Skaffe.com Problems?

If you search for the Skaffe directory on Google, you really dont get too much in the way of results....

http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLG,GGLG:2005-45,GGLG:en&q=site:skaffe.com

What's up with those results? The only reason i am wondering is that i paid the $2 submission fee a few weeks back (like many others in this forum) when i thought i was getting into a really good directory - but the page i was placed on isn't even indexed by google:

http://www.skaffe.com/viewCat/83942 (there, maybe that'll do it)

$2 is hardly anything, but i am beginning to wonder that i wasted by money on fool's gold.

 

I have to say that I don't know any specifics of this site, but in general, if you pay money to get added to a directory with the sole objective of improving your rankings in Google, then you are taking a gamble. Some are more safe bets than others, of course, but in any gambling, you win some, you lose some.

And like you say, $2 isn't much.

 

I put a bunch in, at that price it was worth the risk, some ended up on pages with no PR, some with PR3.

I had some brand new sites, and wondered if I could speed up the process. I also added some existing sites with good PR that already had lots of links, but every little but [might] help.

 

When you do an allinurl you will get much better results that do not include non content pages blocked from being followed. Skaffe search engine concentration has never been better as well as traffic.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&c2coff=1&q=allinurl%3A%22www.skaffe.com%22+site%3Awww.skaffe.com&btnG=Search

 

Huh? There are 109,000 results on the search.

When you invest money in a directory submission you have to consider it long term.

 

The pages are not cached - which means they do not show up in results (now i am not sure if that means they still count as backlinks...)

the link i posted above that had my link on it was not even indexed, but now it is (must have been the link in this thread that did it)

 

A large number of the sites that show up for site:www.skaffe.com search are editor password protected pages, which is very useless.

Someone at skaffe should learn how to use robots.txt

 

They look cached to me.

 

yes, but if you look though the
http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLG,GGLG:2005-45,GGLG:en&q=site:skaffe.com

you will see a lot of pages that are actual categories... and they are not cached. i wasnt saying that all their categories are like that, only a few, and especially the one was concerned with (where my link was at)

also.. it seems as though this "no-caching" thing hit my directory/portal too:
http://www.google.com/search?source...5-46,GGLG:en&q=site:pghsource.cagintranet.com

this started Nov 11th, and my traffic dropped to 3 unq a day from google from 100 unq a day on the 12th. I hope it gets better... although i read that it may be that they see it as duplicate content, so i may need to get more conent on each pages to make them seem "less similar" as all the other pages i have.... which is very hard for a directory site that my region (pittsburgh) needs since there is no competion for something like what i created.

 

Those *are* the directory pages. For example, here's a random link from Google's index:
http://www.skaffe.com/viewCat/9460
If you click on the link you will see it takes you right into the directory, drilled as far in as it can go.

You appear to be mistaking the url's without actually looking at them.

 

ok, maybe i am not explaining this right....

when you do the site: function, it brings up the URLs to the pages, but they are not cached (no description, no "Cache" link available like in the picture you posted above)

without that cache... those pages will not come up in a search for anything. this is evidenced with my site. I was getting 100 Google visitors a month, and when those "caches" and descriptions disappeared from my SERPs... the next day, my traffic plummetted to basically ZERO from Google.

so i understand that these pages are indexed, but they are not all cached.. and that means just about as much to me (at least it definately does for my sites that had the same thing happen)

 

I see what's happening. When you tried site:skaffe.com, you were getting the results from one data center which is showing no cached pages and no description. When I was doing the same search, the results I was getting were from a different data center which I took the screenshot of.

Maybe just an update issue, or, who knows, perhaps Google are depreciating Directories? Best thing to do is wait and see if things resolve over the next week or so.

 

I have always found the Allinurl to be the accurate indicator of cached pages and see no problem.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&c2coff=1&q=allinurl%3A%22www.skaffe.com%22+site%3Awww.skaffe.com&btnG=Search

If you check with site:www.skaffe.com you get a mess

Why the difference in results only Google knows.

 

Stoner,

thanks for that info - i was looking for something like that... searching for skaffe that way, their site looks very well represented in the Index.

too bad i cant say the same for my pgh dir... i just wish i had an answer on how to fix this problem... its so disheartening knowing that youve spent 4 months of hard work on your site and now, google just basically drops it. without the cached pages - i get slim to no traffic from G.

oh well, ill keep chugging away and hope it pulls out of this funk soon...