News Source: http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
Published: Jan 27, 2008 - 06:39 pm
Story Found By: mvandemar 1478 Days ago
Category: Sphinn Zone
14 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
Published: Jan 27, 2008 - 06:39 pm
Story Found By: mvandemar 1478 Days ago
Category: Sphinn Zone
14 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX West - Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 2012
- SMX Munich - Mar. 27-28, 2012
- SMX Toronto - Apr. 25-26, 2012
- SMX Sydney - May 1-2, 2012
- SMX London - May 15-16, 2012
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Aug. 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Sept. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 2012
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Marketing Day: February 10, 2012
- Report: iPhone, iPad Now Drive More Web Traffic Than Mac OS
- Drawing Out Your Affiliate Program Marketing Plan
- Is Yahoo About To Make Another Big Mistake — With Its Display Ad Business?
- Google Analytics For The Enterprise: Perception & Reality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- The Inside Scoop on Automating and Optimizing Your PPC Campaigns - February 21, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google’s Recent Domain Registrations: Labs, Screenwise & AdWords
- Google AdWords Gets Shared Lists To Eliminate Duplicate Data Entry
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, February 10, 2012
- Now, Mitt Romney Has A Santorum-Like Bing & Google Problem
- Search In Pics: Google Sugar Cube, Yahoo Valentines & Chrome M&M’s
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Some good points raised. Hope Matt replies.Google’s webmasters’ central advices webmasters to submit to industry specific directories and at the moment I am in the process of developing a quality shopping directory. If Donna, an industry leader in herself is termed as SPAMMER- then I don’t know what people would think of my integrity. Ooops.
I think the difference is that the Yahoo directory was always built to provide a useful user experience - whereas paid blog posts have become an industrial-scale method specifically to target Google.Intent is completely different - I think that’s the big qualifier.I don’t think Donna is being labelled a spammer at all - more that Google saw fit to trust her site less. I think it’s a big difference.2c.
iBrian, I don’t personally care if 99% of the people out there doing paid reviews are putting out crap that doesn’t improve the user experience... that’s not the case when someone of Donna’s caliber does a review.I can also pretty much guarantee you people who know better do not pay $300/year for their Yahoo links because if *traffic*, especially considering the vast majority of them will get absolutely none from it. They do it in hopes of gaining trust to their site from Google, and thus improve their rankings. Period.
@ Jill, affiliate links still draw revenuw, so they are paid, therefore evil..@ iBrian, The Yahoo! directory may have started as a valuable resource, but it’s anything but that these days.. Now it’s just a collection paid links with little to no review, just show them the money..I’d take a well researched paid review from Donna, or Andy, or any one of a thousand of people over a crappy link from Yahoo!.. It has more value for everyone involved..
Google can’t go after the Yahoo paid links, or at least that’s what I said over on http://sphinn.com/story/25398#c28870
Just wish to mention that I have submitted to Sphinn today a related post:Does Google Have A Search Revenues Monopoly Issue?
Yeah, in regards to the Yahoo directory, I’m pretty sure they spend little to no time perusing that thing for quality. Seeing as how you really don’t have to pay for renewal of links (there’s stuff in there I know for a fact stopped getting renewed up to 5 years ago) and there is a cottage industry around buying up expired domains strictly for the Yahoo Directory link they still have. That directory is not at all what Matt describes. And really, it’s none of Google’s business the quality of a site they don’t own. Just don’t value the backlink, problem solved. No need to try and turn webmasters into tattle-tale rats and label people and whole business models as crooks when the reality is you just can’t figure out how to improve the issue from an engineering standpoint like you are supposed to. Stop whining and fix your own algo.
Where is it going to end ... Perhaps Google should heed previous warnings. Just look what happened to Yahoo/Altavista etc.Whilst I understand the thought and ideals behind much of what they do - I do have some doubts as to whether all of the current ’improvements’ are indeed in the best interests of the user
The main issue here and as I explained in my today’s post (previous mentioned link) is:Matt Cutts hasn’t been clear at all about defining what Google considers as a trusted directory and a trusted industry expert site . However, one can read between Matt Cutts lines something which might indicates what Matt Cutts and Google consider a trusted directory is a site meeting the following requirements: - No guaranteed listing for all submitted URLs - High quality listed URLs (relevant, objective, not spamming) - Fees to cover mostly efforts of editors doing the reviews Once Matt Cutts confirm above, several publishers would be glad to create such sites or modefied their current sites to meet above requirements.
#1, okay, I can see that goes to quality... #2, totally not a definable variable, 100% opinion and open to too much abuse by The Watchers... #3, welcome to the free market economy Google, you know, that thing that changed you from a fun little search tool into an international advertising juggernaut. I find it completely reprehensible that Google can be making such big forays into the advertising world, making it’s stock prices soar to incredible heights as a result, but then turn around and tell people they can’t sell links. It makes sense to ask people to review their links and not accept them outright, but it is none of their business how much or if at all people charge for them.Again, if you don’t want that affect your link-based algo, then figure out how to devalue their affect, but don’t go around penalizing the sites themselves that run directories. Believe it or not Google, people, as in humans and not bots, click on links and travel around the internet in ways other than your search results.
Google’s not telling people they can’t sell links. They’re telling people that if they sell links, they have to clearly indicate it for the benefit of Google. If you think about it a bit, that second attitude is much more concerning. Have your papers ready, they can be checked at any point.
Quote from Harith: ..."Matt Cutts hasn’t been clear at all about defining what Google considers as a trusted directory and a trusted industry expert site . However, one can read between Matt Cutts lines..."He’s been pretty clear on what he looks for in directories, there’s a good write up on it here which I suspect is where you got your points: http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013491.htmlFor me, the bigger question continues to be - why can’t Google add these types of comments to their official Google blogs/webmaster rules? I appreciate the insight Matt Cutts and others share on their personal blogs and the fact they take the time to comment on private blogs, but fail to understand why a company the size and magnitude of Google continues to rely on an employee’s personal opinion to filter out as fact.Google is a huge and powerful company with financial resources to match, surely they can hire people for their reinclusion department so situation’s like Donna’s are the exception rather than the norm.
I still just don’t get how Google’s super advanced spiders can’t tell if two sites are really related, regardless of whether the link is paid or not. I think relevancy has little to nothing to do with being paid or not, and can’t believe Google thinks that whether or not it’s paid should have more or less to do with determining rankings than plain old relevancy.
@ mvandemar: Favorite Sphinn Headline of the YEAR- Upload an avatar and join the party...or maybe you can be THE purple circle.