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.

An easy way to increase your page ranking is to submit your site to blog directories. But, what if you learned that a popular blog directory you were submitting to was using methods that prevented their site from passing PageRank to you? What would your thoughts be then?
Comments64 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2655 Days ago #
Votes: 9

Disclaimer: I do a little consulting with Blogcatalog This article is factually incorrect, because there is nothing wrong with using onclick to track clicks. That is clearly what Blogcatalog are doing, because clicks are being reported in the interface, and are part of their rating system. Don’t believe me? Similar tracking is also used with Google Analytics http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/blog/advanced-google-analytics/ Before the current owners took over, all links were nofollowed and went through a redirect script, and that is the case for most of the Blog directories, most of them do horde Google Juice. When I first saw Blogcatalog, one of the things I mentioned in my very first review were the redirects and nofollows they were using. Blogcatalog removed the nofollow from the links, and changed the way they did their click tracking to use the javascipt onclick. The humans get tracked The robot goes to the correct link As far as the very small article snippets with a redirect link that is nofollowed, that effectively means more juice eventually goes to other links on the page that are folowed, including to the profiles of people leaving reviews etc. The majority of the external links on Blogcatalog are to the member blogs, but the total juice is spread fairly thin. I should also note that Technorati also have snippets of all your content, as do other services, and they all use nofollow as well. As to whether Blogcatalog as a whole is providing link value to blogs that are listed, that is almost impossible to determine accurately. Google does not report all links to a domain Here are some top domains that have linked to me in the last few months not being reported by the link: command SearchEngineLand Probloger Techcrunch John Battelle I don’t know of a major reason why links from Blogcatalog would be totally discounted. They do have a few sponsored links on category pages, but they are not selling links on individual profiles or blog profiles. They also currently have over 200,000 pages in the primary SERPs, and around 500,000 supplemental. Blocking off those links to articles does help the site as a whole get indexed better, thus helping the deeper listings. To compare, MyBlogLog has 138,000 pages in the primary index, and 438,000 in total, so 300,000 pages supplemental. Maybe I am biased, because I have a small minority stake if they ever flip the site, but I don’t think they are doing too badly.

Avatar
from DanThies 2655 Days ago #
Votes: 7

I would hate to see this place turn into Digg, but sometimes I really want a "vote down" option for stuff that’s in error.

Avatar
from cre8pc 2655 Days ago #
Votes: 4

More hysteria from helicopter SEO’s. I saw a brief statement somewhere that someone was sticking on "nofollow" on banner and ad placement links AFTER their customer paid them for their spots. What is happening to site owners? Have some of them become so frightened of search engines they resort to actions like this? Every marketing account manager I know, with experience with creatives, knows what their URL will look like. No one has ever said, "We won’t buy space from you because Google can’t follow the JavaScript." There are reasons for not wanting bots to follow links. In the case of forums, if we let every outbound link people "link drop" inside posts and their signatures to promote themselves out the gate, free and clear, forums would cease to be indexed. Search engines would take one look at all those low PR links, banned sites, sheer volume of outbound links and other mess and pass on by. It’s so easy to call someone a "black hat" for their practices until they need to protect their own web property from being sucked by PR vultures. No sphinn from me.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2655 Days ago #
Votes: -6

Andy feel free to argue it to the cows comes home. The fact is Onclick Java does not pass pagerank. cre8pc you miss the point. Blogger submit to this directory thinking that they are getting PageRank and are receiving no PR at all. Dan how the heck is it in error? It is all there in black and white for you. They use onclick Java which does not pass PageRank.

Avatar
from cre8pc 2655 Days ago #
Votes: 5

Page rank value can’t be the only reason they submit to it, I hope. New directories have to fight hard to get their own PR status up to par before they can begin to solicit submissions. Site owners upset over possibly not getting a PR boost completely miss the additional value of submitting to directories. Links are clicked on by people. That has to count for something.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2655 Days ago #
Votes: -6

It is true that most directories start from zero, and do not pass PageRank until they climb. But BlogCatalog has been around forever. They are not a new directory. BlogCatalog was already well established with 60,000 visits a month, a PageRank of 7 and monthly revenue of $1725 when it was sold to Angelica and Antony Berkman on Sitepoint for the price of $40000. At the time of sale BlogCatalog had 73,000 blog owners already on their mailing list. People submit to BlogCatalog because they do have a pagerank of seven and are well established. They are not classified as just a directory anymore. They are a network and still request a link back. Therefore they are benefiting, but bloggers are not. Yes the site may send the odd bit of traffic, but it does not pass on any Pagerank at all. That really is the subject here. Correct?

Avatar
from ShawnDesRochers 2654 Days ago #
Votes: -5

Correction Mr. Andy Beard. Matt Cutts & Brian Davis of Google.com both comment on this sneaky method of using JavaScript onclick in URLS. There statements agree with my review, that Blog Catalog does not pass Pagerank because of the onclick function in the URL tag of each and every blog listed. Also each blog listed that has included their RSS feed has a nofollow tag attributed in the Recent Post section of their blog listing. So the bloggers get nothing out of it, as far as Pagerank or backlinks for doing so yet Blog Catalog gets free content. So please check your references before stating something is false, and insure you know what your talking about before claiming to detour someone that knows what their doing. I am not attacking Blog Catalog so I hope know one deceives this post as that; because they do offer some benefits to bloggers looking at increasing readership or traffic from users of Blog Catalog clicking through the directory. From an SEO stand point they offer nothing of any value -- each blog listed with Blog Catalog will not see an increase in Google Pagerank from being listed with them. So are the only benefits of listing your blog with Blog Catalog is receiving a few measly hits? Then what’s the point of submitting to them anyway? Blog Catalog stats their different because of their community and the Bloggers that take part, yet their screwing them over so that they can benefit by increasing their backlinks and Google Pagerank? Gosh, that shoots the crap out of their statement. I Quote from Blog Catalogs owner Tony - “Blog Catalog truly cares for their members.” If they cared they wouldn’t be using such methods. Let the blogosphere decide http://www.invision-graphics.com/ftopicp-136.html Shawn DesRochers

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Judging from the published code the links don’t pass link juice, but I didn’t check whether the crawlers see something else coz the problem is a non-issue IMO. Directories ...

Avatar
from ladynada 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 4

blog catalog is also a community, and I like it for that aspect. I wonder how a similar research on blogskinny would come out? I like them and seem to get mucho juice from them for my blog nada

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2654 Days ago #
Votes: -5

Lady well this post is not about blogskinny. The post is about the fact that BlogCatalog does not pass PageRank. What of that is hard to comprehend?

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Blog post coming - you didn’t try to prove your facts, you just assumed your interpretation of the discussion was correct. I just grabbed a screenshot of a Google SERP result proving that the links are passing juice, at least some of them.

Avatar
from cre8pc 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 4

Rose, Thank for you hanging in there on this. I’ve "Sphunn" it because you’re not backing down and I admire that. I appreciate the learning experience, which in this industry, never ends :)

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 5

Here is the link to my own research including evidence of links passing juice. http://sphinn.com/story/5432 I have sphunn this story as well, it really would be good for Matt to clear this thing up once and for all as it has been confusing webmasters for 2 years or more. The Blogcatalog guys are more than willing to change the way they do their tracking, if it turns out that that would make their links clearer to Google, but that would also possibly "hide" the way they are tracking things, which in some ways is also confusing for users.

Avatar
from TimDineen 2654 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Why so bitter? If you’re using that site for PageRank, as you say most do : "Blogger[s] submit to this directory thinking that they are getting PageRank and are receiving no PR at all." and IF they don’t pass PageRank then you’re barking up the wrong tree anyway. Take your time and effort elsewhere. It’s their choice to put an end to all of you who are just seeking to take advantage or abuse them. Don’t visit and don’t submit - that’s your choice you can make.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2654 Days ago #
Votes: -2

I’m not bitter at all. I’m just stating the facts. I recommend that you read this. It may look like a clear link, but is does not pass PR. http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=90316 It is a discussion where Matt Cutts and Brian White both from Google mention that OnClick Java does not pass PageRank. If you look closely you will see that it is very similar to what BC uses. Tim, you are missing the point here.

Avatar
from ShawnDesRochers 2654 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Hello Andy Beard, it does not. All this proves is some links - show up in a search engine inquiry! Thus allowing Google.com to include it in their index(s). But Matt Cutts and Brian White have already stated on SearchEngineWatch that onlick will NEVER PASS GOOGLE JUICE. http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=90316 Look at that forum thread very close, and the similarities of the URL posted, Matt Cutts and Brian White state they will not pass Google Juice because of the onclick function provokes different behavior. So you’re blowing smoke, Andy Beard. Examine that thread and then come back to me, on your take of the discussion that took place on SearchEngineWatch.com. Shawn DesRochers

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2654 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Thank you cre8pc. lol

Avatar
from TimDineen 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 4

I’m not disputing your points or disagreeing with post, but I do think you’re taking this way too personally and that to me is indicitive of something... Singling out one blog directory lends to the appearance that there is a reason you are so upset about this one site’s tactics or faux paus. Maybe you spent a lot of time trying to spam their pages and just realized your efforts aren’t going to get you anywhere? You’re not bitter? Why jump on ladynada for a question about something similar? At least be civil when you’re ranting. Personally, I dislike posts like this which single out one website to attack. A review of several top blog catalogs together would be more appropriate and useful to the community.

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 4

Rose and Shawn, you are both pointing me in the direction of an article I have read and extensively quoted from in my article. Most SEOs would generally take it that if a link shows up when doing a link:domain.com query, then Google probably count it. I had to go through 10 blogs to find it, but that is typical. Yahoo report 28,600 links to my site, though that goes up and down, it has been has high as 40,000 Google report 864, but if you go through them, then it stops before you hit 200 which show very few of my better links. The situation with the Washington Post is different to that of Blogcatalog. The only facts are that Google really should give clear information about which links count, and clearer information for webmasters, but I am sure Google also have very good reasons not to provide such information. That then means that very little within SEO is looked on as fact. I believe this is what you call sufficient facts Matt and the Google Webmaster guidelines talk about sneaky javascript, but are referring to javascript being used to cloak pages so the user sees something different to the engine. Matt and Brian giving some feedback regarding some blatant paid links on the Washington post that happened to also have onclick. Onclick might have been a flag for a manual inspection to detect the intent of the redirects. It could quite well be that they should all be discounted and some have slipped through, or the exact opposite, that the links are clean and should have been counted and maybe are. As an example of a fact that is disputed. Most people regard "friendly URLs" as being more search engine friendly, but I know that experts who has reversed engineered things that think that ?page ranks higher.

Avatar
from Aaronontheweb 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Sphunn for the discussion moreso than the article itself

Avatar
from Woz 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 3

Interesting discussion, and one which points out people’s misunderstanding of the way Javascript works. Danny has it correct in that SEW thread by stating that "Google, which doesn’t read JavaScript or process it (much, right?), isn’t going to understand or deal with the onclick part. So for Googlebot, isn’t that link going to effectively be ~ a clean, straight-forward ~ link?" Note that no-one from the Search Engines has, to my knowledge, disagreed with that statement. Using OnClick is an effective and perfectly legitimate way of giving the Engines what they want, straight links, whilst still allowing the webmaster to track clickthroughs. Far more preferable to the No-Follow blither doing the circuits at the moment. >helicopter SEO’s. Hehe, good one Kim.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -4

Tim, what on earth are you talking about? Spam their page? I have never spammed BlogCatalog. If I thought another popular directory was using Onclick and not passing PR - I would comment on that too, but in a different post. (Tim Forgive me, but I see a number of post here at Sphinn that single out one service.)

Avatar
from TimDineen 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

I guess I’m just just making assumptions about something I can’t prove and singling someone out for an activity I’m not in favor of... sound familiar?

Avatar
from Burgo 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

TimDineen: "You’re not bitter? Why jump on ladynada for a question about something similar? At least be civil when you’re ranting." Heh. I often don’t agree with some of Tim’s comments, but I wholeheartedly agree with that one. Hear hear!

Avatar
from Halfdeck 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 3

"Most SEOs would generally take it that if a link shows up when doing a link:domain.com query, then Google probably count it." Nope. link:domain.com query also displays links that don’t count at all: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-provides-backlink-tool-for-site-owners/ "Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight. I’m going to say that again: Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight. Sometime in the next year, someone will say “But I saw an insert-link-fad-here backlink show up in Google’s backlink tool, so it must count. Right?” And then I’ll point them back here, where I say do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight."

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -4

Tim, instead of getting on my case why don’t you start jumping on the rest of those here at Sphinn that single people out. Bye Bye

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Burgo I’m not Bitter. ladynada if it appear that I was jumping on you that was not my intention. I do apologize for that.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -4

Interesting discussion here. http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/help-me-help-me-with-my-add-riddled-impatience-and-get-a-free-link-too-boot Some links are being found, but many are not.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 1

>"Judging from the published code the links don’t pass link juice, but I didn’t check whether the crawlers see something else coz the problem is a non-issue IMO." I said that under the impression that the URL in the HREF attribute didn’t match the URL in the onclick code. A few comments/opinions/educated guesses WRT to onclick links: FALSE: Links *with* HREF and an onclick event trigger don’t pass link juice in general. TRUE: Click tracking in clean links using the onclick event is perfectly safe with Google, as long as the trigger code just passes parameters to a tracking script. It does not per se take away the link’s ability to pass PageRank, anchor text etcetera. TRUE: Paid links detected by Google *with* HREF and an onclick event trigger don’t pass link juice in general. TRUE: Links *with* HREF and an onclick event trigger that plays with a location different from the HREF’s value don’t pass link juice *when* Google reacts on a spam report or applies some script-voodoo. In this case the links not passing juice are the secondary problem. FALSE: When a link appears in reversed citation results (link: query or Webmaster Central report) that link passes PageRank. FALSE: When Google follows a link and indexes the destination that proves that the link passes juice. TRUE: Googlebot fetches URLs gathered from JavaScript code every once in a while, esp. when an URL appears in a statement capable to redirect a JS enabled user agent. FALSE: Google follows and indexes all link destinations from links passing juice on directory/links pages. FALSE: The canonical answer to all questions discussed in this debate is 42. Actually, it’s nil.

Avatar
from MattCutts 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 8

"Most SEOs would generally take it that if a link shows up when doing a link:domain.com query, then Google probably count it." That’s just not true. Or rather, if most SEOs take it that way, then most SEOs are wrong. :) Halfdeck actually bothered to hunt down where I’ve said it before. I’m happy just to re-state: if you assume links for a link: query automatically carry weight, then you’ve made a faulty assumption.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Interlinking the discussions: http://sphinn.com/story/5310#c7983 http://sphinn.com/story/5432#c7981

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Matt but there is a difference between what is reported in the Webmaster console and what is reported by the link: command, because I have never seen a link reported by the link: command that was nofollowed whereas the webmaster console does report nofollowed links. As Halfdeck has suggested in further discussions on my blog post, there are links that show up with the link command for certain sites that are most likely discounted, but the sites reporting links showing are not buying links. I have always looked on the number of links shown as an indication of quality, and that number and the links shown might be timed with some kind of database export - as an example link:sphinn.com returns no results. I have never seen a site publish news such as "link: database has just been updated" in the same way as PageRank, but maybe these things should be monitored by the "watchers" It would be possible to track by adding onclick through the DOM or using ajax to register the clicks, but then that would effectively be hiding things. The guys at Blogcatalog are trying to do things in a Google friendly way, and be upfront about things. It would be good to have some clearer information about what is acceptable with click tracking using javascript that isn’t open to misinterpretation.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Thank you Matt for commenting. I greatly appreciate it.

Avatar
from ShawnDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Hello Matt Cutts, Thank you for the clarity, I stated this above. Shawn DesRochers

Avatar
from ShawnDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Same goes for Yahoo, their webbmaster guidelines state they honor the nofollow tag as well, yet they include many links in their index(s) but it doesnt mean they are given any weight either.. Quote: Andy Beard, The guys at Blogcatalog are trying to do things in a Google friendly way, and be upfront about things. If they are trying to do things the proper way then why implement the nofollow tag at all on the Recent Post of users blogs? Or why the use of onclick on every users blog, there are other methods to tracking links that would be more seo friendly as I stated in this post... http://www.invision-graphics.com/ftopicp-138.html Shawn DesRochers

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Matt hasn’t stated that using onclick is universally unfriendly How many links they provide to each site is something that has to be carefully balanced, because it might have an adverse effect on index penetration. They want to have as many member profiles indexed in the primary index as possible. Having the snippets there attracts more visitors to a blog because they can see what is being shown. Using something other than javascript to track the clicks would be unfriendly fron a user perspective, who wants to click on a link that looks like an Alexa redirect or a redirect that many sites use to frame content. There are other ways to do it with javascript and ajax, but that would be less visible, and might be looked on by both people snooping around the code, and Google as being more sneaky. You certainly didn’t suggest a better way of tracking in your article. I really would like to know when using nofollow on a link to user generated content became a "black hat SEO technique" Maybe your time would be more productively spent worrying about why people’s profiles on MyBlogLog link all the time to porn and warez - the "what is hot in my community" links.

Avatar
from MattCutts 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 2

"Matt but there is a difference between what is reported in the Webmaster console and what is reported by the link: command, because I have never seen a link reported by the link: command that was nofollowed whereas the webmaster console does report nofollowed links." AndyBeard, I believe that’s true, but so is my statement. :) That is, if I recall correctly the link: command doesn’t return nofollow’ed links. But that still doesn’t mean that a link returned by the link: command carries weight.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 1

[a href="http://andybeard.eu" onclick="return o(’andy-beard-niche-marketing’);"]http://andybeard.eu[/a] function o(lnk){ window.open(’/out/’+lnk+’.html’); return false; } We’re talking about this, aren’t we? This implementation of click tracking is hapless because the passed parameter looks like an URL fragment, what *might* reduce the chances that the link will pass reputation, but onclick alone does not take away its ability to carry weight *if* not other signals hinder that. Other signals in this case means returning false in the JS function what disables the HREF, and then opening a window with a different URL. I’d say that’s a bullet-proof procedure to convince Google that the site in question doesn’t read the Webmaster guidelines. This is an example of a link with onclick tracking which will pass PageRank, anchor text and all that, and does not irritate search engines: [a href="http://andybeard.eu/" id="link-1234" onclick="return trackclick(this.href, this.name);"] Andy Beard Niche Marketing[/a] trackclick() is a function that calls a server sided script to store the click and returns true without doing a redirect or opening a new window.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -2

Andy, why are you constantly trying to sidetrack this discussion or any discussion about BlogCatalog? We are not talking about MyBloglog here. I have not gone into any discussion here and said, hey why are you talking about this when children are being exploited on Craigslist so would you please keep things on topic.

Avatar
from g1smd 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 0

*** I have always looked on the number of links shown as an indication of quality *** I am not so sure that you can deduce anything much from that number. There are quality sites with quality links, where Google lists almost nothing.

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Thanks Matt for clearing that up, it might be good to edit the post to mention it applies to both if it was your intention for it to convey that message. The post currently suggests it applies to the backlink tool only. Sebastian that looks like a good solution for the *might* and I have passed it on to the programmer, many thanks

Avatar
from ShawnDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Excellent example Sebastian ;-) Now Andy Beard, why are you so concerned about MyBlogLog, this topic is about Blog Catalog. I would suggest you start a review of MyBlogLog as that’s another discussion all together. You mentioned to users over at Blog Catalog to use the link: to prove that the links listed at Blog Catalog carried Google Juice. However, thanks to Matt Cutts he has stated they do not and your method is incorrect. He also stated any SEO that believes in this method would be falsely misleading. I would suggest Andy Beard; you take this up with Blog Catalog to fix their omission of error. I also see most of the information posted on your blog or from my sources that you do not credit or provide a link back to, yet you also start another sphinn stating the onclick function does pass Google Juice which is greatly misleading users. The blog post over at Blog Catalog is truly a measure of many users links not found in the search engines at all. Many Blog users stated they go to page 24 or 50 with no search results found. You also remark this is your research, yet I don’t see posting a link to Blog Catalog showing that many users of their directory are unable to find any link back. If you’re going to use the resources we outlined and remark about their information or how they do not compare, provide a link to the post on blog catalog where others can see members stating they can not find their links. Or where Matt Cutts has stated in this very thread that the link” attribute doesn’t mean they carry Google Juice. Shawn DesRochers

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I suggest that everybody calms down. Andy, the issue is that an algo looks at the o() function, sees that it returns false and opens another URL (it analyses JS code but doesn’t run it). That’s considered sneaky redirect. Google’s routine does not execute any JS code so it doesn’t check whether the redirect lands on the URL put in the HREF attribute of the initial link or not. Using JS in any way that can lead the JS enabled user agent to another place than the plain bots not bothering with client sided scripting is risky. A side effect of flagging a link shady is that it does not pass weight. Give the programmer this link: http://www.smart-it-consulting.com/article.htm?node=155&page=96

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Shawn here is that discussion, however just because some are reporting that their is a backlink does not clarify that those links are passing juice. http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/help-me-help-me-with-my-add-riddled-impatience-and-get-a-free-link-too-boot Ps: Apparently I’m a dumbass now.

Avatar
from AndyBeard 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Rose - call that a throwback to a previous discussion on the differences between MBL and BC, but it is on topic, because those kinds of links on a page could possibly also have some baring on the value of links from a similar directory. g1smd - you are right, but are you saying Alexa is a better indicator? Technorati certainly doesn’t give you an indication of the quality of links. Time plays a factor, the link command still shows links to Vanessa Fox Nude from the Googleblog blogroll, and that link has been missing for a while.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2653 Days ago #
Votes: 1

The backlink sampleset and toolbar PR share a not exactly frequent update schedule. Using the link: search for anything not routed to /dev/null is a waste of time, because it’s definitely not a quality indicator for the links it delivers, or not.

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2653 Days ago #
Votes: -1

Andy- no it is not on topic. You told Shawn "Maybe your time would be more productively spent worrying about why people’s profiles on MyBlogLog link all the time to porn and warez - the "what is hot in my community" links." That is not on topic at all!

Avatar
from g1smd 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

*** are you saying Alexa is a better indicator? *** Where did that random thought come from? I never mentioned Alexa at all. I think you’ll find me saying, even several years ago, that Alexa rankings mean almost nothing at all in the real world. They are more a measure of how often SEOs check each others sites than any sort of measure of public perception. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programme...

Avatar Administrator
from dannysullivan 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

I’m going to cross post this, and I’m also going to be doing a little public moderation as part of it. I apologize for that, but it’s the best I can think of in handling this. To recap, Rose submitted this topic about BlogCatalog not passing PageRank: http://www.invision-graphics.com/ftopicp-135.html#135 For the record, I’ve never been to BlogCatalog before. It is apparently a directory of blogs on the web. Looks like you can submit. Looks free. And I gather there’s an issue of whether the links pass value because of onclick being used. That went hot. Well good. Sounds like an interesting issue for BlogCatalog in particular and on the topic in general. We had some discussion come out of that thread, and it looked pretty mellow. There were folks who disagreed with the facts of the article, but I didn’t see them coming after Rose in particular. And Rose came in and pushed back to argue for prove that the article was wrong. Good for you, Rose. But Rose, I’m sorry, you also started getting personal in that thread. LadyNada asks how things would look with I gather another blog directory, and you chide her with this: http://sphinn.com/story/5310#c7763 "Lady well this post is not about blogskinny. The post is about the fact that BlogCatalog does not pass PageRank. What of that is hard to comprehend?" At this point, the thread was touching on passing along link love in general. She wasn’t out of line to winder this, but asking what part is hard to comprehend sounds kind of insulting, like you thought she was dense. TimDineen asks later why you were so bitter about BlogCatalog. Well, borderline. I mean, he might have felt you were personally upset with it -- especially as he points out later that you’re looking at one directory in particular and that you had, indeed, jumped on LadaNada. OK, you later apologized to LadaNada (thank you), and I’m not sure if you were saying "bye bye" to Tim about whether you thought he should leave or you were. But I appreciate you didn’t start getting into it more with him. At this point, the thread had ended -- and I made edits in another topic, over here: http://sphinn.com/story/5432 That article that Andy submitted in response to your initial post. After responding to the points Andy had raised, you came along and said this: “Ps: Andy I dislike you greatly. Everyone else might think that you are all that and a bag of cjips, but this lady here thinks you are nothing more than a BC Guppy.” I’m sorry -- that was just uncalled for. At that point, it stepped way over what I thought was acceptable under the main rule I’ve asked people to follow here: http://sphinn.com/discussion.php “Be respectful and polite.” Arguments can get heated. Personal stuff can slip through. I can’t, nor can any of the mods or admins, go through an ensure that threads are completely free of personal attack. But this one, a deliberate PS that added no value? If you don’t like Andy, you tell him privately. The rest of us don’t need to hear it. I killed that. I killed a few things in response to you, as well. I cleaned it up, doing something that wasted time, but it goes with the territory. And I have to say, the vast vast majority of the time, it’s not something any of us have to do. Discussions have stayed civil. Now after that, you started peppering me with examples. Why’s this thread allowed: http://sphinn.com/story/5385 It’s about a picture of Matt dressed up in a cop suit that was kind of, well, revealing. Well, as I told you: "No, I’m not pulling that. There’s a difference between an article that someone has posted off our site and you just telling someone you don’t like them in the middle of a debate. In addition, knowing Matt fairly well, I highly doubt he’d be upset by that image." Hey Matt, if you’re upset, you let me know. Since then, you peppered me with more examples of stuff. Why, for example, was this post allowed: http://sphinn.com/story/5605 Where you felt you were being called a dumbass? To be specific, the article Greg wrote was about wanting a dumbass button, not that you in particular are a dumbass. Still, allow? If he came over in and in conversation with you said you were a dumbass, no. If he weren’t to have just called you -- and you alone -- a dumbass, yes. But this is about in generally wanting a way as Sphinn to indicate you dislike a story. At Digg, they call that buries, as I’m sure you know. We don’t have buries here. I disabled them when we started because I wanted to have a conversation with the community about them, in particular because so many SEOs on Digg feel they have stories that get buried for no good reason, and there’s no record of the buries. So maybe if we do buries, they should be open for all to view. But then again, there’s a good reason why you might want to private disagree with something. I think when I formally have that thread open, a lot of SEOs that feel Kevin Rose should open up buries might change their minds, when it means buries they do here might be open. I suspect the solution is like I told Greg -- we might have several buttons. If it’s spam, obvious spam, we want that gone. If someone disagrees with a post, they might want to vote it down. I don’t want to go with Lame to avoid the semi-personal nature there. So yes, I’m leaving this thread alone. In addition, there’s been more personal stuff all around. I’m not going back and cleaning it up. Instead, I’m pushing reset. I’m asking the community to step back, take a breath, and then come back and discuss the facts of topics without getting personal. Please.

Avatar
from thegoodknife 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Hey guys, I’m Daniel, I programmed the BlogCatalog site and i’m a little surprised people are really making a big deal over this. We have never really marketed BlogCatalog as passing pagerank to our blogs, and we won’t unless we get a definitive answer from an authority. So you can see why it’s a little outrageous that someone is trying to call us out on link tracking that is obviously taking place just by looking at the source. We have made no attempts to hide it. It is our understanding that google does not parse javascript, and i wouldnt really call our links sneaky since they goto the same place as the href using a 301 redirect anyway. either way the reader gets to the blog and if we can pass pagerank at the same time that makes the whole scenario even better. We love our community and we’re not just trying to be like every other directory on the net whose sole purpose is to get a link to your blog. We are trying to build a community and drive valuable and loyal traffic to blogs and help bloggers connect. I should quickly clear up that we we provide also provide widgets and meta tags to verify ownership for anyone who doesn’t want to link back to us. We understand PageRank is sacred to many of our bloggers and give them the options to preserve their PR. Thank you Andy and Rose for all the research you’ve done, we are slowly getting close to the truth. Rose and Shawn, i wish you the best of luck with your own directory. Daniel support@blogcatalog.com

Avatar
from RoseDesRochers 2652 Days ago #
Votes: -3

Danny why would you cross reference this. Your own members are telling you that he called me a dumbass. Daniel the reason that we are making a big deal is that some people submit to BlogCatalog because it is a PR 7 site. You are gaining from all those that link to you yet the 73,000 blog owners that submit to you are getting no juice back. I would hope that BlogCatalog would listen to outside suggestions and not just the ones that come from someone you are paying and make changes so the links are clean and do pass Pagerank. Is the meta tag option something new you added as it was not there before and you actually stated it was required to link back for verification. The good knife says on 6/30/07 "The primary purpose of the link back is indeed to verify blog ownership. Sorry if this rubs you the wrong way, but I’m not sure what else to tell you." The good knife says "I agree that there are other solutions so verifying ownership, and we do hope to implement them in the future. But the link back has been working great and benefits everyone, plus, we have a lot of other features we are working on so it’s a bit lower on the priority list at the moment." But it does not benefit everyone. It only benefits BlogCatalog. You stated "We’re not trying to deceive anyone, we want to do whats best for the bloggers and if the javascript is getting in the way, we would gladly remove it." Remove it.

Avatar
from g1smd 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 0

*** Danny why would you cross reference this? *** He "cross posted" this. That’s different. What that means is that rather than just provide a link to the "site etiquette and rules" thread (or whatever it is called) he "cross posted" the entire content over here on this thread (to ensure that it was actually read), and then also "cross posted" it in the other thread too. To "cross post" means to duplicate it, rather than to just link to it. You can’t read anything in to that other than it is time to walk away, calm down, and come back to it fresh another day.

Avatar Administrator
from dannysullivan 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

As I said, Rose, I pushed the reset button here. I simply was not going back through on the entire dumbass issue after already having to deal with the initial over-the-line personal comment you made that kicked off today’s adventure. Since you can’t abide by that request to clean slate stuff, I’ve disabled your account.

Avatar
from thegoodknife 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

The meta tag is indeed new (about 1 month old) and came about from outside members feedback, including the 3 month old quote you included above. So far a lot of new members have opted to use the meta-tag instead of the link, its been great for us. We also don’t require that a user keep any link back on their site after verification. a lot of bloggers think linkbacks and widgets are tacky and we respect that, directories should be painless. As far as the javascript, were still gathering our options as how to address it, thats why we are here. However, there is still not enough proof that our links aren’t passing pagerank. The click tracking is critical in our BlogRank system and in giving our sponsored listings some data on whether or not their listing is performing well and i really dont see it as getting in the way.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Daniel and TheGoodKnife, please read here why your click tracking is flawed and how to implement it properly: http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/how-to-turn-click-tracking-into-miserable-failure/ Not that all the info is missing in this thread ... HTH Sebastian

Avatar
from thegoodknife 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Thanks Sebastian , But i’m not sure how that solution is any more google friendly. It’s still using an onclick attached to an anchor and isnt that what the issue is here? Or are you suggesting that google is actually downloading and parsing the external javascript files and can differente between the behaviors and functions? The problem is that shawn has made a claim with no backing evidence, just some vague quotes so we still can’t pinpoint exactly where or if any problem is occurring. is it the onclick, or is it the window.open in the external file? or does google just ignore the javascript as any browser with javascript disbled would do? the latter was our interpretation when we set up the links and still is. I’m not saying the method is wrong, there are just a lot of claims in your post about googlebot’s behavior that aren’t backed up.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 2

Well, you won’t get an official statement from Google telling you how they parse and interpret JS code. All I can say is that when you read between the lines of official documents and posts by Matt, Brian and other Googlers as well, you’ll get it. I’ve rescued sites just by fine tuning similar code and belive that I understand the issue, but of course that means nothing to you. However, a clean onclick trigger will not get you in troubles with Google, but client sided messing with URLs will do. Honestly, "your interpretation" is somewhat outdated. Search engines evolve.

Avatar
from thegoodknife 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

search engines do indeed involve, and we aren’t married to our current link tracking solution. I am in no way dismissing your response. We now have several new ways of going about the link tracking and the solution you provided is by far the simplest and easiest to set up and gets the same job done. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, don’t be surprised if you see it implemented soon. I was just curious as to whether google even differentiates between the two methods. I’m not sure what makes you an authority on the subject, but i can tell you i am far from it. We have only seen great results from google in the last 6 months using this code, no need for rescuing, but of course that could stop at any moment. Your solution IS much less "sneaky", i was merely curious if there is any evidence that google knows that....

Avatar
from g1smd 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Cross-linking all the related threads: http://sphinn.com/story/5310 http://sphinn.com/story/5432 http://sphinn.com/story/5605 http://sphinn.com/story/5625 http://sphinn.com/story/5648

Avatar
from pittfall 2652 Days ago #
Votes: -1

As SEM and SEOs, why does PageRank matter? Really, if you a high PageRank on a page does that equal traffic? Question, if a PageRank 10 page never gets traffic does it make it more relevant? Of course not. Get beyond the "who’s is bigger" debate and work on targeted traffic. Wait. No, keep watching that little green bar as your competition pass you in the SERPs.

Avatar
from Halfdeck 2652 Days ago #
Votes: 2

"Question, if a PageRank 10 page never gets traffic does it make it more relevant? Of course not. Get beyond the "who’s is bigger" debate and work on targeted traffic. Wait. No, keep watching that little green bar as your competition pass you in the SERPs." That’s a traditional response to PageRank that doesn’t fly anymore, simply because PageRank is so closely tied with index penetration - and internal anchor text generated by thousands of internal pages is as good if not better than anchor text coming in through backlinks. Especially for CMS sites where not every single product page gets hundreds or thousands of backlinks, you need internal anchor text to rank. With deep index penetration and thousands of pages in the main index, you can. PageRank is like gas in your car. If you have enough, don’t worry about it. Your driving skill is way more important than how much gas you have. But you can’t go anywhere with an empty tank.

Avatar
from pittfall 2651 Days ago #
Votes: 0

"PageRank is like gas in your car. If you have enough, don’t worry about it. Your driving skill is way more important than how much gas you have. But you can’t go anywhere with an empty tank." Keep working on building PR, I’ll work on relevant traffic. I get paid on results not a little green bar from a traffic source. I do think that PR is relevant, but it is not the end all be all for SEO. Would you agree that you can have index penetration, high PR and no traffic?

Avatar
from thegoodknife 2650 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Just wanted to update everyone: We have changed our click tracking this evening to a ’cleaner’ version. While there was no real evidence that our previous links weren’t passing PR, and a lot of the same claims can be made about the new links, we figured it couldn’t hurt to take the safer route. A big thanks for sebastian for digging up a real solution, something no else did.

Avatar Moderator
from Sebastian 2650 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Thanks :) Glad you consider it helpful.

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch 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: