WebAtlas banned from Google - Page 3

gorillaboy · 12-29-2004, 08:53 AM

How about "Risky SEO techniques" instead of "spam"?

IMO- Anyone developing a web directory nowdays is doing so in order to market to SEO's and webmasters. The common web user isn't going to use any of these directories unless the directory has a specific narrow focus.

People that say their directories are going to drive traffic are, for the most part, full of it! Even DMOZ doesn't send traffic to web sites. Yahoo! does because their listings appear in the SERP's.

Shawn · 12-29-2004, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorillaboy

Yahoo! does because their listings appear in the SERP's.

If a directory (besides Y!) can achieve the same thing, then they will bring traffic too

gorillaboy · 12-29-2004, 09:04 AM

Quote:

If a directory (besides Y!) can achieve the same thing, then they will bring traffic too

Ok, but that's very rare. And then they that would be for a SEO/webmaster focus.

Hey, I submit all of my sites to all of these directories (including your's

). The $20 - $50 fees aren't going to kill me. Plain and simple; if I see the directory has decent PR, I'll submit. I know I'm taking a chance that the directory will be blacklisted or whatever, but I feel the ROI is strong enough to justify it.

Most of my sites are in areas where the manufacturers do not have good websites or are not willing to link to me. So good (free) links are almost impossible for me to get. I've given my guys link building projects that end up costing me much more than these directories listings do.

Srikanthsh · 12-29-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

How about "Risky SEO techniques" instead of spam?

Personal opinion: An SEO should never use risky methods. Because, the clients will suffer. And, it disturbs the entire system too.

Instead of using the tricks, improve the website "content", "structure", get quality links. And let it qualify to be in the top ten. Almost, I consider it as building a good website.

Quote:

Anyone developing a web directory nowdays is doing so in order to market to SEO's and webmasters.

This is the problem.

Quote:

Even DMOZ doesn't send traffic to web sites. Yahoo! does because their listings appear in the SERP's

DMOZ is one of the best resources on the web. The DOMZ data has been widely in use on the web.

Ok Guys. Take care all. I have some pending work to take care of.

Shawn · 12-29-2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorillaboy

Ok, but that's very rare. And then they that would be for a SEO/webmaster focus.

gorillaboy · 12-29-2004, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Anyway, my point here is that if UTN gets these rankings at only 3 months old, it can't be that hard

I'm sorry, my point is that without other SE's (google) these directories would be total crap. I'm not criticizing you in any way. I'm criticizing the people that say their directories aren't geared towards SEO's and webmasters.

Quote:

Personal opinion: An SEO should never use risky methods. Because, the clients will suffer. And, it disturbs the entire system too.

Instead of using the tricks, improve the website "content", "structure", get quality links. And let it qualify to be in the top ten. Almost, I consider it as building a good website.

HA! Tell that to pharma SEO's or SEO/M SEO's. Sometimes risky techniques are the only way to get things done. And most SEO's understand that and are able to quiclkly change course when there's a problem.

Personally, I don't use any of these techniques. All of my sites are well-established, branded and have great rankings without using tricks.

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone developing a web directory nowdays is doing so in order to market to SEO's and webmasters.

This is the problem.

Why is it a problem?

Quote:

Even DMOZ doesn't send traffic to web sites. Yahoo! does because their listings appear in the SERP's

DMOZ is one of the best resources on the web. The DOMZ data has been widely in use on the web.

Yeah, but DMOZ doesn't send visitors to sites! People submit for the backlink...PERIOD!

Shawn · 12-29-2004, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorillaboy

I'm sorry, my point is that without other SE's (google) these directories would be total crap. I'm not criticizing you in any way. I'm criticizing the people that say their directories aren't geared towards SEO's and webmasters.

I gotcha, makes sense

88sahara · 12-29-2004, 09:45 AM

Getting links from other sites is not a risky technique if you ask me, anyone can link to any site they wish, if getting links from sites could be considered a no-no by SE's then all i would have to do to move up is get "bad" links pointing to my competitors sites. For those of us who have been around for some time, we were there when SE's hadn't thought that through and when off page crieteria could hurt.

Now we know that off page criteria may not HELP but rarely ever hurts rankings.

realestate · 12-29-2004, 10:18 AM

Webatlas is not in the index. This doesn't mean it was permanently banned. buy-sell-real-estate.info was pr8 and was doing very well. Later it disappeared completely from index and got pr 0. It reappeared now with pr7, but it is not doing very well on serps.
I think the problem with webatlas is that it consists mostly of links. There is not much plain text.
For uncoverthenet I would recommend some word variation. This exact phrase on most pages:
"
site, you'll get targeted traffic, link popularity, your own business card page, more exposure and ultimately more sales! So, add your "

+ being a big site with many "link, s e o" words makes it less healthy than it could be (imo).

John Scott · 12-29-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadrille

And that's from a guy who can't tell the difference between frames and css.

While he was trolling at IHY, he was defending "new directories" - we explained that many of the new directories were simply spam, and would offer zip return on your dollar; he continued to defend them (by this time, we knew what was happening to WebAtlas (.org. not .com). Shawn continued to defend them.

We invited shawn (http://www.uncoverthenet.com/) to tell us how his site was different, if, as he claimed, his site was so wonderful.

At that point, shawn turned adolescent and flounced out.

I would genuinely like to know the difference (if any). We've long suspected that many (not all) of the 'new directories' were simply taking money and then leaving their customers in deep ****.

It is now entirely possible that Google has started to act against such directories. So it might be worth less sneering (shawn) and more serious questions.

And if shawn can't answer, come to IHY - as shawn will tell you, we answer your questions, rather than twist, turn and troll - See For Yourself

Quadrille, Doug posted a list of "musts". The list included at least one web directory that gets almost no traffic. How is that a must?

And it also included other newer web directories, such as WowDirectory. But that's odd because just a bit ago Doug had his panties in a wad and was accusing WowDirectory of being a spammer.

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/foru...ory#post151040

Now WowDirectory is a "must", even though it uses the same script it used then, but any other web directory is a spammer unless the owner is a regular poster on IHY.

That, my friends, is a joke. Doug's PM to Shawn pretty much said the same thing that Doug said to Bruce - that he's a spammer because he's a member of my forum.

Doug, grow up. I don't spam. Bruce doesn't spam. Shawn doesn't spam.

John Scott · 12-29-2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Srikanthsh

It was not about email spam. There, we call any garbage/improper methods(not good practices)/etc etc... as spam.

No, you don't call "garbage/improper methods" spam. You call anything that Doug doesn't like spam, and he calls anything spam if the owner is a regular member of this forum.

If he'd grow up, he'd be able to provide a criteria for determining the value of a directory listing, other than whether the owner is sucking up to him or not.

There are such criteria, but his "musts" list doesn't reflect it.

Dave Hawley · 12-29-2004, 07:15 PM

I think the focal point of all this is whether Google will see Directories as PR sellers or not. If they do, we can expect to see the PR of these Directories drop...sooner or later, or they will become one of those sites that cannot pass PR.

I would feel safe in assuming that most Webmasters submit to Directories for PR and ranking benefit. We are all aware that the click value of paid Directories is not really worth it as one can get many more clicks for the same $ value from AdWords etc.

Now, I'm not saying this is going to happen, or it is happening, but there is something 'out of the ordinary' happening with many Directories and Google.

imaginemn · 12-29-2004, 07:34 PM

Isn't google well known for dropping sites for days/weeks and then mysteriously re-appear for no reason at all? This is what started the "google's index is full" conversations a few months ago. Couldn't it just be a case of, it's their turn to drop and re-appear later due to the google glitch?

imaginemn

Dave Hawley · 12-29-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

re-appear for no reason at all?

There is always a reason why they disappear and always a reason why they re-appear. Sometimes it's a "glitch", sometimes it's an algo change, sometimes it's a "penalty".

DragonEye · 12-30-2004, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

I think the focal point of all this is whether Google will see Directories as PR sellers or not. If they do, we can expect to see the PR of these Directories drop...sooner or later, or they will become one of those sites that cannot pass PR.

I would feel safe in assuming that most Webmasters submit to Directories for PR and ranking benefit. We are all aware that the click value of paid Directories is not really worth it as one can get many more clicks for the same $ value from AdWords etc.

Now, I'm not saying this is going to happen, or it is happening, but there is something 'out of the ordinary' happening with many Directories and Google.

And that is what I think could very well happen when Google does it's next large update. I think that they will start making changes so web directories will not be able to pass PR anymore.

But if you ask me, even when that happens, they will still be a valuable source of information.

smindsrt · 12-30-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonEye

And that is what I think could very well happen when Google does it's next large update. I think that they will start making changes so web directories will not be able to pass PR anymore.
.

Wow... I think you watched X-files too much.

Even if that was the case something new will come along. Webmasters/Directories would just alter or find a way to get around it. Some people say "links" pages are worthless cause Google has a filter against them so people started using "resources" pages instead. Webmasters will adapt.

Personally I think your theory is absurd, I think Google has much more things to worry about than a quality directory passing PR. Why would they stop that anyway? Why not go after bigger fish first..... like Internet marketing sites.... but why??? Why would Goolge want to stop promotion on the Internet? THEY WON'T !!! Google is much more concerned about abuse and deceptive techniques rather than trying to block PR from legit site(s).

Dave Hawley · 12-30-2004, 08:31 PM

smindsrt, I think you need to understand that Google has invested many millions in PageRank and there ranking algo, of which link popularity is the core. They take HUGE pride in the fact that their results are seen as THE most relevant of any SE. This is the main reason they are now the number 1 SE in the World. They are not going to simply sit-back and allow Directories, PR sellers, link traders etc screw up their SERP relevancy.

The vast majority of Webmasters submit to paid directories for nothing more than PR and link popularity. If you think Google are going to sit back and allow site owners to buy their way up the SERP's you are in for a shock.

dcristo · 12-30-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

smindsrt, I think you need to understand that Google has invested many millions in PageRank and there ranking algo, of which link popularity is the core. They take HUGE pride in the fact that their results are seen as THE most relevant of any SE. This is the main reason they are now the number 1 SE in the World. They are not going to simply sit-back and allow Directories, PR sellers, link traders etc screw up their SERP relevancy.

The vast majority of Webmasters submit to paid directories for nothing more than PR and link popularity. If you think Google are going to sit back and allow site owners to buy their way up the SERP's you are in for a shock.

Directories, like any other site, should be viewed on a case by case basis. Sure there are some directories that are nothing more than link farms and that will catch up to them, but it should be the intentions of the directory owner, not what the submittor thinks they may benefit from a submission, that should really matter.

Dave Hawley · 12-30-2004, 09:57 PM

Agree. However, I'm really only speaking about Directories that sell spots in categories. Most of these, whether they admit it or not, are relying on the category PR to clinch the sale. Many even allow the Webmasters their desired anchor text if you pay.

Remember, Google clearly states that PageRank is a unique democratic vote from Page A to Page B. Buying PR is NOT democratic or unique and would mean sites can buy their way up Google's SERP's.

As I'm sure Yahoo is now going to get a mention, I will point out that I have never seen proof that a link in a Yahoo category page passes the same PR as another like one-way link from another site. In absence of real proof, common sense should prevail and realize that Google is not going to allow Webmasters to buy their way up the SERP's. PageRank is a unique democratic vote from Page A to Page B.

smindsrt · 12-31-2004, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

The vast majority of Webmasters submit to paid directories for nothing more than PR and link popularity.

What an educated statement! So are you against link popularity? Or PR? Or Both? You must rank really well!

So what about:

"links"
"resources"
"add URL" pages?

Do you think webmasters submit to those pages on non-directory sites just for fun? What about you, do you sit around and submit to those pages just to complete your evening? I don't think so!

Webmasters will always do what it takes to rank sites. What makes you think Google will go after directories and not the other pages? IMO, link popularity will always have some factor on SERPS even if it is small.