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. ronrule

    ronrule Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #41
    IMDB is a resource, not just a directory. It's the answer to a question, and you can find that answer without being directed to another site. You have full filmography, photos, trivia, birthdays, all kinds of information. The purpose of IMBD is to display this information, not be a middle-man between your browser and the actor's home page.
    SEMrush
    That's completely different than a "directory site" which contains minimal content about each actor and simply links to their home pages, sending you somewhere else to get the rest of the information. You're doing a better job of making my point for me than I am.
     
    ronrule, May 10, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. ronrule

    ronrule Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Digital Goods:
    2
    #42
    Again, you're missing the point. Google doesn't want to show you that site. They would rather show you plumbers, but they don't have enough information about who the plumbers are, so they're passing the buck to a directory. If I search for "eye doctors tampa" I'll see a handful of map-based local results, then the organic pages of 4 or 5 eye doctors, then a Yelp site, then a Yellow Pages site.

    The fact that Yelp and Yellow Pages are showing up in the results means Google couldn't show me who the eye doctors were themselves, and had to send me to another site to make the jump.

    In the long run, this isn't what they want to be doing - they want to show me the eye doctors, not directories of eye doctors. Why do you think local and map-based results have been integrated into search pages? Because Google themselves wants to provide that information, not send you to some third party directory. And the better they get at doing this, the less we'll see directory sites in the results. If you don't realize that's the case by now, I guess there isn't much I can say that will help you reason it out.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
    ronrule, May 10, 2013 IP
  3. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #43


    You are defining the terms to make it match your conclusion.

    Something being a "directory" and a "resource" are not mutually exclusive. They can be both. Likewise, you define a directory as having "minimal content" but that is only so it fits it with your incorrect model.

    You say that Google does not want to rank or show directories as top results. That is simply not true. As someone who worked for Google as a quality rater, I can assure you that if a directory fits the query asked then it is a good result to show - why? Because it delivers results that many users are trying to find. Look for lawyers in most cities and you will end up on a directory - why, because getting a bunch of individual listings is not the only thing every surfer wants. You will end up seeing superlawyers.com, findlaw, lawyers.com, avvo, etc., interspersed with top local attorney listings. Search for assisted living facilities for some particular city and you will find tons of directories. Search for process servers in a city and serve-now will likely show. As others have pointed out we could show this ad nauseum. Google does want to show directories for the precise reason that many web surfers using google want get them as a result. Not everybody wants to go through 10 lawfirm sites, or 10 process server websites, or 10 whatever and would rather see them all in a directory - maybe compare information before focusing on a couple.

    This obviously applies more to niche business directories that focus on a particular business area than it does for all purpose web directories. All purpose directories have a harder time establishing their value as a top result - but it really depends on the query and if it would be an accurate result delivering the sought after information.
     
    browntwn, May 10, 2013 IP
    silencer likes this.
  4. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #44
    Nobody is defending the QBC. Anyway, the directory spam problem is more prevalent with those directories that accept free links. They don't fall into the normal QBC category when they are giving away their goods for free and not making any money at all or so little it is insignificant. When it comes to the defense of a guilty party, it is you who is defending spammers by absolving them of any responsibility for what they are doing.

    You are correct about a webmaster being ultimately responsible for his own site. As part of this responsibility, some webmasters have to do far more than delete/not approve a few blog comments or submissions to maintain a clean site. Until you have spent thousands of dollars a year to mitigate spam, and wasted countless man hours, your opinion of simply holding site owners wholly responsible for the spam will not change.

    Narrow minded views are a many on this forum and most others. It's easy to hold such an opinion when dealing with spam on sites that get 100-300 visitors a day. Run a site that gets 50,000+ visitors a day, with community contributed content, and the problem is on a much larger scale.

    Using your opinion of holding site owners 100% responsible for spam, you would have this forum hire more moderators if some new spam software made posting here easier and in greater numbers? Should such a trend continue, profits would diminish to a point to where closing the site would be the most cost effective way to deal with spam. Although this forum is a bad example, as it is very popular and probably has more financial resources then most other forums, what about the many other forums that are trying to grow and are being crushed by spam? Many will close their sites because the cost/time needed to combat the spam would leave them in the red. The closure of sites, run be very good people that want to be responsible, is one of the outcomes of not dealing with spam at its source.

    There are many parties responsible for the spam directories get. Let me explain my opinion.

    It first starts with the directory scripts these people are using. They all self-promote themselves with footer links. These links are footprints that make it easy for spammers to find. Remove these self promotional script links and it is more difficult for these spammers to find their targets.

    To make spamming thousands of directories easier, people buy spamming software. For less than a hundred dollars, it is easy to spam thousands of directories, blogs, forums, etc. each and every day. If this software could find fewer targets (see above and below), the quantity appeal to spammers would be reduced and less software would be sold.

    To find directories by footprints, automated searches are performed at all the search engines (scraping). The search engines should do a better job of excluding common searches that are designed to extract the location of directories.

    If spammers can't find their targets in search engines, they will get them from the sites that have lists. Those can be scraped just as easily as search engines can.

    Since nothing is being done about the parties above, and nobody wants to hold them responsible for their part, the spam burden falls completely onto whoever owns the directory, forum, blog, etc. I don't think this is right and is not an intelligent way to combat spam. I think the level of spam you are dealing with, as a hobbyist niche webmaster, is so minimal that you can't possibly even begin to understand the extent of the spam problem and how much it is costing the people that are trying to keep their sites clean of spam. I could not begin to grasp how many millions of dollars Facebook, as an example, has spent on fighting spammers. Spam is a huge drain in not just time and money, but also saps creativity and prohibits growth for businesses that don't have the financial resources to effectively fight spam.

    Although I mentioned some examples of how spam can be reduced at directories and elsewhere, it is by no way complete. Other efforts can be made to fight spam. I just don't think that the burden of fighting spam should fall squarely on the backs of those who own directories, blogs, forums etc. They are the people shouldering the financial burden of spam when all of the other parties that are involved in this equation are profiting from it. And apparently you agree with things continuing that way.
     
    tornado!, May 10, 2013 IP
  5. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #45
    Oh, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. I 100% blame spammers, hackers and other vile individuals for billions (maybe even trillions) of dollars of lost revenue, unnecessary costs and a general degradation of the whole Internet experience.

    I resent the hell out of having to buy software for my computer so that some jerk doesn't load crap on my computer, without my permission. It makes me white with rage that I have to worry about someone destroying something that belongs to me. I have spent days at a time trying to eradicate their crap off of my family's computers when that crap has managed to get past the software protections I've put in place.

    Don't get me started about my thoughts on hackers. They deserve a special place in hell, particularly the ones who are doing it just because they can.

    Your whole argument that the website owner is not responsible for their own content because of spammers is just silly. I've seen great forums die from allowing too much spam. At least one of them could have easily tapped into the membership for volunteer help and didn't. I know because I was one of many who volunteered.

    You make it sound like the quantity of spam provides an excuse to let it squeeze through. Again, it's a cost of doing business. The bigger a site gets, the more expensive it gets to run and the more of a target it becomes for the scum of the web. It sucks, it's wrong, it's disgusting. It's something we're all stuck with as long as people continue proving to the spammers that their tactics work.

    Don't think just because I run an Arts & Crafts directory that I don't have to deal with the India Florists, Viagra, replica watch sites and all the other garbage. Sure, my volume is much lower than yours but I knew going in that it would be something I would have to deal with.

    Along with the utter scum, I also have even bigger idiots than you do. Some dumb jerk somewhere had to include my site in their program or utility. I get submissions on behalf of lawyers, Realtors and all sorts of professionals who no doubt hired some SEO'er. What all of those submissions tell me is that they are truly targeting directory owners who do not manually approve listings or at least pay attention to what they are accepting.

    Again, wading through spammy submissions is simply part of the overhead of running a directory. It sucks. It well and truly does. These SEO weenies are stealing from their clients just as they are stealing from us.

    I hate the spammers for all of my time that they waste. But, their activities in no way, shape, or form negates my responsibility to anyone participating on my directory to keep that garbage off of my site. Plus, it's my damn site and I am responsible for everything that appears on it.
     
    YMC, May 10, 2013 IP
  6. swedal

    swedal Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    427
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #46

    Sounds like you definitely see the value in directories then....



    You should try a Mac YMC.

    Mine runs like a thoroughbred and never slows down. :) Love it!
     
    swedal, May 10, 2013 IP
    silencer likes this.
  7. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #47
    Finally bought Mom one after her last one couldn't handle our ISP's modem upgrade. As much as she followed my advice about not going places or clicking on things, she was constantly figuring out new ways to infect her computer. Can't believe how fast those babies start up and shut down. That alone makes them worth consideration.
     
    YMC, May 10, 2013 IP
  8. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #48
    You just made my point... You agreed it is a directory. Case closed :)


    They don't? Then why did they at #2? Can you explain that one.

    Do you just make this stuff up to make yourself sound good?

    pssst guess where they get those NAP citations from? (hint: You've mentioned the directory in the quote above already). Google Places, until very very recently, actually put their hand up and stated that they use Yellow Pages as a source.

    What about this aren't you getting yet?

    Which shows the importance of directories considering Google in a very large amount of cases delivers directories to help it do it's job because it fails so regularly.

    And yet, for the last decade, that's what they have been doing. i.e. Using the directory result. So you tell me. If I was a plumber in Sydney, and I ignored the Tru Local directory (based on your advice) would I still be in business?

    I'm not even in the game am I? The other "list of plumbers" are who are going to get seen, and my business gets ignored.

    No. I got the point the first time you made it. What I am saying is that it isn't what is happening. The truth is that Google still relies heavily on directories to make relevant results (or answers as you call them).

    No. I realise that point. The point you were making was entirely different. But we can sit here and split hairs all day long.

    The fact is this. Google uses directories almost ALWAYS, when it provides results, not NEVER as you stated. They may NEVER want to do it, but if they didn't their results would be total and utter crap. They are working towards an end-game that will see them drop things like directories, no arguments there, but the simple fact that a real search - like plumbers in sydney - which would be getting made in the tens of thousands and maybe more (we have something like 4.5 million people in the city) produces a DIRECTORY as one of the top results, showcases the sheer power of directories.

    Perhaps you'll agree that in the end, we may see this thing from different sides of the coin... But it is the same coin.
     
    silencer, May 10, 2013 IP
  9. silencer

    silencer Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #49

    I thought the same as you based on ronrules first posting, but I think maybe he was trying to say something a little different --- We thought he was saying that Google doesn't want to provide a directory as the result. They do as you've stated because it delivers the result that user is trying to find.

    What he's qualified that as now is that Google doesn't want to provide a directory as the result, they want to provide themselves as the result.

    That is entirely different, and probably nulls a lot of the discussion. I totally agree with the qualified premise.

    Because in terms of delivering answers that searchers actually want Directories > Google

    http://searchengineland.com/yellowpages-sites-beat-google-in-local-data-accuracy-test-118467
     
    silencer, May 10, 2013 IP
    stoner3221 likes this.
  10. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #50
    It really depends. If it is a paid link, you can remove it, leave it ... whatever you think is best for you.

    But if it is a link within your content and relevant to the story, I wouldn't remove it. And if they urge you further, let them know it is your site and no one runs it but you.

    Most of the requests are based on paranoia and bad guesses what exactly caused them to get penalized.
     
    Blogmaster, Jun 11, 2013 IP
    stoner3221 likes this.
  11. arrisweb

    arrisweb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    48
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #51
    Some site owners also agree to no-follow link. Some want to just remove it.
    People are afraid a Google penalty.
     
    arrisweb, Jun 11, 2013 IP
  12. Thriftypreneur

    Thriftypreneur Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    25
    #52
    If you just want to shit on directory site owners, why not do it in your own thread?

    You came in, ignored the question asked by the OP, and just derailed this entire thing into a hate-thread, fueled by your personal disdain for directories.

    I really don't remember anyone in this thread asking, "Does Google like directories?" or anything similar before you started your hate speech.

    And, not to mention, Google isn't the only place on the planet for a directory (or any site) to get traffic from. So, many of the legitimate directories could give two shits about how Google handles directories.


    As for the OP's question:

    What to do with remove link requests?

    If you value your time, ignore them. These requests are likely coming from people who don't want to use the disavow tool for fear they'll alert Google to their link spamming. If they want the link gone bad enough they'll use Disavow.

    If you don't care for a bit of extra work, just remove the links.

    If you want to make some cash, tell them you'll remove it for a fee. (not entirely ethical)

    The site is yours, so, ultimately, the choice is also yours.
     
    Thriftypreneur, Jun 15, 2013 IP
  13. dotcompals

    dotcompals Prominent Member

    Messages:
    2,905
    Likes Received:
    254
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #53
    i honour each and every request for link removal.
    1. I'll make sure that the request came from the right person. if not i will ask to validate the ownershp.
    2. if everythink is OK. i will remove the link with ease.

     
    dotcompals, Jun 20, 2013 IP
  14. Afrasiab

    Afrasiab Active Member

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #54
    It must be done when someone ask for it because a small mistake can destroy someone efforts and business.
     
    Afrasiab, Jun 20, 2013 IP
  15. stoner3221

    stoner3221 Notable Member

    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    233
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    285
    #55
    No it does not need to be done! I will not dismantle my directory based on Google errors they are trying to correct. I'm getting over 200 requests a week and to verify correctly ownership of every domain would be a full time job. See this article
     
    stoner3221, Jun 20, 2013 IP
    swedal and dotcompals like this.
  16. arrisweb

    arrisweb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    48
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #56
    I think often that a competitor wants to remove the link.
    If I do not have complete conviction I don't remove.
     
    arrisweb, Jun 21, 2013 IP
  17. Alex jones

    Alex jones Member

    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #57
    I am also facing the same problem and the only way out is to remove them, no other way.
     
    Alex jones, Jun 26, 2013 IP
  18. Antonio

    Antonio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,504
    Likes Received:
    128
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #58
    Good response, we got hundreds of removal requests :(
     
    Antonio, Jun 28, 2013 IP
  19. Vintagelookserv

    Vintagelookserv Peon

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #59
    It's the "what if" element of Google that I'm concerned with least. Life has far more interesting things to deal with.
    gift
     
    Vintagelookserv, Jun 29, 2013 IP
  20. olddocks

    olddocks Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,275
    Likes Received:
    165
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #60
    People want to remove their links even with nofollow. how dumb they are? Think they are too much afraid of Google penalizing them.
     
    olddocks, Jul 4, 2013 IP