Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish
Michael had asked me to post here to respond to the criticism. Sadly, I haven't read all 13 pages of the thread, but I left this post at Michael's blog, which should hopefully address some of the issues.
|
Rand, I'm sorry if you got the impression that the reason I mentioned replying here and on my blog was just for you to double post the same information. It wasn't my intent at all. The reason I mentioned both is because both contain issues that you appear to be pointedly ignoring.
Quote:
|
Hopefully I’ve addressed your concerns
|
Not really, but before we get to what they actually are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish
Sorry that I've been so busy.
|
This bit is critical Rand. Perhaps you need to understand why you were on my radar in the first place. I think that your habit of posting without anything resembling real research is horrid. If you're too busy to properly collect, document, demonstrate, and back up your opinions then you shouldn't post your opinions as fact. If you were Joe Schmoe then it wouldn't matter as much, but since you happen to be really good at building a reputation (much better at that than at actual seo, imo), you actually have a fairly large readership who think that
just because you have a large readership, your professional opinion should be trusted.
I understand that you have time constraints. I am actually willing to take the time and go through the various posts and collect pertinent points for you to answer. However, before I do that I need to know that if I do, you will actually address them. If you agree not to ignore or sidestep the questions/issues then I will be more than happy to consolidate them all. If, however, you do not have time to deal with this issue then please, let me know now.
I will leave off with these two questions below... you stated that lack of rankings for terms in the title of inner pages is in your opinion a good way to determine if Google has a problem with the site in question. I had mentioned before that there are tons of actual crappy directories out there that could have been legitimately slammed, and questioned why you didn't chose any of those. Here are 2 directories that have inner pages match the non-ranking criteria you mentioned:
http://www.linksfactory.net/news_and_media/business/
does not rank in the top 100 for: [
news media business directory]
(the title of the page is "LinksFactory.Net Web Directory- News & Media > Business", and the page is linked to directly from the homepage)
http://www.danielmillions.com/Science/Environment_/
does not rank in the top 100 for: [
science environment directory]
(the title of the page is "DM Web Directory- Science > Environment", it is a PR4 page, linked to directly from the homepage)
So:
1) Would you agree that both of those obviously have the same problems that you illustrated Aviva having?
2) Had you been aware of them, would either of them served just as well for making your point?
-Michael