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 |
  #241  
Old 08-10-2007, 02:19 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #242  
Old 08-10-2007, 03:27 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
 
  #243  
Old 08-10-2007, 07:06 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
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
 
  #244  
Old 08-13-2007, 10:47 PM
bobmutch's Avatar
bobmutch bobmutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-01-04
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
>>>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.
 
  #245  
Old 08-13-2007, 10:56 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch View Post
>>>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
 
  #246  
Old 08-13-2007, 11:11 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Perhaps you could both agree to disagree?
 
  #247  
Old 08-14-2007, 12:38 AM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.

Quote:
Michael,
As youíve asked me to over email, Iíll try to address your concerns here on your blog.

The series of events as youíve 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 - Iím 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 - Iíd 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. Youíre certainly free to disagree, and youíve 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, Iím surprised you didnít go this route to help prove me wrong - no evidence would be more damning.

In any case, Iíve done so tonight - bought a couple links to different pages and weíll see what the results look like.

Hopefully Iíve addressed your concerns - let me know if there are other pieces youíd 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.
 
  #248  
Old 08-14-2007, 04:16 AM
tantantin tantantin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 04-12-06
Location: Homeless
Posts: 775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Wow theres John Stewart / Howard Stern wannabe.

Last edited by tantantin; 08-14-2007 at 04:27 AM.
 
  #249  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:09 AM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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 Iíve addressed your concerns
Not really, but before we get to what they actually are:

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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
 
  #250  
Old 08-14-2007, 02:07 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantantin View Post
Wow theres John Stewart / Howard Stern wannabe.
Let's keep the discussion nominally polite, guys
 
  #251  
Old 08-14-2007, 02:15 PM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
 
  #252  
Old 08-14-2007, 02:31 PM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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
 
  #253  
Old 08-14-2007, 03:58 PM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
 
  #254  
Old 08-14-2007, 04:00 PM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
 
  #255  
Old 08-15-2007, 06:52 AM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Rand, waiting for one last bit of research to finish before replying to the directory assessment, but for this statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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
 
  #256  
Old 08-15-2007, 09:08 AM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
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
 
  #257  
Old 08-15-2007, 09:36 AM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Michael - I think it's a matter of opinion. To me, those two sites have very bad signs about their quality. Every aspect of them tells me they weren't created as high quality resources, but as ways to sell "PageRank" or "link juice" or whatever you want to call it.

Here's how I look at it - if I were Matt Cutts, browsing those sites, would I want them to pass link value and help sites get rankings? Is paying $20-$50 for a listing there really a good way of telling Google that you're more relevant to a specific term/phrase? I think the answer is clearly NO.

Even if they currently have some link value - even if right now I could buy links from a hundred directories like that and rank based on those links, I think it's a poor strategy in the long term, because their value will be cut. Search engineers are very smart folks and their goal is constantly to produce higher and higher relevance for users. Directories like those are not, in my opinion, the types of sites that search engines would want to see providing value.

All that said, I think we're aeguing relatively pointlessly - if we wanted to test the value, we should just do as I did with Aviva and buy some links from them and see what kind of return we get.

And, yes, I'd very much appreciate collecting some of the important criticism about SEOmoz - I'll do my best to make time to address it all as best I can.
 
  #258  
Old 08-15-2007, 09:57 AM
mvandemar mvandemar is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 07-27-07
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
All ranking values change daily for Google. I'm quite sure that some of the directories you would recommend today you would have called worthless, or even had no reason to know about them, 2-3 years ago. Hell, it's not even a certainty that Google itself will be a major player 2-3 years from now. You need to go based on what you can see right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
All that said, I think we're aeguing relatively pointlessly
Actually, my point is that you are using obscure queries based on Google rankings to determine value for directories, and ignoring Google rankings on highly competitive phrases when the results don't suit your conclusions. Would that be a fair assessment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randfish View Post
And, yes, I'd very much appreciate collecting some of the important criticism about SEOmoz
I was asking if you wanted me to collect a few of the more salient criticisms of your methodologies that I had accused you of ignoring, here and elsewhere. Would you like me to do that? I can get some of the SEOmoz ones at a later time.

-Michael
 
  #259  
Old 08-15-2007, 05:10 PM
randfish's Avatar
randfish randfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 09-08-04
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
You need to go based on what you can see right now.
No - that's how spammers work. They see that a technique is working NOW, so they pursue it. In long term SEO, you need to think ahead.

I believe my queries are valid, you don't. Let's give up arguing about it already. I'm obviously not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. As I've already said, I think it's fine to have different opinions about how the search engines function and what information queries provide, but this quibbling is getting us nowhere.

And yes, I'd love to hear your other criticisms and try to address them as I have time. That's greatly appreciated.
 
  #260  
Old 08-16-2007, 05:50 AM
anthonycea anthonycea is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 03-27-04
Location: USA
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvandemar View Post
All ranking values change daily for Google. I'm quite sure that some of the directories you would recommend today you would have called worthless, or even had no reason to know about them, 2-3 years ago. Hell, it's not even a certainty that Google itself will be a major player 2-3 years from now. You need to go based on what you can see right now.



Actually, my point is that you are using obscure queries based on Google rankings to determine value for directories, and ignoring Google rankings on highly competitive phrases when the results don't suit your conclusions. Would that be a fair assessment?



I was asking if you wanted me to collect a few of the more salient criticisms of your methodologies that I had accused you of ignoring, here and elsewhere. Would you like me to do that? I can get some of the SEOmoz ones at a later time.

-Michael
Mike, I have an entire collection of YOUR METHODOLOGIES and the tactics you use to boost your ego and to attention whore out here, just like you did here in attacking Rand in a vain attempt to make a name for yourself.

Would you like me to put this collection together and publish it and wait for you to answer ??

I highly doubt you could come up with anything that is logical to justify any of your lunacy.

Last edited by anthonycea; 08-16-2007 at 05:55 AM.
 
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 08:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC