Rand Fishkin vs Aviva

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You don't know Ebonics? I'm thinking of getting the SEO blog translated into Ebonics to target that niche.

LOL, go for it.

[randfish]

John - I'm suprised to see you taking an attack route on this, especially a personal one. The last few meetings and phone calls we've shared have always been so positive and friendly...

I think it's perfectly fair to disagree that rankings for certain phrases aren't a good indicator of link value - I think they are, other think they aren't and disagreeing on these topics seems fine. But, attacking me and SEOmoz seems out of character...

I also believe someone insinuated that we're charging for promoting directories somewhere. That's certainly not the case. We have a list of directories that we think are valuable (mostly college professors' lists, library resources, specific industry directories and that sort) but we sourced them privately and never requested a listing fee.

As for Aviva - I'm in direct email touch with Jeff, who runs Aviva and we're certainly not antagonistic. I'm actually trying to help him sort out why his site doesn't rank for terms and phrases that it obviously should be ranking for.

I'm hopeful that this debate could switch gears from a "how much does SEOmoz suck" to a "what criteria are valuable to determine if certain directories are worth submitting to/paying for" discussion.

Also - someone else noted that our page strength tool has been having some accuracy issues. We were running at about 60-65% accuracy (which is dismal, I admit) and are up to about 80-85% currently (which is still bad, but we're trying our best). The popularity of the tool is what's causing so many problems, as I discuss (and our lead developer details) here - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboar...i-had-a-hammer

Sorry I check in here so infrequently - feel free to email me if you've got specific concerns.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by randfish

John - I'm suprised to see you taking an attack route on this, especially a personal one. The last few meetings and phone calls we've shared have always been so positive and friendly...

I think it's perfectly fair to disagree that rankings for certain phrases aren't a good indicator of link value - I think they are, other think they aren't and disagreeing on these topics seems fine. But, attacking me and SEOmoz seems out of character...

I also believe someone insinuated that we're charging for promoting directories somewhere. That's certainly not the case. We have a list of directories that we think are valuable (mostly college professors' lists, library resources, specific industry directories and that sort) but we sourced them privately and never requested a listing fee.

As for Aviva - I'm in direct email touch with Jeff, who runs Aviva and we're certainly not antagonistic. I'm actually trying to help him sort out why his site doesn't rank for terms and phrases that it obviously should be ranking for.

I'm hopeful that this debate could switch gears from a "how much does SEOmoz suck" to a "what criteria are valuable to determine if certain directories are worth submitting to/paying for" discussion.

Also - someone else noted that our page strength tool has been having some accuracy issues. We were running at about 60-65% accuracy (which is dismal, I admit) and are up to about 80-85% currently (which is still bad, but we're trying our best). The popularity of the tool is what's causing so many problems, as I discuss (and our lead developer details) here - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboar...i-had-a-hammer

Sorry I check in here so infrequently - feel free to email me if you've got specific concerns.

Welcome back Rand, long time no see.

[jhnrang]

Originally Posted by David E

2nd for SEO blog, and there blog posts generally rank well high.

Dave - Just to emphasize my point-- I write an article titled " Google and Relevancy and Role of Modern Web Directories " -- few days back and my blog is fairly new.( not an authority site like SEOMOZ) -- but I am already on # 12 for the term "Role of Web Directories". I know Nobody would search for that term-- but not bad either for a new blog.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Role+...&start=10&sa=N
DC - http://72.14.235.104/

Originally Posted by bestoptimized

I was just pointing out that jhnrang was wrong about the overture numbers.
I almost never use overture anymore because it is out of date (I am pretty sure I read that the data is now over 6 months old but I might be wrong) and it is not accurate.

I can agree with you here. Overture figures are not correct and quite Old. But so are all other online tools. They can at best give an indication -- am I right?

[jhnrang]

Originally Posted by randfish

I also believe someone insinuated that we're charging for promoting directories somewhere. That's certainly not the case. We have a list of directories that we think are valuable (mostly college professors' lists, library resources, specific industry directories and that sort) but we sourced them privately and never requested a listing fee.

Hi Rand -- nice to see your response. But I would just like to voice my concerns about issues that is bringing SEOMOZ/You in conflict with directory owners.
I know everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. But it is also true that --"you get what you ask for".
When you think Aviva Directory -- is not a quality directory --there will always be concerns raised against validity or integrity of SEOMOZ. Because Aviva directory must rank among the Top 10 of all web directories online -based on its link-quality, listing quality and the way Jeff market it.

If you think a directory is not good -just because it has little SERPs -- check
Directory Dump Web Directory -- type ******* directory as keywords --you will get it within top 100-- for as many terms as you type.

Originally Posted by randfish

As for Aviva - I'm in direct email touch with Jeff, who runs Aviva and we're certainly not antagonistic. I'm actually trying to help him sort out why his site doesn't rank for terms and phrases that it obviously should be ranking for.

Thats really commendable. But I think Jeff does not need all that SERPs. A directory's main role is to help other sites RANK. Jeff is doing more than that.

Originally Posted by randfish

I'm hopeful that this debate could switch gears from a "how much does SEOmoz suck" to a "what criteria are valuable to determine if certain directories are worth submitting to/paying for" discussion.

It will be really nice if you go FIRST AT THIS TOO. Very eager to know what is your criteria --of a quality web directory that you pay for.

Just a hint-- SERPs of a particular directory comes outside top 10 points -the way I value a Quality Directory.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by randfish

John - I'm suprised to see you taking an attack route on this, especially a personal one. The last few meetings and phone calls we've shared have always been so positive and friendly...

You shouldn't consider it a personal attack. I am attacking a post, but not you personally. In fact, more than an attack it is a defense of Aviva, whose livelihood was attacked.

Originally Posted by randfish

I think it's perfectly fair to disagree that rankings for certain phrases aren't a good indicator of link value - I think they are, other think they aren't and disagreeing on these topics seems fine. But, attacking me and SEOmoz seems out of character...

I do disagree with using that criteria to judge a web directory. There are more useful and meaningful criteria. And again, I did not attack you personally or SEOmoz as an organization. I did attack the statement issued by you and yours that attacked Aviva.

If you think I was anything other than restrained in my response, I would suggest you re-read your attack on Aviva. It was entirely uncalled-for, an the tone of the attack was demeaning.

Originally Posted by randfish

I'm hopeful that this debate could switch gears from a "how much does SEOmoz suck" to a "what criteria are valuable to determine if certain directories are worth submitting to/paying for" discussion.

I never said SEOmoz sucks, but I do understand the sentiments of members who said that. You viciously attacked a member of this community. If somebody attacked you without provocation, we would defend you in the same manner.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by randfish

I'm hopeful that this debate could switch gears from a "how much does SEOmoz suck" to a "what criteria are valuable to determine if certain directories are worth submitting to/paying for" discussion.

...

Sorry I check in here so infrequently - feel free to email me if you've got specific concerns.

If you didn't resign yourself to just posting your thoughts on SEOmoz, you could have a hand in clarifying your points and steering the debate.

Good luck though. I've been posting on the subject for several weeks now (here, at DP, at vilesilencer and other places) and few directory owners seem interested in engaging the subject.

[maldives]

Originally Posted by randfish

Also - someone else noted that our page strength tool has been having some accuracy issues. We were running at about 60-65% accuracy (which is dismal, I admit) and are up to about 80-85% currently (which is still bad, but we're trying our best). The popularity of the tool is what's causing so many problems, as I discuss (and our lead developer details) here - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboar...i-had-a-hammer

It was me Yes it is very dissapointing to see false results again & again especially when a payment is required to use the tool. Lets not discuss about the accuracy percentage but, as customers we want to see it functioning 100% accurately.

[randfish]

John - very glad to hear we're discussing subject matter and not attacking one another. I know that line gets blurred, particularly when I say that a directory doesn't provide value (when its owner clearly derives their livelihood from submissions).

I will still argue that rankings are an excellent way to detect the value of a site in its ability to pass link juice. At least for Google, every bit of hands-on experience combined with our tests on nonsense terms and phrases suggests that of all the elements one could possibly use to judge the value of a link, that site's own rankings for its targeted terms/phrases and, in particular, its rankings for the terms/phrases you want to target are at the top of the list.

If you've got some sites or testing pages to show off that would debunk this, I'd be thrilled to see it (obviously).

[rankland]

I believe when we talk about avia directory, we talk about solid promotion. When we talk about v7n we see link popularity, great promotion, and alot of knowledge.
Sorry seomoz/ randfish never heard of you to today, but im sure you have a good site, because i guess you have a pr 7. My goal on the board is # 1 serp position , and trust me i have alot of that.

[bobmutch]

Er your site does rank in the top 500 for "Information Web Directory".

#232
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...+Web+Directory

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.

Now common sense tells us you don't take one word and see how a site ranks for it but I think taking your title "Information - Avivia Web Directory" and removing the Aviva out of it and seeing how you rank is very fair.

Look at Rands site title.
SEO - Search Engine Optimization | Read SEOmoz, Rank Better

Here is how he rankings:

SEO #25
Search Engine Optimization #19
Read SEOmoz #1
Rank Better #1

The title tag is one of the optimization items that Search Engines give the most weight to. In Rands survey of 37 SEO experts the title tag was ranked the highest with a rating for 4.9 out of 5.
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#f3

Seeing how a site rankings for their title tags tells you a lot about the authority a site has -- if the title tag is completive.

Also that doesn't mean looking to see the number of results as blue and pink dogs has a page results of 2.9 million.
http://www.google.com/search?q=blue+and+pink+dogs

But put the title into quotes and you will see there only 9 pages.
http://www.google.com/search?q="blue+and+pink+dogs"

Putting a key phrase in quotes or searching using the allintitle:keyword will show give you a better idea how competitive the key phrase is.

For example title optimization has the following results
61 million no quotes
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=title+optimization
40k in quotes
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...+optimization"

And blog titles has the following results
47 million no quotes
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blog+titles
110k in quotes
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="blog+titles"

My blog http://seo.seocompany.ca/ rankings on the first page for both these terms just based on on-page optimization.

That tells you my blog has good authority.

I think this was Rands point. To show that not very many directories have high ranking authority by showing that they don't rank well for competitive phrases they have in their title tags.

So while it smarts to have him name your site out on his point making, it is a valid point in my opinion.

While I think this is a valid point it is not my experience that having high ranking authority is needed to give value to inbound links from a site. ~40% to 60% of my $415k income last year was from link building with directories so I can say that I have experience in this area. I find that getting links from directories are not only "Google blessed" links but they are the best bang for the buck links out there.

Directories that give multiple deep links where you can put the key phrase you are targeting with out having to add your domain or company name in the anchor text works the best.

Your Aviva Directory is one of the directories I put my clients in and while it may or may not have high ranking authority and its categories pages may or may not rank high for the title tag phrase -- it still provides value for the price.

So what I would do is look at category titles on your directory and see how they rank. Best to look for 2 or 3 word phrases that have 30k plus results when they are in quotes. This will tell you a lot about the authority your directory has.

The following will help you to rank better for your titles.

1. Put only the key phrase you are targeting in your title tag only.
2. Put the same key phrase in the URL, meta description/keywords, h1/h2 tags, bold in the first paragraph.
3. Do internal linking to the page with the same key phrase in the anchor text.

[rankland]

[quote=bobmutch;657316]Er your site does rank in the top 500 for "Information Web Directory

Bob mutch since im a local and regional directory i wonder what i rate in those keys. local and regional web directory
local and regional internet directory
regional web directory
local and regional
These are my type keywords, because i have local and regional searches.

[bobmutch]

Also I would like to say calling a persons testing methods dishonest is very close to a personal attack and border line unprofessional even in the hostile post-rage SEO forum world.

It's one of the reasons I don't post much any more on SEO forums. The post-rage made me sick and the lack of ops monitoring the post-rage made me sick to : )

[bobmutch]

>>>Bob mutch since im a local and regional directory i wonder what i rate in those keys. local and regional web directory
local and regional internet directory
regional web directory
local and regional

Check with Google and you tell us.

[tdd1984]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

Also I would like to say calling a persons testing methods dishonest is very close to a personal attack and border line unprofessional even in the hostile post-rage SEO forum world.

It's one of the reasons I don't post much any more on SEO forums. The post-rage made me sick and the lack of ops monitoring the post-rage made me sick to : )

I'd have to agree, I have been attacks several times in the forums, but anymore I just kind of laugh about it, or I'm like hmm interesting.