* Have other relevant sites link to yours.
* Submit it to Google at http://www.google.co.uk/addurl.html.
* Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools. Google
uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to
increase our coverage of your web pages.
* Make sure that all the sites that should know about your pages
are aware that your site is online.
* Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open
Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific
expert sites.
Now says:
When your site is ready:
* Submit it to Google at http://www.google.com/addurl.html.
* Submit a Sitemap using Google Webmaster Tools. Google uses your
Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our
coverage of your webpages.
* Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are
aware your site is online.
Yup, I saved screen shots, as I do because they change these things
without notice, ignorance of the law is not a defense in Googleland.
I guess it was only a matter of time, given the way things have been
going.
DMOZ used to be the god of directories [before it rotted to the core],
but for a while now a DMOZ link has only been a good link rather than
an essential one, and I guess it is to be assumed that Yahoo is being
treated the same way.
After all, and I said this when the whole paid links thing first
reared its head, if they're gunning for paid links then Yahoo has to
be included in the process otherwise it becomes a huge 'do no evil'
double standard.
It'll be interesting to see what, if any, rumours start permeating the
spheres about the devaluing of Yahoo directory links in coming months.
> * Have other relevant sites link to yours.
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.co.uk/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools. Google
> uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to
> increase our coverage of your web pages.
> * Make sure that all the sites that should know about your pages
> are aware that your site is online.
> * Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open
> Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific
> expert sites.
> Now says:
> When your site is ready:
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.com/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap using Google Webmaster Tools. Google uses your
> Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our
> coverage of your webpages.
> * Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are
> aware your site is online.
> Yup, I saved screen shots, as I do because they change these things
> without notice, ignorance of the law is not a defense in Googleland.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
(I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
I saw a referral from BOTW on a site once, was probably someone
looking for link exchanges though. Not even sure how the site got in
there to begin with.
I'll take you up on the review of the webmaster guidelines, after I
get an hour nap or so.
> I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> What do you think - does it make sense? :-)
> What else should we change / add / remove?
For my opinion of Google's use of DMOZ, see any one of my rants.
As time goes on, even DMOZ's corruption is being overshadowed by its
inertia. There seems to be no periodic validity check in DMOZ - once
in, in for ever - no matter how moribund the site becomes. It's
egregiously annoying (hence the rants) to see a current site beaten in
the SERPs by one that hasn't been updated for seven years, with the
only obvious cause being a DMOZ entry for the latter.
I had a case only two days ago - what is the maximum CO %age emission
permitted in a pre-catalytic converter UK car? One site (very old and
not updated, but in DMOZ) asserts 4.5%. A more current site states
3.5% (correct) but doesn't come as high in the SERPs because it's not
in DMOZ?
Google is a big boy now. It ought to be able to depend on its own
directories and not on the DMOZ crutch.
But there will be howling and gnashing of teeth when the deed is
done. Not least from DMOZ editors who will have to take up working
for a living.
I think these revamped guidelines make a lot more sense.
Out with submitting to directories of any ilk.
In with trying to convince other sites you exist and your site is
worthy. Deliberately vague, since you certainly don't want to suggest
you should beg for links or trade them in any way.
It's like marriage. In the Western world it's largely a natural
outcome of a successful courtship "campaign". In the Eastern world
it's mostly arranged by proxy, often with much money changing hands in
lieu of courtship. Google's more into Western culture ;)
> I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> * Have other relevant sites link to yours.
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.co.uk/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools. Google
> uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to
> increase our coverage of your web pages.
> * Make sure that all the sites that should know about your pages
> are aware that your site is online.
> * Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open
> Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific
> expert sites.
> Now says:
> When your site is ready:
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.com/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap using Google Webmaster Tools. Google uses your
> Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our
> coverage of your webpages.
> * Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are
> aware your site is online.
> Yup, I saved screen shots, as I do because they change these things
> without notice, ignorance of the law is not a defense in Googleland.
> After all, and I said this when the whole paid links thing first
> reared its head, if they're gunning for paid links then Yahoo has to
> be included in the process otherwise it becomes a huge 'do no evil'
> double standard.
Is "paid links" perhaps a little too simplistic?
There are lots of ways to "arrange" for links that would not
necessarily occur naturally. Many of these methods do not include an
explicit payment in $$ so the webmasters using them implicitly assume
everything is OK because actual cash has not changed hands.
Sometimes the consideration is a return link - should be easy for
Google to spot since it's vanishingly unlikely two relatively
unrelated sites would choose to link to each other within a day or two
at random.
And any site with 11,000 inbound links all using not only the same
anchor text but the exact same markup semantics should expect to have
the lot ignored.
So - should the term not be "arranged links" instead of "paid links" -
the latter appearing simplistic and somewhat misleading.
> I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> What do you think - does it make sense? :-)
> What else should we change / add / remove?
> John
I'm not so much interested in the change regarding whether or not to
recommend adding sites to DMOZ or Yahoo, I don't think naming any
sites in particular is good for guidelines like these. But what about
the general line removed:
Have other relevant sites link to yours.
If you just look at this change, it would suggest that getting
relevant sites to link to yours is not important, or at least is
getting less important. Where I believed, and of course that could be
the problem, that getting relevant sites to link to yours (maybe not
so much directory sites, but quality sites) was 'good for Google'. So
I have to admit I'm a little confused as to why this particular line
was removed as well.
Because links in directories are least relevant of all other links one
might get.
They are obviously not naturally occurring links. You can't possibly
argue that a link being on a page of a directory site adds anything
of value to the content of that page. Oh, sheesh! I forgot - directory
sites only have tons of outgoing links as main content, silly me ;)
> > I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> > just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> > people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> > (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> > listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> > What do you think - does it make sense? :-)
> > What else should we change / add / remove?
> > John
> I'm not so much interested in the change regarding whether or not to
> recommend adding sites to DMOZ or Yahoo, I don't think naming any
> sites in particular is good for guidelines like these. But what about
> the general line removed:
> Have other relevant sites link to yours.
> If you just look at this change, it would suggest that getting
> relevant sites to link to yours is not important, or at least is
> getting less important. Where I believed, and of course that could be
> the problem, that getting relevant sites to link to yours (maybe not
> so much directory sites, but quality sites) was 'good for Google'. So
> I have to admit I'm a little confused as to why this particular line
> was removed as well.
This line was removed because we feel that you should not "force"
other sites to link to yours. Obviously it's good that sites link to
each other, it's fine to encourage that on your sites to link out and
to make it easy for them to link to yours. However, I don't think we
need to make it a part of the guidelines that you should "have other
sites link to yours" -- they should be willing to do that on their
own, it should be their decision not yours.
the changes seem to make sense to me.
In all honesty how many ordinary people use the yahoo directory or
DMOZ except for webmasters or their competitors looking to see if
their sites are in them. In any event isn't Yahoo going to be merged/
phased into MSN making a link in their directory even more worthless
than it already is.
> In all honesty how many ordinary people use the yahoo directory or
> DMOZ except for webmasters or their competitors looking to see if
> their sites are in them.
Everybody, when searching. Although they don't realise it.
Would be good to see a little expansion around the
>When your site is ready
Maybe a link to a list of what may appear basic points to some but
patently are not to others.
Not suggesting Google go into the optimisation field, or even hint at
dictating what a website should contain (I can imagine the rants this
might generate) Just very straightforward points that would apply to
most websites, to an extent drawn from/interpreted from other support
pages and webmaster blog posts but in one place.
Having an essential bullet point type check list from a reliable
source would help many website owners avoid pitfalls and have the
advantage of improving pages in the index. Doesn't have to be a
"guideline" just called "top tips" or whatever seems suitable. This
could give everyone fairly new to the website world (and a few not so
new) an understanding of what works for search indexing and save
Google wasting resources on indexing pages under construction, or
being unable to find valuable information, because those offering this
don't understand how a search engine might find the information.
> I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I
> just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If
> people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors
> (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get
> listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).
> This line was removed because we feel that you should not "force"
> other sites to link to yours.
Mainly after seeing a couple of sites down just because "heavy
linking"- and seeing the rising of sites with relatively few links.
And this sentence was a basic fundametal of "link building" services,
and many linking schemes like this: http://www.viral-link-exchange.com/
If you make a search with quotes for the above mentioned sentence
there are quite much similar "interpretation"- but it's good to see
that the first page relatively "clean"- though the above example was
the ~5-6 result.
> This line was removed because we feel that you should not "force"
> other sites to link to yours. Obviously it's good that sites link to
> each other, it's fine to encourage that on your sites to link out and
> to make it easy for them to link to yours. However, I don't think we
> need to make it a part of the guidelines that you should "have other
> sites link to yours" -- they should be willing to do that on their
> own, it should be their decision not yours.
I think it would help if there could be a bit more
specificity about link exchange.
For example if a site is doing well in search results
and a link (or some links) will penalize the site
out of Google search results, I think it would help if
that would be specified,
maybe in the message center
of Google Webmaster Tools.
Site owners that want to follow guidelines
simply do not know that answering
link exchange calls/offers on sites that look innocuous,
or putting ads in other sites,
can penalize them,
they do not know which links are against guidelines.
I've always thought it was a little confusing for Google to say, paid
links passing PageRank are a violation of Google Webmaster Guidelines
but then suggest submitting ($299 USD) to Yahoo Directory.
I agree that most users don't go to DMOZ but at the same time that
DMOZ has value.
My first thought was that this move might be in preparation for the
"Google Yahoo Deal" as sponsored results display in Yahoo Directory
results?
This seems like a move that will help new webmasters understand the
"spirit" of Google Webmaster Guidelines.
About DMOZ, it is the system that is obsolete (depending on too few
volunteers, etc.)
The format of the results (though outdated) is quite good - you get a
fairly pin point answer to your search WITHOUT all of the "off topic"
information that you get with a Google search.
In other words DMOZ is like a zillion "Niche Directories."
Google could accomplish the same thing by encouraging the growth of
"Niche Directories." All of the tools are already in place - Custom
Search Engine-AdSense-AdWords. You just need to put the package
together by providing
"Profit Motive."
Volunteerism is fine but "Money Talks" and gets attention. Just look
at our current financial crisis - what sane voice is getting attention
- Warren Buffett! (money talking and taking action.)
> About DMOZ, it is the system that is obsolete (depending on too few
> volunteers, etc.)
> The format of the results (though outdated) is quite good - you get a
> fairly pin point answer to your search WITHOUT all of the "off topic"
> information that you get with a Google search.
> In other words DMOZ is like a zillion "Niche Directories."
> Google could accomplish the same thing by encouraging the growth of
> "Niche Directories." All of the tools are already in place - Custom
> Search Engine-AdSense-AdWords. You just need to put the package
> together by providing
> "Profit Motive."
> Volunteerism is fine but "Money Talks" and gets attention. Just look
> at our current financial crisis - what sane voice is getting attention
> - Warren Buffett! (money talking and taking action.)
> On Oct 3, 1:51 pm, JLH wrote:
> > Very true DMOZ is good for providing google with old and busted titles
> > and descriptions, always a handy feature.
> > On Oct 3, 1:12 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > > In all honesty how many ordinary people use the yahoo directory or
> > > > DMOZ ...
> > > A few minutes ago, in Indexing, Searching and Ranking:
> > Google could accomplish the same thing by encouraging the growth of
> > "Niche Directories."
> Google should clean the directories without additional value (99.99%)
> out of it's index.
> On Oct 4, 5:40 pm, BobMorgan wrote:
> > About DMOZ, it is the system that is obsolete (depending on too few
> > volunteers, etc.)
> > The format of the results (though outdated) is quite good - you get a
> > fairly pin point answer to your search WITHOUT all of the "off topic"
> > information that you get with a Google search.
> > In other words DMOZ is like a zillion "Niche Directories."
> > Google could accomplish the same thing by encouraging the growth of
> > "Niche Directories." All of the tools are already in place - Custom
> > Search Engine-AdSense-AdWords. You just need to put the package
> > together by providing
> > "Profit Motive."
> > Volunteerism is fine but "Money Talks" and gets attention. Just look
> > at our current financial crisis - what sane voice is getting attention
> > - Warren Buffett! (money talking and taking action.)
> > On Oct 3, 1:51 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > Very true DMOZ is good for providing google with old and busted titles
> > > and descriptions, always a handy feature.
> > > On Oct 3, 1:12 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > > > In all honesty how many ordinary people use the yahoo directory or
> > > > > DMOZ ...
> > > > A few minutes ago, in Indexing, Searching and Ranking:
Be honest, how many directories are made for adsenses that Google
authorized?
What Google encouraged people to make a few bucks from Adsenses, this
is why you've got tons of crappy directories made only for this.
When I use to list my site on free directories or pay for reviews, I
found some directories using unethical SEO that create from my domain
name hundreds of back links spamming the search engines. What can I do
about this? I also found many directories scraping from the
directories I have submitted. So when reporting the scrapers Google do
not remove the links.
using my domain name to spam your index for YEARS:
0 @0-romance.com >{dating},online,{service},romance,women ... - 6
visits - Jul 31... [email address]|
>hawaiian_natural_skin_care_products,hawaii,
hawaiian,natural_body_care,hawaiian_soaps,handmade_soaps,natural_body_lotio ns ...
findrex.com/RexServer/fdx-approve-free.txt - Similar pages
It is funny that you assume website will link each other when we all
know that one way links are much more powerful than a link exchange. I
don't know for toer sites, but for e-commerce there is a poor
possibility that people will link to products, which mean hundred or
pages from e-commerce.
Let me tell you what we created many interesting articles on our
website for people not for SE. Our articles are ranking pretty well
and visited but no one link back. Oh yes I've got some people scraping
my articles and used them as if they were their own but never have a
link back. I noted that if too much people are copying your articles,
Google will penalize you in your ranking, so Google don't even know
were is the original ! Well I have something else to do beside
writting for hours DMCA.
Again I have been in business more than 3 years with my e-commerce,
all I see is fake comments, fake reviews, paid blogging reviews, fake
coupon created by site you don't even know or coupons site that just
use your domain name without linking back to my domain, etc...
I forgot to say that Google don't even detect sites that revamp my
contents or product descriptions.
I guess there is much more to do for cleaning the Google index and
avoid sites taking advantage of my e-commerce for example.
> This line was removed because we feel that you should not "force"
> other sites to link to yours. Obviously it's good that sites link to
> each other, it's fine to encourage that on your sites to link out and
> to make it easy for them to link to yours. However, I don't think we
> need to make it a part of the guidelines that you should "have other
> sites link to yours" -- they should be willing to do that on their
> own, it should be their decision not yours.
> * Have other relevant sites link to yours.
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.co.uk/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools. Google
> uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to
> increase our coverage of your web pages.
> * Make sure that all the sites that should know about your pages
> are aware that your site is online.
> * Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open
> Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific
> expert sites.
> Now says:
> When your site is ready:
> * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.com/addurl.html.
> * Submit a Sitemap using Google Webmaster Tools. Google uses your
> Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our
> coverage of your webpages.
> * Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are
> aware your site is online.
> Yup, I saved screen shots, as I do because they change these things
> without notice, ignorance of the law is not a defense in Googleland.
Yep, but honestly I think Google has the best technology, and best
search engine ever made.
It is frustrating sometime that my work won't provide the results
expected. I guess when you are the only one taking care of a small e-
commerce, you are still limited compared to big corporations that hire
or can afford a SEO team.
Anyway, I wish Google will not put off the little guys like me.
> > * Have other relevant sites link to yours.
> > * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.co.uk/addurl.html.
> > * Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools. Google
> > uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to
> > increase our coverage of your web pages.
> > * Make sure that all the sites that should know about your pages
> > are aware that your site is online.
> > * Submit your site to relevantdirectoriessuch as the Open
> > Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific
> > expert sites.
> > Now says:
> > When your site is ready:
> > * Submit it to Google athttp://www.google.com/addurl.html.
> > * Submit a Sitemap using Google Webmaster Tools. Google uses your
> > Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our
> > coverage of your webpages.
> > * Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are
> > aware your site is online.
> > Yup, I saved screen shots, as I do because they change these things
> > without notice, ignorance of the law is not a defense in Googleland.- Hide quoted text -
|
