Given that 99% of them are just there to process submitted sites and
give webmasters more backlinks, then of course Google is going to deal
to them.
I have not seen any pattern yet, but if there is to be a pattern, then
I hope the directories that Google favors are those that add value to
the SERP's for the user (and not the webmaster) and does not rely on
sites being submitted.
> Just wondering how many here have directory type sites, that are
> slowly being removed by Google in their search results. It appears
> that Google is slowly sending them to the trash can. I'm looking for
> any pattern here.
YES, of course. BUT 99% of those directories exist to help webmasters
get more links for SEO purposes to manipulate the rankings. Why would
google not penalize them for doing that?
> It isn't backlinks that is killing all of them. I have very few
> backlinks, and one advertisement per page. The content is all updated
> as site visitors submit it, and when I find new info myself. My sites
> are not the only ones getting hammered. Its almost like Google is
> trying to squash any form of directory competition. I have read the
> same from other sites in some SEO chatrooms. I certainly hope they are
> not.
> On Jul 11, 11:31 pm, seo101 wrote:
> > Given that 99% of them are just there to process submitted sites and
> > give webmasters more backlinks, then of course Google is going to deal
> > to them.
> > I have not seen any pattern yet, but if there is to be a pattern, then
> > I hope the directories that Google favors are those that add value to
> > the SERP's for the user (and not the webmaster) and does not rely on
> > sites being submitted.
> > On Jul 12, 12:24 pm, lbcarl wrote:
> > > Just wondering how many here have directory type sites, that are
> > > slowly being removed by Google in their search results. It appears
> > > that Google is slowly sending them to the trash can. I'm looking for
> > > any pattern here.
All those thigns seem to be doign well enough.
Some of them have been going for Years... others are fairly recent
(less than 2 years).
If you look at those though... you will see certain thigns in common.
Additionally, you've got the good old reliable ones...
yell
thomsonlocal
kellysearch
etc.
All of those do pretty damn well too.
It's not Directories...
it's types of directories that get booted.
And it's not even ones that take money for listings or additional
money for advertising... it's what the money is for and how the site
works, and how the listings are displayed, additional information,
resources made avaialbe to users etc.
.
Do the research (and it is a lot of effort).
I spent 6 weeks looking at Directories.
I think I found a total of 10.
Thats it - 10
that were good. They were clean, clear, useful, informative,
friendly, expandable and permitted users to interact.
the rest. cheap pokey * that was there either for SE gain, or money,
or SE gain And money.
Actually, if Google wanted to find directories to penalize, they just
need to hang out at the Directory forum at Digital Pointless - all the
directories being promoted there are just the exact type that Google
needs to ping and also the sites that get submitted to them ... just
look at the quality of the sites in the messages "just just submitted
xyz.com" ...
> All those thigns seem to be doign well enough.
> Some of them have been going for Years... others are fairly recent
> (less than 2 years).
> If you look at those though... you will see certain thigns in common.
> Additionally, you've got the good old reliable ones...
> yell
> thomsonlocal
> kellysearch
> etc.
> All of those do pretty damn well too.
> It's not Directories...
> it's types of directories that get booted.
> And it's not even ones that take money for listings or additional
> money for advertising... it's what the money is for and how the site
> works, and how the listings are displayed, additional information,
> resources made avaialbe to users etc.
> .
> Do the research (and it is a lot of effort).
> I spent 6 weeks looking at Directories.
> I think I found a total of 10.
> Thats it - 10
> that were good. They were clean, clear, useful, informative,
> friendly, expandable and permitted users to interact.
> the rest. cheap pokey * that was there either for SE gain, or money,
> or SE gain And money.
Well... it can be a tricky area.
Technically, Google doesn't have to include Directories, and in a
sense they are competition.
But there are some cracking ones out there... those that target niche
businesses, small focus interests etc.
The ones where someone has spent a lot of time and effort locating
related sites etc. and building a little micro-directory around it.
.
Then there is also the whole 'dual rules' that Google seems to have,
as it it seems to pay attention to some directories, and not others...
and in some ways, you are still paying for a link as well (oaky, you
get a link after paying for and possibly passing a review)...
So it probably boils down to semantics and fine lines in the sand...
the problem being that some people don't knwo where they are (the
lines, not the people ;))
(okay, sometimes the peopel clearly don't know where they are either!
lol).
.
I've been asked to build some 'directory' sites in teh past, and may
have several 'interlinked' projects looming on such a theme.
To make them successful, I deem they simply cannot be a 'directory'.
For a start, they have a small focus audience (local only).
Then there is the introduction of orbiting interests... local
communities, schools, churches, news, events, market dates, Births/
Deaths/MAriiages... the whole slew of things that will help make the
site(s) a focal point for those areas.
Not jsut a poxy 'pay and display' site (which lets face it, is what
most directories are).
Alot of thought and research has to go into a Directory now adays.
It's the ones that don't which get dropped.
The real hoot is when someone simply goes and gets a copy of
DirectoryX in php/asp etc... slaps it on a server, signs up for
AdSense and other adverts... and expects money to roll on in.
sad.
> Then there is also the whole 'dual rules' that Google seems to have,
> as it it seems to pay attention to some directories,
Google do a lot of testing. They will do tests including things like
giving extra weight to links from certain directories; they probably
have done testing including giving link juice from all directories ...
they must not have liked the effect of that on the global search
results --- so devalued those directories. If they increase the value
of a link from any particular directory, it will be because the
results of their testing showed that this improved the overall quality
of the search results...dosen't matter if your or my site is listed or
not; if there is corruption or not; etc..... what matter to Google is
the results of their testing on the quality of the search results.
If all these 'tin pot' directories got dumped, it would because
Google's testing showed they negatively impacted on the quality of the
search results.
without a doubt, if the Dir.s a re mostly filled with *, then they
should be dropped.
It's jsut trying o get across what the criteria is in a fashion that
will encourage proepr compliance... and help 'normal' site owners spot
the * ones and avoid them.
Not an easy task ... and G do seem to be getting better/faster at
releasing info...
but still sucks in the main.
I've noticed that a lot of the small directories are interlinked to
each other. They advertise on each other, they are listed in each
other, and they form link "partnerships" with each other. To Google,
all of this back and forth linking could look like a link exchange
network. Maybe that's why they are being devalued.
> without a doubt, if the Dir.s a re mostly filled with *, then they
> should be dropped.
> It's jsut trying o get across what the criteria is in a fashion that
> will encourage proepr compliance... and help 'normal' site owners spot
> the * ones and avoid them.
> Not an easy task ... and G do seem to be getting better/faster at
> releasing info...
> but still sucks in the main.
Thanks to everyone taking part on this lively thread! I'd have to
agree with Autocrat. As with any type of site, directories with the
most relevant and highest quality content are likely to do better in
our search results. Directories which organize information and present
it in a way that provides the user additional value--beyond going
directly to one of the listed sites--will likely perform better than
directories designed primarily for search engines.
...lbcarl...
as suggested by ...Phil Payne... - there are plenty of situations when
that is going beyond 'reasonable' limits.
Additionally, even if you nofollow such links (and there fore avoid
contravening the guidelines), you are still left diluting your page
content/focus.
I also think that ...gardener... may be onto a very common factor that
could be contributing.
(It doesn't explain all... but surely a very large part).
> Thanks to everyone taking part on this lively thread! I'd have to
> agree with Autocrat. As with any type of site, directories with the
> most relevant and highest quality content are likely to do better in
> our search results. Directories which organize information and present
> it in a way that provides the user additional value--beyond going
> directly to one of the listed sites--will likely perform better than
> directories designed primarily for search engines.
|
