Rand Fishkin vs Aviva

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by John Scott

http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com...troll-defense/

The spin there, the attempt to discredit via "nefarious ulterior motive", is a bit too obvious.

I'm missing your point. I was highlighting what jumped out to me. I meant to be obvious... it was my impression that there was an ulterior motive. That's why I wrote the whole piece to begin with.

-Michael

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by mvandemar

I'm missing your point. I was highlighting what jumped out to me. I meant to be obvious... it was my impression that there was an ulterior motive. That's why I wrote the whole piece to begin with.

-Michael

I was just agreeing with your point. That Rand was spinning the issue.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I was just agreeing with your point. That Rand was spinning the issue.

Ohhhh... I thought you meant my spin!

Nevermind.

He commented on my blog, getting ready to reply to him right now.

-Michael

[philski]

okay another parable, who has ever heard of dmoz? well, apart from just about everybody.. I bet rand has, but just wont admit it, considering his copyright bastardization (bastardisation) of the dot.moz and the fact his domain name seomoz.org, is a violation of icann to the extreme. perhaps he got his dip in a cornflake packet,

last time any of you found any site listed in dmoz in serps was when????
its so respected, but they never rank for **!t

ANYONE?....
im comparing DMOZ to AVIVA...


Real (working) Directories pull traffic and get rankings in serps, ,. Aviva does that,, dmoz dosent,,, just to put apples up against apples,

other than that,,

Rand just lost another reader (cause i think he is a useless twat) and v7n just got a new recruit

[sitetutor]

The personal attack seems very, very harsh here. I think the message is “don’t trust Rand or SEOmoz - they’re trying to pull a fast one on the SEO world.” I work really, really hard to try to do just the opposite, so obviously, I’m heartbroken to see this kind of post. I guess we can always work harder, though, and I’ll try to do that when I return from vacation.

This is Rand's response on your blog, Michael ... or part of it.
The thing is that I have yet to meet one person who doesn't like Rand as a person. The problem is that PS encourages following a tool blindly rather than analyzing and experimenting with some of your own results.
I highly doubt that there will ever be a tool like it that is reliable enough for advanced webmasters to rely on it. In this day and age of "report paid links" the tool's purpose in itself goes against everything Google is trying to stop.

I don't think it's a matter of working harder, it's just that unless you're on the inside of Google and have access to the algorithm and its entire complexity, anything pretending to tell you which links are most beneficial, is bound to be more or less snakeoil.

Mike

[Manish Pandey]

You said that I said "if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms" and I ask you for where I said that you and produce "a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title". Give me a break with you. There is no simularity in those two sentences at all.

Like Michael posted.. here

Not at all. I stated that a valid way to check if a site has authority is to see if it has rankings for the titles of it pages. As I noted before I stayed away from Rands example and deal with principles instead.

See above!

I was agreeing with the principle that Rand was using as it is a true principle.

That a domain which doesn't rank for its title is not an authority... right??
And i also found that your web site doesn't rank on the top 22 pages for the term SEO Link Building which is present in your title. So this means your web site is not an authority even though it has a PR7??? LOL

As noted before I have stayed away from making judgements on the Aviva directory other than to say that I recommend it and submit my clients to it, and that it works well. Really what I did was go directly against Rands position when I noted that directories don't require site authority to provide ranking weight as there is high ranking weight given to one-way, page relevant inbound links from directories that allow the exact key phrase you are targeting to be put in the anchor text.

Well the whole issue is about Aviva being a good source of link or not. Rand says Aviva is not a good (authoritative directory) so it is useless to submit sites in it!!! Without knowing what rand said you jumped in to the discussion and now say that I use Aviva directory for submissions...this isn't good enough for your rescue!!!

I don't think these things can be proven. I post the opinions I hold and I try to base my opinions from my personal experience and from the positions of other high end SEO consultants that are in the know and do more than just talk about SEO but form their opinions for experience.

So, you think we talk SEO and don't do it! Its really not nice to make remarks on others about what they do. We on v7n unlike Rand, test...re-test before making any public remark! And well John and Mike does a brilliant job..if you don't know!

I am going to be very frank here Manish. You are as blind as mvandemar. There is no simularity in your statement that you atributed to me...

"Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain..."

and in the quote statement of mine that Michael posted...

"Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title."

If all you can do is build a stawman, pull it down, and then think you have provided me wrong -- I have no time for that.

So do you think that Aviva is not authority domain because it doesn't rank for its title terms??? Yes/No
Come on answer up dude!!! You give this answer and the discussion closes...LOL

"It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point."

>>>and now you seem to agree!

Yes there is lots of things you will say I will agree with. It not possible to be wrong all the time even if you try

Thanks bob ...well i don't see if there is anything wrong in that comment...if you can't understand that plain English then I'm not to be blamed...

No from the word go I was posting my position.

That we all here are wrong..isn't it???

As noted before it not possible to be wrong on every thing even if you try.

Absolutely!!
So we are correct according to you!!

Diggers don't click though PPC Ad and they are not a easy bunch to convet, they don't like SEO site or consultants, and they don't pass out links easy. I wouldn't turn down a super digg but they are a lot of work to get.

Like we didn't know diggers don't click adsense! Well the only thing that it does is that you could get organic links over period.
And could you please tell us which work doesn't require you to work???
If you want to get links...you need to get something which people love to share...thats why it's called a bait...a link bait...this is a smart work...and many people are already doing it...

>>>Does that makes sense to you??

I understand what Rand is saying.

So, why don't to tell us that he is wrong this time.
Because we think that rand was saying that Aviva is a use less directory as it didn't ranked for it's title term! LOL..

>>>You don't sound like you have come here to learn!!!

I can understand you stating that. But then again you have been misquoting me a number of times and staw man'ed the misquotes. Worse yet you have stated that the quote Michael posted of mine was the say as why you claimed I stated. So it doesn't supprise me for you to further state that I am not here to learn.

Again...do you think Aviva is not an authority domain because it doesn't rank for it's title terms...???...Yes/No
You, are not here to learn just to make things worse. Rand on Michael's blog has posted his opinions go and see. He agrees to many of the questions that Michael has been saying but you didn't agree. We all know aviva is a good place to submit links even you said it is, so there shouldn't be any discussion related to it's ranking for the title terms!

>>>So, you see why i pointed out this. It is because this fact that Aviva is not ranking for the term Information Web Directory because they don't target that term. As your site is high authority your page should have come up to the top 10 or at least ahead of my site!!!

I think that "SEO Expert" is very completive. I perhaps have 3 or 4 inbound links with that term in the anchor text. The page that I put up has very little text. So no I don't think I should be ranking on the first page based on site authority.

I guess you mean competitive with your completive!!!
So at last few agrees...thank god!!!
And what about "Information Web Directory"??? Is it non competitive???

>>>And until now you were just saying that "keyword phrase" is the best method to do it and never supported my allintitle: and allinanchor: theory. At last you are supporting now!!!

I think I stated that putting the key phrase in quotes and looking at the number of results is better than using allintitle: or allinanchor: searches. No I am not supporting your position that allintitle: or allinanchor: searches are the best way. They are one way among a number of ways to try to get a feel for how competitive a key phrase is.

So, that way your theory also fails...!!!...

You sound like confused...and in the way confusing us! So just tell us Aviva is not an authority domain because it is not ranking for it's title terms..Yes/No

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by Manish Pandey

You sound like confused...and in the way confusing us! So just tell us Aviva is not an authority domain because it is not ranking for it's title terms..Yes/No

You are bound to cause confusion when you try to simplify something as complex as how a directory or a site can benefit you with an incoming link. Looking at the DP sheep who follow it blindly without really knowing what is going on is scarry and contributes to a mass amount of garbage online as well. it also put money into the "wrong pockets". There are countless excellent directories out there with a huge benefit which don't have high PS or PR. The best post on the subject matter I have ever read is this one
http://www.v7n.com/forums/web-direct...-pagerank.html
Looking at a long term benefit is important as well. I can tell you with almost certainty that John's and Jeff's directories will always be well taken care of. Half of the directories on the strongest directories list IMO are a waste of money. Understanding Google, placing yourself onto good neighborhoods and developing an instinct and gaining experience are priceless.
I forgot how good some of the conversations on v7n are. Normally I hang out on DP, but lately more than ever confusion has been the master of the conversations there, and Pagestrength adds more confusion and absolutely no solution.

[GuyFromChicago]

Interesting thread. For what it's worth, I take a pretty light approach to evaluating a directory. Even if it's a $100 listing fee, if I spend 1/2 hour trying to determine what a link in that directory is "worth" then I've already spent more in terms of my time investigating than it would have cost to just pay pay the $100 and move on.

I quickly check to see if it has indexed pages, inbound links, no nasty outbounds and a clean design that makes sense to it's users (or potential users). If that stuff is on the up and it's a one time fee here's my $$$.

I don't think there's a uniform set of criteria you can use to evaluate directories - or any site for that matter. You have to look at everything on a case by case basis. Trying to force such an analysis through a template will fail as often (if not more) than it succeeds.

edit/add - I have read that many check the serps for certain pages/sections of a directory and see if they rank for certain terms and use that as their criteria for deciding if it's worthwhile to list there. I think that's a short sighted way way of thinking. Serps change constantly - just because something isn't ranking today doesn't mean it won't be next week or next month.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I was just agreeing with your point. That Rand was spinning the issue.

Ok, I replied to Rands comment on my blog here, for anyone who cares.

-Michael

[John Scott]

Wish I had more time to follow this. Kind of busy with v7n Contextual stuff.

[Manish Pandey]

I've blogged about it...

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by GuyFromChicago

edit/add - I have read that many check the serps for certain pages/sections of a directory and see if they rank for certain terms and use that as their criteria for deciding if it's worthwhile to list there. I think that's a short sighted way way of thinking. Serps change constantly - just because something isn't ranking today doesn't mean it won't be next week or next month.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I search for something like the keywords I'm after and add the term directory, web directory, add url or whatever and a directory category pops up, it to me is some sort of indicator that Google "likes" that directory. I also see incoming traffic from pages like that when I get myself listed. My approach is to get links where they benefit me in more ways than just with Google. So while I wait for Google's love for a new site or a client's site, I rather have some traffic coming in already while I wait for the hammer to hit.

[mvandemar]

Bob, you still around? Was curious about your answer to this question:

http://www.v7n.com/forums/web-direct...tml#post667203

-Michael

[maldives]

Originally Posted by philski

im comparing DMOZ to AVIVA...


Real (working) Directories pull traffic and get rankings in serps, ,. Aviva does that,, dmoz dosent,,, just to put apples up against apples,