Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > Marketing Forums > Web Directory Issues

Web Directory Issues Issues pertaining to operating or dealing with online directories, or general info about DMOZ, Yahoo!, Google Directory, BOTW, Ezilon, etc.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #221  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:29 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonycea View Post
I have no idea how this could happen Mike, it must have been in response to the Red reputation you gave me first telling me to calm down and you taking this thread off the topic of my first post in it.
Let me guess.. my replying to you was in and of itself an act of offtopic-ness, correct? Because it was me? Had it been maldives or Ferre replying, it would have been fine, but because it was me, that made it off topic?

I replied to the only relevant bit that you posted, and you started attacking me.

-Michael
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #222  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:40 PM
anthonycea anthonycea is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 03-27-04
Location: USA
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
No Mike, you attacked me first by making the false claim that I was off topic and by that you took the thread off topic and back to the subject of Mike.

Then you now accuse me of attacking you with Red Reputation when you gave me Red first.

Cut and pasted from my user CP:

08-08-2007 02:29 PM mvandemar I really wish you would calm down.

Mike would you like me to tell the members about how you systematically gave as many of my posts Red reputation on the forum YOU RUINED AND I QUIT BECAUSE OF YOU, THEN THE ADMINISTRATORS HAD TO GO BACK AND REVERSE IT ALL BECAUSE THEY WERE AND STILL ARE EMBARRASSED OF YOU ???

Poor Mike is being attacked, let's all cry for him while he attacks Rand for attention (look at his recent blog link), LOL

Last edited by anthonycea; 08-08-2007 at 02:44 PM.
 
  #223  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:43 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Out of respect for the members in this community, I am respectfully requesting that if y'all choose to continue this conversation that you do so privately, outside of this forum. Thank you for understanding.
 
  #224  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:51 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Out of respect for the members in this community, I am respectfully requesting that if y'all choose to continue this conversation that you do so privately, outside of this forum. Thank you for understanding.
Cricket, is it possible to split off all the abusive stuff and move it to maybe somewhere more appropriate, like, I dunno, Politics? Just in case either Bob or Rand do come back here to answer the questions, so they don't get put off by it all?

-Michael
 
  #225  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:52 PM
anthonycea anthonycea is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 03-27-04
Location: USA
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Why not Mike, you are wanna be mod man !!! LOL

Hide the truth and just show your version of the story man, now that is integrity like you always exhibited in the past !!! LOL
 
  #226  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:57 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
There is nothing I hate worse than an overmoderated forum, but this will be my final request to both of you to take it OFF THE FORUM. Do not respond in this thread again unless it is 100% relevant to the thread topic.

Don't force me to hang you both by your toes and throw leftover watermelons at ya.
Omggggg... Now I am starting to sound like my mother.

Last edited by Cricket; 08-08-2007 at 03:14 PM.
 
  #227  
Old 08-09-2007, 08:46 AM
web-mastery web-mastery is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 08-02-07
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonycea View Post
That's right Mike, you are a forum troll, you always have been.
Oh, the irony.
 
  #228  
Old 08-09-2007, 12:04 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I have read through this entire thread a few times and still can't make heads or tails out of much of it. Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment here, is it possible that Rand wrote this article with the sole purpose of causing a huge controversy, all in the name of linkbait?
 
  #229  
Old 08-09-2007, 03:31 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
I have read through this entire thread a few times and still can't make heads or tails out of much of it. Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment here, is it possible that Rand wrote this article with the sole purpose of causing a huge controversy, all in the name of linkbait?
Yes, of course. However, if the sole purpose was to get people to take notice and create controversy, then it probably would have been a smarter idea to do something based on solid demonstrable evidence though, instead of manufacturing something as flimsy as what he used, imo. Wouldn't you agree?

-Michael
 
  #230  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:52 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
sitetutor:
>>>Bob, you are clearly avoiding giving any concrete answers other than trying to dispute other people's statements.

Please provide all these questions in quote form that I am "clearly avoiding giving any concrete answer to". I have done my best to answer all questions besides a side question about why I think doing a quote search shows better how competitive a key phrase than using a allintitle: and allinanchor: search.


>>>Which of course is what has kept you in business all of those years.

That sounds like a person attack to me. I have keep in business by avoiding giving concrete answers? Can't you do any better than attack me to make a point.


>>>The question I have for you is how much longer you are going to support someone like SEOMOZ for the only reason of staying on someone else's bandwagon which of course is about to derail.


I will support any position SEOMOZ holds thats that is correct and it doesn't matter to me how many directory owers will cry about it nor if it will hurt my own 2 directories or hurt my directory submission service. I did the same when most top SEO consultings realized Pagerank had little or not ranking weight even though I was selling newspaper links based on Pagerank. I gave that up even though I was making a ton of money on it and told my clients that they were better off getting permenant links and not targeting high Pagerank.

>>>I would love your posts to state facts (at least 80 percent of them) rather than answering fluff with fluff.

Well in SEO it is mostly opinions so I can't help you there. I guess it is easyer to call a persons position fluff with fluff than to point out where they opinion is incorrect.

Last edited by bobmutch; 08-09-2007 at 05:08 PM.
 
  #231  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:53 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
mvandmar:
>>>Bob, I was about to accuse you of being evasive to the point of being rude,

More personal attacks. I am not evasive at all. I am answering all questions the best I can. Oh yes and at least when you accuse a person of being evasive point out with quotes where they are doing that.

>>>but actually I think it might be that the number of points in each post that are just confusing you.

No confusion here, thanks any way : )

>>>>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

<<<Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.

>>>In this above section, you lead any logical man to believe that you think this is true:

In the above section you posted a quoting of me quoting you. In the "above section" all I did was ask where I stated what you wrongly attributed to me.

>>>by denying the clarification, it is reasonable to believe that you think the opposite of what we were attributing to you.

I already stated that the statement you are refering to was not clear. I think what you should do is pick one of the other 199 or more sentences that I have posted in this thread and not keep on working over a sentence that I have clearly stated is not clear.

>>>And in THAT statement, Bob, you lead any logical man to believe that you believe the same is NOT true.

In what statement. You just quoted 4 statements.

>>>"It is necessary for a domain to rank for terms in it's title to be an authority."

I have clearly denied this is my position. If the best you can is take one unclear statement I have made and try to make it says some thing I have denied a number of times is my position then all you are trying to do in my view is staw man me and posting back to you become a waste of my time -- with all due respect.

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

Which question is that.

Last edited by bobmutch; 08-09-2007 at 05:11 PM.
 
  #232  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:53 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Manish Pandey

<<<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??

I would suggest that you read the thread again. I have denied that is my position may times. And have clearly stated I don't agree with that. Further I have stated what part of Rands position I agree with.

Let me do it again for you. Rand holds that you can tell how much authority a site has by how well it ranks for its titles. I agree with that. Not as a hard fast rule but as a general concept.

>>>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.

I don't have any pages that are optimized for the term "SEO Link Building". My home page title has 17 words in it. I don't hold that to have site authority I need to rank for any or all 1 word, 2 word, and 3 word combinations of my 17 word title.

>>>So this means your web site is not an authority even though it has a PR7??? LOL

I would disagree with that position. And I have stated that much already.

>>>Well the whole issue is about Aviva being a good source of link or not.

In your head it may be. But not in my mind. In my mind we have been discussing many related issues.

>>>Rand says Aviva is not a good (authoritative directory) so it is useless to submit sites in it!!!

I have clearly stated in my first post that I disagreed with that position and again not long ago and here I disagree with it again.

>>>Without knowing what rand said you jumped in to the discussion

Sorry your wrong. I know what rand said and listened to the vid before I posted.

>>>and now say that I use Aviva directory for submissions...this isn't good enough for your rescue!!!

Looks like to me you are the one jumping in and making comments with out knowing what people have said. I stated my disagree with Rand in my very first point and noted that I sub to Aviva and felt it has quality for the price.

Why don't you go and read the whole thread again instead of making the above kind of statements which just are not true at all.

>>>So, you think we talk SEO and don't do it!

Don't take this person Manish but if you can't grasp some of the concerpts I am discussing on site authority and rankings and the best you can do is misquote me and staw man me I thought it would be a waste of my time discussing my opionion on whether the best way to see how competitve a key phrase is by searching the term in quotes or in allintitle: or allinanchor:.

>>>Its really not nice to make remarks on others about what they do.

I can understand a directory owner feeling the bite when some one outs the value of a directory but I do disagree with your position that we can't say any thing about any thing.

>>>We on v7n unlike Rand, test...re-test before making any public remark!

I think Rand tests and re-tests things also. You are not the only one doing that you know.

>>>So do you think that Aviva is not authority domain because it doesn't rank for its title terms???

No. I have not stated whether Aviva has site authority or not and I certianly have not stated that I think a site doesn't have site authority if it doesn't rank for a word combination that is in one of its title tags even if it is the home page title.

I have clearly stated that few general directories have much site authority due to in general the link signature of a general directory. Site authority comes easier with a themed site and one that wins links not buys, begs and borrows them.

>>>You give this answer and the discussion closes...

Read my posts I have answered that question a number of times clearly.

>>>"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."

>>>if you can't understand that plain English then I'm not to be blamed...

I think you first language is other than English. I still don't understand your above quoted statement. It seems to be constructed worse than my unclear statement. I have no idea what it means.

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

I have clearly stated why I hold the position I hold, and not I don't think every one here is wrong.

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

In some cases the things you may say are correct.

>>>And could you please tell us which work doesn't require you to work???

Building quality resources and pushing the snow ball off the top of the hill.

>>>thats why it's called a bait...a link bait...this is a smart work...and many people are already doing it...

I do it to but I am not targeting a super Digg.

>>>So, why don't to tell us that he is wrong this time.

Read my first post in this thread and you will see where I agreed with him and where I disagreed with him.

>>>Because we think that rand was saying that Aviva is a use less directory as it didn't ranked for it's title term!

He seems to say that which of course I disagreed with.

>>>Again...do you think Aviva is not an authority domain because it doesn't rank for it's title terms...???

NO. See my answer above for why I think most directories don't have site authority.

>>>You, are not here to learn just to make things worse.

Are you God where you can read a persons motives. Shame on you.

>>>He agrees to many of the questions that Michael has been saying but you didn't agree.

I don't agree with Rand on everything and he doesn't agree with me. How ever we don't accuse each other of bad motives, staw man each other or misquote each other. We are grown men.

>>>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!

Now you are admiting that you know I said that. Very strange.

>>>You sound like confused

In your ears I am sure what I am saying is confusion. Perhaps we should end this then.

So just tell us Aviva is not an authority domain because it is not ranking for it's title terms..Yes/No

I am not going to post an opinion on Aviva other than I have already.

Last edited by bobmutch; 08-09-2007 at 05:17 PM.
 
  #233  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:54 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Cricket

>>>I have read through this entire thread a few times and still can't make heads or tails out of much of it. Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment here, is it possible that Rand wrote this article with the sole purpose of causing a huge controversy, all in the name of linkbait?

Shhhh. YOu will spoil it.
 
  #234  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:58 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
philski:

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

Hrmm what competitve keywords have you seen Aviva on the first page for? Oh and would you like a list of competive keywords DMOZ ranks on the first page for?

Hehehe, are you saying Aviva is better ranking than DMOZ? Now I have heard it all : )
 
  #235  
Old 08-09-2007, 05:40 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Bob, I feel like I'm in the twilight zone talking to you.

Your reply to this assertion:

Quote:
a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a lack of authority
by saying that I had:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
stepped over clear statements and posts a statement that is clearly not your position.
And when I ask if you think this is true:

Quote:
It is necessary for a domain to rank for terms in it's title to be an authority
You reply with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
I have clearly denied this is my position.
How the hell, I mean seriously now, can you not see that you are contradicting yourself? I mean, c'mon now, back to back, you are denying two opposite statements:

Quote:
Quote:
a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not indicate a lack of authority
Quote:
It is necessary for a domain to rank for terms in it's title to be an authority
They cannot both be false, and they cannot both be true. Period.

-Michael
 
  #236  
Old 08-09-2007, 06:46 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
mvandemar:
Here you have quoted yourself from the following post.
http://www.v7n.com/forums/web-direct...tml#post666755
>>>a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a lack of authority

I disagree with this statement.

Here you have quoted yourself from the following post.
http://www.v7n.com/forums/web-direct...tml#post667203
>>>It is necessary for a domain to rank for terms in it's title to be an authority

I disagree with this statement.

How ever here is a quote from me that I agree with : )

<<<<Rand holds that you can tell how much authority a site has by how well it ranks for its titles. I agree with that. Not as a hard fast rule but as a general concept.

>>>can you not see that you are contradicting yourself? I mean, c'mon now, back to back, you are denying two opposite statements:

You have persented two extreme positions. Ranking has nothing to do with site authority and if you have site authority it is necessary to rank for titles. I have clearly time and time again reject both these positions and I have clearly stated a middle ground.

>>>a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not indicate a lack of authority
>>>It is necessary for a domain to rank for terms in it's title to be an authority
>>They cannot both be false, and they cannot both be true. Period.

They are both false in my view. They are extreme postions.

Again my positions is as follows.

As a general rule how a site ranks for the key phrase in its titles indicates how much site authority it has.

If you can't grasp that and all you can do is post extremes that I don't hold it an accuse me of contradicting myself for disagreeing with your extreme statements then as far as me responding to any more of your post is useless.

I feel like my discuss with you degressed to a cat and mouse discussion where it appears to me you are not interesting in trying to grasp the opinion I hold but are more interested in trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument.

I am an adult and don't have time for those kinds of discussions.
 
  #237  
Old 08-09-2007, 06:57 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
They are both false in my view. They are extreme postions.
No, they're not. They are simply opposites of a very simple concept... in order for a site to be an authority, either it does, or it does not, have to rank for the terms in it's title.

There is no middle ground, Bob. It is an either or position. Adding words in there does not clarify, and you cannot force opposites to have a middle ground by obfuscation. The rules of logic do not allow it.

Sorry.

-Michael
 
  #238  
Old 08-10-2007, 06:48 AM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
>>>No, they're not. They are simply opposites of a very simple concept... in order for a site to be an authority, either it does, or it does not, have to rank for the terms in it's title.

That is your view. Few things in life are that black and white especially in SEO. Even when a rule is formed there are usually exceptions to the rule.

>>>There is no middle ground, Bob. It is an either or position.

I disagree. I believe that there are shades of grey in most things in life and certianly in SEO.

>>>Adding words in there does not clarify,

Adding words in most cases does clarify statements.

>>>and you cannot force opposites to have a middle ground by obfuscation. The rules of logic do not allow it.

I am not forcing opposities to have a middle ground. I am rejecting your two extremes as incorrect.

It is my postion that in SEO there are many shades of grey when laying out concepts and that there are few absolutes and things are just not as black and white and it seems you are trying to make them.

Generally pages on a Web site that has high site authority will rank well for the title tag if the key phrase in the title tag is not to competitive.

It is very clear to me that you can get an idea of how much site authority a Web site has by creating fully SEOed pages for a number of non-topical authority key phrases that vary in their competitive range and seeing how you rank.

Perhaps I should ask you a couple of questions.

In general if you have two sites that put up new fully on-page SEOed pages for non-topical authority key phrases that are mediumly competitive. On one but the spiders know about that so there is no off-page SEO involved. One site is 2 years old and has few inbound links and pages and the other site is 10 years old and has lots of inbound links and pages in the index. If the older site ranks way better than the other site what factors in general do you think contribute to the older site ranking better than the new site?

Where off-page SEO and topcial authority are not involved is it not in general domain age, site age, number of pages in the index, age of site pages, number of inbound links, quality of inbound links, won edu/gov links, age of inbound links, number of DMOZ links, links from other authority sites in your space, and outbound links to other authority sites in your space, that make the difference in how two sites will rank?

Is it not domain age, site age, number of pages in the index, age of site pages, number of inbound links, quality of inbound links, won edu/gov links, age of inbound links, number of DMOZ links, links from other authority sites in your space, and outbound links to other authority sites in your space, that are the contributing factors that product site authority?

(There are many other factores that in my opinion create site authority but I listed some of the mains ones.)

To me it is so clear that any one that has a SEO clue and is not bias will afirm that it is the above factors that will make one site rank over the other. And further that it is the above factors that give site authority.
 
  #239  
Old 08-10-2007, 07:53 AM
guinanie guinanie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 07-11-07
Posts: 740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I agree with Scott and that was a great response. But for me Aviva directory is a good quality directories and offer a best service
 
  #240  
Old 08-10-2007, 09:12 AM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
It is my postion that in SEO there are many shades of grey when laying out concepts and that there are few absolutes and things are just not as black and white and it seems you are trying to make them.
The problem is that this can't be blamed on SEO having shades of gray, because you're trying to attribute shades of gray to clear cut English statements.

-Michael
 
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > Marketing Forums > Web Directory Issues

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rand Fishkin Talks of Aviva, SEOMOZ, Dirsensei and More tantantin Web Directory Issues 0 09-07-2007 06:12 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC