Rand Fishkin vs Aviva

[mvandemar]

Bob, hypothetical scenario here, using made up statistics:

1) Many Ferrari's are red.
2) Ferrari's win alot of races.
3) If a car in a race is blue, it is an indicator that it will not win.

Do you understand how #3 is fallacious, even if #1 and #2 are correct?

-Michael

[bobmutch]

mvandemar:

Well I have tried my best to explain my position. I posted a number of questions to you that you have not answered them but instead you seem to just want to talk circles. This conversation with you is no longer meaningful and I bid you ado.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

mvandemar:

Well I have tried my best to explain my position. I posted a number of questions to you that you have not answered them but instead you seem to just want to talk circles. This conversation with you is no longer meaningful and I bid you ado.

Nice exit strategy Bob... when presented with facts, duck and run.

Peace out.

-Michael

[bobmutch]

>>>Nice exit strategy Bob... when presented with facts, duck and run.

>>>1) Many Ferrari's are red.
2) Ferrari's win alot of races.
3) If a car in a race is blue, it is an indicator that it will not win.

Facts? LOL! Right.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

>>>Nice exit strategy Bob... when presented with facts, duck and run.

>>>1) Many Ferrari's are red.
2) Ferrari's win alot of races.
3) If a car in a race is blue, it is an indicator that it will not win.

Facts? LOL! Right.

Bob, are you saying that you really are so unintelligent that you cannot grasp a hypothetical situation? Do you honestly think dropping the fact that I qualified those as "made up statistics" in your quote makes you look witty?

Yes, Bob, even that made up scenario had a hard cold fact in it. Can you find it?

By the way, Bob, it's adieu, not ado, and either way I though you bid it.

-Michael

[Cricket]

Perhaps you could both agree to disagree?

[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.

Michael,
As you’ve asked me to over email, I’ll try to address your concerns here on your blog.

The series of events as you’ve painted them make it look like I promoted our directory list in premium content (which I did), then was negligent about responding to criticism on several forums and blogs (again, I admit to it - I’m overwhelmed with stuff at work and planning a wedding, was on vacation all last week and have tons of projects and a few clients as well with demands on my time).

Your other concern is that I glossed over the critiques of my methodologies - I’d say again that I still believe that the rankings I pointed out to you over email and those I discussed in the V7N thread and the SEOmoz blog are indications that Google has some issue with Aviva. You’re certainly free to disagree, and you’ve brought up many searches where they perform adequately.

I think the best way to determine whether Aviva passes value is to buy some links there, point them to some test sites in relatively non-competitive fields and see if the links can help to raise the rankings. If they can, then my arguments are baseless and your points are validated. Frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t go this route to help prove me wrong - no evidence would be more damning.

In any case, I’ve done so tonight - bought a couple links to different pages and we’ll see what the results look like.

Hopefully I’ve addressed your concerns - let me know if there are other pieces you’d like to see me respond to.

Sorry that I've been so busy. Please feel free to follow up and I'll try to revisit this thread tomorrow.

[tantantin]

Wow theres John Stewart / Howard Stern wannabe.

[mvandemar]

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.

Hopefully I’ve addressed your concerns

Not really, but before we get to what they actually are:

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

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by tantantin

Wow theres John Stewart / Howard Stern wannabe.

Let's keep the discussion nominally polite, guys

[randfish]

On the "busy" front - you're right. I thought one of the most salient points you made about my post was that I could easily have chosen SOCEngine, an old directory that SEOmoz's parent company built (and largely forgot about), as an example of a useless directory (we're shutting down submissions at this point). When I wrote the post, I had seen some cool blog entries from Aviva and liked their site, so I started writing about them - the branding had them fresh in my mind. A more careful and balanced approach would have been to use SOCEngine, as it is a prime example of the same issue.

For that, I apologize sincerely. It was a dumb move and a bad one. Thanks to your post, we're shutting down SOCEngine submissions, as keeping it running would be hypocrisy in the extreme.

As for investigating Aviva - I keep running searches and coming up with results that point to Google having problems with the site. I know you disagree, but that appears to be an issue where we'll simply trade jabs with no results, so let's just call it done. We disagree, and that's OK - SEO is many times an art, since the search engines aren't open and disagreement breeds testing and testing breeds results. Let's see what happens with the links I bought from Aviva.

On the directories you pointed out, let me take a look:

linksfactory.net

- Ranking #1 for online slots factory entertainment detail
- Ranking #3 for wallpapers, free wallpapers, pakistani & indian wallpapers
- Ranking #10 for web directory science and technology animals insects and pets
- Ranking #52 for web directory society activism advice crime
- Ranking #8 for kids directory or teens directory is all about the young or young at heart

Here's what I'd say about these guys - they probably are not under any kind of penalty, but the directory looks really crumby. There's almost no links in any category (and thus, no content). They link to clearly paid sponsors on every page of the site. Most of the links appear to come from other low quality directories, SEO-focused websites, and 10K+ of the links come from BBspot.com.

Would I buy a link from it for a client? No. Do I think it's technically a "worse" resource than Aviva? Absolutely. Do I think Google is penalizing them the same way? No, sadly, though it seems really unfair to me to do it to Aviva and not these guys.

I have to run off for a phone call and an interview and put together my presentation for the Live.com search team on Thurs, but I'll try to come back to this thread tonight and address the other site.

[mvandemar]

Rand, thank you for answering about that directory, and I do hope you come back and answer on the other as well. One quick thing...

Originally Posted by randfish

I know you disagree, but that appears to be an issue where we'll simply trade jabs with no results, so let's just call it done. We disagree, and that's OK - SEO is many times an art

This isn't really about your methods, or at least the bulk of what I posted on my blog wasn't. I have no problem showing you where you were wrong, and a fair amount of confidence that I could actually show you, and that once I did you would agree with me. I even attempted to do so.

The point this became a problem is when you seemed to choose the tactic of simply not replying, making it impossible to politely show you where your error was. I swear, seriously, I could almost see you stick your fingers in your ears, squeeze your eyes shut, and yell, "Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!". When people, such as myself, pointed out things that contradicted what you showed, you didn't even say that they weren't valid, let alone saying why they weren't. You either just repeated what you had already said or, in most cases, said nothing at all.

If you don't have time to honestly discuss this, then you don't have time... but like I said I do hope you at least reply about the other directory, and then I do have something to say about it. Again, if you want me to collect everything in to some easy to follow format that you can answer at your leisure I will be more than happy to do so.

-Michael

[randfish]

Michael - you've got to understand that I was on the first vacation I took in a year. My fiancèe and I really needed that time together. I know this stuff is important and replying to your criticism is important, but last week was horrible timing. (not that this week is terrifically better, but at least I'm at work).

Other directory - DanielMillions.com

- Ranking #3 for web directory recreation air hockey amateur radio
- Ranking #8 for web directory sports billiards online pool
- Ranking #7 for web directory health aging aging services
- Ranking #1 for Daniel Millions
- Ranking #1/2 for DM web directory

This looks very similar to the above directory. I'm thinking they must use the same CMS software. This one is equally as junky, though at least they don't link to paid sponsors on every page. Once again, though, it doesn't look like they have a penalty at Google, which is a shame. There's almost no content in the categories, the few links that do exist aren't particularly valuable and the site itself doesn't seem to be a good resource for any visitor (unless you're aching to get frustrated).

Would I buy a link there? No.

I'll try to continue to be responsive. You really did catch me in a perfect storm timing wise.

[randfish]

BTW - You seem to suggest that I have a pattern of posting irresponsibly without doing research - could you point out the other blog posts of mine that you've felt were bad judgment? I try my best to put together a valuable resource over there, so I'd definitely appreciate your opinion.

[mvandemar]

Rand, waiting for one last bit of research to finish before replying to the directory assessment, but for this statement:

Originally Posted by randfish

BTW - You seem to suggest that I have a pattern of posting irresponsibly without doing research - could you point out the other blog posts of mine that you've felt were bad judgment? I try my best to put together a valuable resource over there, so I'd definitely appreciate your opinion.

I can certainly do that, if that's really what you want. Please reply to the post I made here if you could:

http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64594

Thanks. I will be replying here shortly as well.

-Michael

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by randfish

linksfactory.net... the directory looks really crumby... Would I buy a link from it for a client? No. Do I think it's technically a "worse" resource than Aviva? Absolutely.

Originally Posted by randfish

DanielMillions.com... This one is equally as junky... Would I buy a link there? No.

I am assuming here that you would agree that [web directory] is a highly competitive term... am I correct? It returns 728,000,000 results, has an allinanchor of 3,670,000, and an allintitle of 1,580,000.

The directories that you just classified as not being worth the time from an SEO perspective are currently ranked in Google for [web directory] at #22 and #12 respectively. Not only is Google not penalizing them, Rand, Google has determined that they are highly relevant.

Since this whole discussion is based around how much Google value you get from the directories, don't you think that maybe it might actually be worthwhile to get links from them?

Originally Posted by randfish

Michael - you've got to understand that I was on the first vacation I took in a year.

I know, and I don't blame you for taking a vacation, but the comments you were avoiding started 2 weeks before that. I know mine started on the 27th.

Do you want me to collect a few of the more important ones together?

-Michael