| 12:58 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure placement of a paid ad in an ad listing hierarchy is evil per se. Otherwise, Google, Yahoo and many others would be "evil", as they all rank the placement of an ad based upon financial factors.
The more likely issue with bidding directories is (absence of) editorial control and a certain "air of pollution" that surrounds bidding directories arising from the activities of the bidding directory promoters-operators in forums and elsewhere.
To put it bluntly, they just feel icky.
| 10:18 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Funny, I was about to come and talk about bid for placement dirs as well. I've gone through - as in reviewed - quite a fair amount tonight and they seem like a good idea.
A lot of them also seem to be still standing after last month G update (ie. they're not grey bared :)).
But I guess Webwork comments is very valid. No editorial review means that at some point they will get abused. And this will lead to G cracking down on them.
I'll do some further checks on the ones I 'shortlisted' tonight and if 'anything goes' I won't be submitting my site to them.
| 1:59 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Some bidding directories display your link instantly from the moment they have received your payment. However the tendency seems to be to more and more reviews, and I had sometimes to wait 24 hours or more for a bidding link to be accepted. I use it, but carefully.
| 8:43 pm on Nov 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
doomed...on the big G target list
| 1:13 pm on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|To put it bluntly, they just feel icky. |
This is more or less what Matt Cutts is saying in these comments:
| 2:37 pm on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
And are they icky
because they give highest billing to whomever pays the most, after reviewing all submissions,,
because you feel that directory owners being paragons of altruistic endevour really shouldn't charge for reviews
Because you believe that bidding systems are inherently icky
As you must appreciate , bidding directories are not exactly alone in their modus operandi
| 8:01 pm on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Turn on the echo effect
They are icky because they are link farms... farms... farms...
Turn off the echo effect
| 1:37 am on Dec 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
all of them, some of them?
and what did you do to justify such a sweepin comment, or is it jest
| 2:28 am on Dec 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The educational value of this thread is minimal and directory threads often linger at the risk of drifting into promotion. A great deal of drive-by directory promotion spam never sees the light of day here.
Obviously each directory has to be judged on its own merits. In part, that judgment may take into consideration the manner in which the directory - or the "category of directories" that it participates in - have been promoted. Unfortunately, a significant number of directory operators have failed to show a consistent pattern of discerning business judgment. Ergo, from time to time directories are swept clean from the SERPs or their listings may be subject to added scrutiny, etc.
We tread somewhat lightly in this forum since directory operators are somewhat famous for promoting their directories in other forums. GIven the limited additional value to be gained from a tit-for-tat dialogue that only reaches the obvious conclusion that not all directories are exactly alike I'm going to retire this thread.
Savvy webmasters will fashion their own judgment independent of what anyone says here about bid for placement directories.