" to run a "favored by Google" directory site. They will tell you it's about links, or quality, or whatever, but in the end it all comes down to "Directory sites don't fit Google's model".

    You can make the "take a stand, it's your site, put whatever you want on it" argument all you want, but the way I see it you really only have two choices: Continue to operate a directory with no expectations from Google, and use nofollows so the recipients aren't penalized for listing with you, or get out of the directory business and find something else to allocate your time to that's naturally more friendly to the dominant search engines.
     
    ronrule, May 8, 2013 IP
  4. stoner3221

    stoner3221 Notable Member

    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    285
    #24
    Google has never had it in for directories, just link schemes and poor quality websites calling themselves directories. As far as websites not fitting the Google model, that's a bit of a joke. I was running directories before Google existed and have yet to turn daily operations over to them.
     
    stoner3221, May 8, 2013 IP
  5. ronrule

    ronrule Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #25

    I think maybe you need to re-read what I posted, because this response doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. If Google returns a directory as a search result, it means they failed to do their job and deliver what the user was searching for - they are essentially 'passing the buck' to another site to help the user find what they want.

    That is something they never want to do. Google wants to be the one that shows the results the user is looking for, not send them off to a directory.
     
    ronrule, May 8, 2013 IP
  6. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #26
    Ironically, it's in big part because Google gets it so wrong in some niches that I started my directory. When an over-SEOed article about "How to make a wreath", that never actually discussed wreath-making, lived at the top of the SERPs while the actual how-to articles (often by the SEO-clueless) languished pages later - it illustrates how easy it is to fool an algorithm.

    It has gotten somewhat better since I started but there is no comparison between their computer-driven categorization and one done by a human - of, course that assumes the human is actually reviewing the sites and not just accepting listings as is.

    The web is full of directories or sites that list and categorize the web...the hottest one right now is Pinterest. Thousands of Pinterest members categorize sites and pages all over the web in a way that Google or any other computer-based system never could. Google loves Pinterest. The pin boards are ranking higher than the sites they list. Google could very easily prevent that from happening...yet, they don't. So much for your Google doesn't want to send people to directories theory.

    The people getting the bad link reports are not getting them because they have links in directories. They are getting them because they have used the same keyword text too many times in their backlink building efforts. It doesn't matter if those backlinks are coming from directories, blogs, forums or the moon.

    While it won't make me popular around here, I believe many of the directory owners getting boatloads of these reports have brought it on themselves. They are responsible for allowing keyword-stuffed titles. They are responsible for letting any piece of garbage willing to fork over a "review" fee on their sites. They are responsible for allowing a site about motorcycles in the Arts category. They were told by Google and others to not do it. They did it anyway. It's coming back to bite them. Boo hoo.

    Yes, it's a PIA to audit listings. Yes, it takes time to modify ones where the information has changed. Yes, it takes time to re-categorize over-populated categories. Sure, time is money. Every business has overhead expenses and responsibilities. Get over your damn selves and suck it up. It defies logic that so many of you seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that all of those activities actually makes your sites better.
     
    YMC, May 8, 2013 IP
    greatlogix, silencer and stoner3221 like this.
  7. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #27
    There's no question that directory owners getting these reports may have some blame. But let us not forget how those links got there in the first place. It's because people spammed the directories to death. Now these people that spammed directories want everyone to give up their time to remove their links. Too many people want to blame everyone other than the spammers. They are part of the reason why directories are no longer popular, yet some directory owners give them a free pass. It takes two to tango.

    Making people pay to get links removed is an incentive for them to not spam again. Many different ways this can be looked at.
     
    tornado!, May 8, 2013 IP
  8. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #28
    Yes, let's remember how the listings got there...the directory owner approved them; may have even charged a "review" fee - which, by definition means that they actually visited the site before clicking the approve button.

    How exactly is that anyone's fault but their own?
     
    YMC, May 8, 2013 IP
  9. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #29
    Yes, let's remember how the listings got there. Did all these directory owners scour the web to find these links they added to their directories? Of course not. It's the people wanting their links removed that spammed not only directories but forums, blogs and anywhere that would accept a free link. Many of these people bought spam software to accomplish the task. Sure, some people paid for links but most people would rather spend $100 for software to spam thousands of directories then pay $100 to get links in 20.

    Instead of assigning all of the fault on directory owners you should assign responsibility to all parties. Google can and does deal with directories by killing their ranks and banning them. Those that used directories as a tool to spam the web with their links now have to accept responsibility for their actions too. I have no pity for either party.

    The issue of link removals is not about "fault" but about resolving a problem. Do the directory owners have a problem? Not really. It's those that spammed their links all over the web on directories, forums, blogs and anywhere else they could find that now have a problem with their ranks. It is they who created the mess and it is they who should suffer the consequences of their actions.

    Whether a directory is auto approved or someone is approving the links does not matter. That is how they choose to run their sites just as others choose to freely spam the world with their links. They all will eventually face consequences for their actions.

    Just one spammer may have tens of thousands of links on directories, forums and blogs. Now all tens of thousands of these people should waste their time removing links for these spammers? Apparently some around here think directory owners are the scum of the Earth and beneath spammers. How sad this is.
     
    tornado!, May 8, 2013 IP
    stoner3221 likes this.
  10. zekin

    zekin Greenhorn

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    #30

    Yup, Time IS Money. I think it's totally fine to charge for link removal (though I don't do it myself simply because I don't bother to explain). It's some service performed and not easily done by ordinary people. It's like administration fee of any kind, on the net or real world.

    I often receive request to remove link that the link actually looks completely fine to me. But maybe they used the same perfect words on thousands of places, poor them. If anyone ask for removal, I will think they probably overdid their link building, I will feel "sorry for them" and "sure, fine by me, I did nothing wrong anyway" and just remove it.

    Directory owner should at all times make sure submitted listing details are good (at least make sure it's not spam)(no poor title and description) and that should safe guard both your directory and the submitter, from the evil of G. I do believe well-maintained directory won't get much link removal request. If they do, just feel sorry for those who requested the link removals, it just happens.
     
    zekin, May 8, 2013 IP
  11. simrankim

    simrankim Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    #31
    i think , there may be some spam conent in your site. If it is, then remove them.
     
    simrankim, May 9, 2013 IP
  12. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #32
    tornado, with the notable exception of being hacked, 100% of the content on any site is the responsibility of the site owner or their representatives.

    My blogs get far more spam than my directories. I delete it. It is my site, not theirs. Yes, it makes it far more time consuming to find and approve the honest comments. Heck, I've got a WordPress site that has no visible comments and yet it is getting comment spam. You don't have to tell me we're fighting automation.

    Any directory owner worth their salt can spot a huge portion of the garbage from their admin panel.

    Why should a directory owner not be blamed for accepting spam? How many Indian flower shop submissions does it take for someone to figure out they're garbage? How many pills, powders, lotions and potions sites? How many Forex, Luis Vittan handbags, or similar does it take before a directory owner can spot the type without having to visit the site? Aren't there even automated tools for phpLD to delete a huge chunk of that garbage?

    Everyone gets inundated with spam because for some idiotic reason there are people allowing it on their sites. Until bloggers, forums and directory owners stop making it a viable link-building tactic, we're all stuck with it. Someone, somewhere has to be clicking on their emails. Someone, somewhere has to be accepting their blog comments. Directory owners, who accept their submissions, are the reason the rest of us waste countless hours deleting them. They aren't beneath spammers but they are certainly enabling them.

    This issue is a great example of how directory owners are simply charging "review" fees to avoid stating they are charging "listing fees". They listened to Google about not "selling links" but they seem to have conveniently not heard the part about reviewing sites and having unique content. (Regardless of what Google says, why would you want crappy sites on your directory in the first place?)

    Why are you defending the QBC's and other dregs of the directory world? They make it harder for all of the rest of us to run our sites. They accept those spammy submissions and that is no one's fault but their own.

    And, just about every directory owner I know DOES NOT rely 100% on submissions for their site content. They are continually 'seeding' their sites with sites that would others would want to visit to supplement the submissions. Have you forgotten that was how a huge portion of DMOZ was built?
     
    YMC, May 9, 2013 IP
  13. arrisweb

    arrisweb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    48
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #33
    I remove links if anyone request. I just want to make people happy :)
    If not - they said, a big Google can hurt my site. Maybe some of these bad seo guys knows Larry or Sergey, I do not want to risk.
     
    arrisweb, May 9, 2013 IP
  14. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #34

    I really do get your point, and it sounds logical. But you know what... It's just plain wrong.

    How often do you think IMDB or wikipedia are returned as results? If google never wants to return a directory as a result, why are these two almost always at the top of the list for just about any search you wanna do? Do you realise what those sites are? Please don't use synonyms like library or encyclopedia or database or whatever. In the scope of this discussion, those are directories. Plain and simple.

    IMDB is a movie directory that categorises its listings via genre or actor or some other "interest".

    Wikipedia is a directory that categorises articles/information via topic, or in the case of wikivoyage, by city or destination or whatever.

    The have taxonomy, they have listings, they categorise. They are directories. Google gives them a huge weight of importance. Google always delivers them as results.

    Can we debunk this myth now?
     
    silencer, May 10, 2013 IP
    stoner3221 likes this.
  15. ronrule

    ronrule Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #35
    Those arent directories, those are answers. If I am looking up an actor, IMDB is where I can find info about that actor and Google would rightly show that actor's bio page in the results because that information can be found there without clicking through from that page to anywhere else. If it took me to a page with names of actors, it means Google failed to give me what I was looking for.

    Wikipedia and IMDB are content-rich sources of information, not directories. Big difference and poor analogy.
     
    ronrule, May 10, 2013 IP
  16. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #36
    No. Those are directories. They contain information categorised as a listing. In the case of IMDB, I can find information about that actor (such as contacting their agent) which leads me to ANOTHER page. I wanted the contact info for the agent straight away. Why am I at IMDB? That's another step.

    e.g. Bryan Cranston Agent Info. IMDB result, #2.

    Top analogy, and little difference. You need to learn what a directory is...
     
    silencer, May 10, 2013 IP
  17. stoner3221

    stoner3221 Notable Member

    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    285
    #37
    Anybody who has done a local search on Google for example "auto repair corpus christi tx" will quickly see how Google still depends on Directories for search results. In fact my directories have never had so many cached pages, one with over 3 million.
     
    stoner3221, May 10, 2013 IP
  18. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #38
    Here's a real world example.

    Let's say I am looking for a "plumber in sydney". I don't know any plumbers. I don't know who to trust. I want someone that other people have tried and who gets the job done for a reasonable price.

    What's the 2nd listing that comes up organically? I get true local. THAT is a directory.

    Oh wow, what's that a LIST OF PLUMBERS. Something ronrule thinks Google never wants to deliver. Um thats what I wanted.

    And lo-and-behold, the plumbers have reviews. Well gosh darn it. Did the directory help me out or what? Thanks Google for helping me find the directory I was looking for :)

    I can do this all day ronrule. NEXT!
     
    silencer, May 10, 2013 IP
  19. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #39
    Encyclopedia or directory, you have to admit Wikipedia is, in large part, only a starting point for anyone doing serious research. The outgoing links (references, bibliography and external links) on their site often point to the experts on each topic - sites the Google generally does not rank well simply because they are not as well SEO'ed as other sites.

    Pinterest is a directory. It ranks crazy high for a lot of terms in my niche and even a number of what I see as fairly high money terms.

    crochet -> #10 (9,140,000 monthly searches)
    crochet patterns -> #3 (1,220,000 ranking ahead of a number of major yarn companies)

    nail art -> #1 (1,830,000)
    valentine ideas -> #1, #2, #3 (550,000 - in April, not February)
    christmas ideas -> #3 (1,500,000 - remember April's number, not in season)
    fashion trends -> #9 (550,000)
    wedding ideas -> #3 (1,220,000)
    wedding dress ideas -> #2 (only 9,900 however, it ranks ahead of brides.com, the site for a huge magazine)
    birthday ideas -> #1, #2 (2,240,000)

    web design ideas -> #8 (18,100 - surprised at how low that number is)


    Just a few. I've no doubt it ranks well for millions of terms. I also noticed a few other niche directories coming up for those terms or similar. I spent about 10 minutes.

    Your theory that Google doesn't like directories is all wet.

    They've never said that.

    What they HAVE said is they don't like free-for-all link farms. And, while there are directories that are in truth free-for-all link farms, there are plenty of directory sites that are well-represented in the SERPs.
     
    YMC, May 10, 2013 IP
  20. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #40
    Oh and how about Yelp!, UrbanSpoon, and others like them?
     
    YMC, May 10, 2013 IP