Calendar
Network
Feeds
webuildpages
Wow! Christine Churchill, Jim Gilbert, Li Evans, Bill Slawski, and now Matt McGee.... killer group!
Congrats to everyone at KeyRelevance!!
thief...just kidding...kudos to making this based on our tool description ;)
Another great article by Annie!
I'd add these too off the top of my head: check how trusted the backlinks are....how many edu's, gov's, dmoz. Check how many pages they have indexed, check how many backlinks each page has (strongest subpage tool),
I'd even give 2 links if they were the kind of brownies I like ;)
Great article and great point!
Wiep, brilliant instructional information! Bookmark worthy!
Too bad I missed you in amsterdam.
Tedster is one of the brightest SEO's I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. It's great to see an interview with him.
FYI, I'll jump in and say I truely believe in the 6 filter. I've seen it. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it happen to a few sites. Laugh if you want - it's real.
@JohnWeb.....yes, "can draw it wherever we want and they can feel free to move it at will. "...but this has been a consistant line for years "Reviewed and Not Guaranteed" is at least OK for Yahoo...is it OK for Mom and Pop?....I think Mom and Pop and SEO's would really like to know what that line is. ...they may move it at will...but people doing SEO should really be told the answer to "hey, are the rules on paid links and yahoo the same rules for everyone else?" Personally I'd trust a website owner's review more than a yahoo employee reviewer. My Yahoo listing of webuildpages is a prime example where an editor got it wrong. I'd bet webmasters review ads just as long, and probably longer than yahoo editors do.
@AndyBeard....sounds like you're more fussy than a Yahoo editor with your reviews. For that product I was asking a review of, I submitted it also to the Yahoo directory which had a guaranteed review, and was listed in less than 7 days.
Hi Matt,
Would you expand this logic of "If there is a fee, what's the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site." to websites that are not directories?
I also wonder how many people submit to the Yahoo directory for the traffic the directory is going to bring (ya right), and how many people buy that link for the link juice...c'mon, who's kidding who here? Yahoo is a paid link....pure and simple....and the rules google gives for why it's OK to pay Yahoo (for review and non-guaranteed) should apply to everyone.....otherwise, like Bill said, Google should punish Yahoo for selling links.
When I put on my user hat I don't ask "Does this seem like a high-quality Directory" I ask "Does this seem like a high-quality webpage" - I could care less about directories too. I can't believe there's a seperate criteria for directories and for websites in general....seems like it should be "if this is the rules for yahoo, this should be the rules for any website". I don't agree with "These are rules for paying directories"....paying a website is paying a website...don't care if you're a directory, a blog, a forum, a mom and pop site, etc.
Jeff, yes! I flaked out last year, I'll be sure to enter this year!
Thank you so much everyone. I had a great time and I loved blogging in 2007. Great to be with you on this Debra!
I would agree with Nick totally ;) - use a variety of link text, but focus on what you're targeting.
Loved this quote:
"but did you know that there is a special keyword density that Google absolutely loves, that you can't go wrong with? That is the magical density that nobody, and i mean NOBODY is teaching you. Not Aaron, not Sullivan, Not SEoMoz. I reveal the secrets of keyword density that nobody has told in public before. Just changing your density can have a great effect on your rankings."
hehe
Beautiful...actually it's more like 14 seperate posts all covering "what's going on" in the SEM industry. Gret reading!
So the stanford daily goes from a PR9 to a PR7....so what...the toolbar pagerank was never accurate anyways (the toolbar is fairy dust green)...and it doesn't look like the stanford daily dropped any in rankings.....dropping it from a PR9 to a PR7 does what google wants anyways....now the price drops for the ads...but again....the stanford daily ranks just as it always did.....so does every other link selling PR9....now they're 7's...and ranking just the same....fairy dust folks.....one last FUD before they make it go away.
[edited out long rant....voices in my head saying "must stay under the radar"..."must not piss off matt" ;)]
Story: Matt McGee Joins Our KeyRelevance Team