anybody tried 'em?
| 1:53 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
does it have anything to do with bluefind and sevenseek?
The thing that confuses me is that all 3: uncoverthenet, bluefind and sevenseek are not cached by Google. All their pages show just url, but no cache at all. Why Google doesn't cache them? And if they are not cached, can Google still detect the backlinks and pass PR on the sites in their directory?
Sorry if it's kinda stupid question ;)
| 7:53 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Uncoverthenet are a very professional set-up. Great site with great customer support. Clean-looking directory - only wish there were fewer ads. Reduced value of paid listing if they are surrounded by PPC ads.
| 2:54 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree UTN seems to be the directory of the 3. They seem to be in it for the long haul and not the quick buck. UTN's price is way too high for now. They are too new, they have sponsor links throught the directory which is fine, but reduce the price if that's the case.
To answer the question. It think pages are not being cached due to lack of content within the directory. It looks like all three of those directories have thousands of empty categories. This is a big no no. I understand that to build a directory, you need categories so that people will submit, but a directory should not try to have 50 or 100 thousand categories at first. Start with 500 - 1000 and then add new ones as needed. And never leave them empty - at least place 1 link per category. Only my opinion.
| 6:07 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so, in other words, if a page is not cached, Google is not aware of its content and, as a result, such page doesn't pass PR? and my site will not be credited with a backlink from them?
| 6:30 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most likely yes. However, Google has been acting funny in the past two months and the no-cache issue could be temporary.
My suggestion for you is to buy directory listing in multiple directories. Do not buy Page Rank because this will change all the time. Submit to the most relevant category - period - even if it is a PR3 page. Only buy listings in directories that offer Permanent placement. If you want, I will email you a couple of sites that have excellent lists of directories. Many of which are very good and cost a lot less than $40. Let me know.
| 1:00 am on Apr 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Uncover the Net is cached by pretty much all the search engines. I don't see where it is not, unless you mean a specific category page of the site.
As for whether or not it is worth it, would be an answer that only you could do. But I would advise against buying into a directory for pagerank or any of that. Do it for brand, do it for a backlink, do it for traffic, etc. But anyway, If you truly have a useful site, it might be added for free by the editors when they find it scouring the Web. Hope this helps :)
| 2:17 am on Apr 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Only their top directories are spidered and cached, if you go just one level deeper, the sub-directories are either not spidered at all, or not cached. The same with bluefind and sevenseek, that's why I associated those 3. For example, the top relationship category is indexed, but all dating sub-categories are not even indexed by Google, and that's where they place all dating sites, not in the top directory!
Unfortunately, the directories don't send me any traffic at all (including even Yahoo directory). Only SE and other dating sites send me visitors, not the directories.
I thought buying into a directory to have a strong inbound link is the same as buying PR! I submit (and sometimes pay) for inclusion with the only purpose of having a strong linkback from that site => improve my PR => improve serps. I think natural PR is when you exchange links for free, and get a lot of free inbound links. And when you pay somebody to link to your site, isn't it like you are buying PR? If not, what does the term "to buy PR" mean than?
| 1:45 pm on Apr 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Buying PR is a very bad Idea - Toolbar isn't accurate (hasn't been updated for over 3 months now) - Evidence suggests that relevant links are much more important.
Google does like directories.
Google - "If you are having difficulty getting listed in the Google index, you may want to consider submitting your site to Yahoo! or Netscape Directories. "
As state previously, A good directory has lots of content. When you have so many subpages without content, it can be considered "duplicate" content and get the pages dropped. In other words all of the pages are the same in those directories except for the page title.
If you have a new site, submit to as many quality directories as you can afford. In the long run, ty to build as many 1 way inbound links as possible from multiple domains and with non-repeating text.
| 7:29 am on Apr 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to say that UTN seems in it for the long haul, unlike the other directories. However, I'd think they may be best to seperate themselves as much as they can from those directories that sell pagerank.
The internal pages are not all being picked up, and it is due to lack of content. I think if they cut out a few sponsored links for some news/rss feeds, they could alleviate the problem.
All in all, it's only like $70 for the placement to 4 seperate pages on your site. It's a one time fee, and for me, that has some value. I'd purchase it regardless of the gripes with Google, Yahoo! and MSN are search engines too you know :-)
| 1:27 pm on Apr 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I read one of the editor blogs at UTN and I think they know they need the content. It looks like they are actively adding content to a lot of categories.
One thing about price. It has been my experience that webmasters want something for nothing. In other words, a lot of webmasters run for profit commercial sites, but are too short sited or cheap to realize that you need to spend money to make money. I am always getting these request exhange link emails(I don't exchange links by the way) and it is unreal the amount of time people must spend on this. If they added up their time and effort, they could have purchased Directory listings and IBLs and focused on their content.
| 8:02 am on Apr 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The common thread running across UTN, Bluefind and Sevenseek is they have way too many links from non-contextual high PR sites which may have been red flagged by Google as sellers of PR. Coupled with disproportionate IBLs between homepage and sub-pages (deep linking).
As a result, they may be attractive for getting PR, but not as much for improving SERPs. Of the three, two directories are not even ranked for their own names in Google.
"Directories that can't get ranked themselves, seldom help you improve your ranks"
| 10:19 am on Apr 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In a lot of cases it's possible that people are going after the anchor text from the links, rather than for PR.
| 3:52 pm on Apr 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think they have little to no value in ranking in Google. This thread ranks higher in the SERPs for their name than they do. Google obviously doesn't think much of them.
However, the link still works in Yahoo! and MSN, which should not be neglected.
| 7:43 pm on Apr 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The common thread running across UTN, Bluefind and Sevenseek is they have way too many links from non-contextual high PR sites which may have been red flagged by Google as sellers of PR. Coupled with disproportionate IBLs between homepage and sub-pages (deep linking). |
I am not convinced that this is the only issue. I think duplicate content for empty sub cats is a common thread for all of these and could be part of the issue as well. Although, what you have described above is probably true as well.
|This thread ranks higher in the SERPs for their name than they do. |
Maybe, but Remember the not "ranking for domain name" that occurred primarily in February. This could also be Google tweaking Algo.
| 7:55 pm on Apr 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Shawn at UTN is doing an excellent job and yes I agree it's best for UTN to keep it's distance fromm Blue and seven.
UTN is definitely looking to create a quality directory and is using the MSN bcentral directory as it's inspiration ,using the businesscard page for example .
I have paid for 3 listings and am very happy with them , I'm actually even getting some traffic to my sites from them unlike blue and sevenseek.
Blue and Seven went through the ringer the past year but seem to slowly be rebounding as they add more content and "unduplicate" each other.
But UTN is clearly the best of the 3 and dosnet have the same past issues as the other 2. I've tried all 3.
| 11:46 pm on Apr 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe, but Remember the not "ranking for domain name" that occurred primarily in February. This could also be Google tweaking Algo. |
This isn't a "not ranking for domain name" issue, this is a penalty. Copy and paste a couple lines of text, put it in quotes, and run a Google search. Dead last, behind all the scraper sites taking their content.
A small directory having this problem, I can see, but a PR7 one, something is up.
This is very similiar to a penalty I had a little while back on some domains. The good news, fixing the issue (which is surprisingly simple) that is causing the penalty will lift them almost immediately. This penalty is not being incurred for having empty categories. Those pages are just not being crawled.
Don't get me wrong though, I like this directory. The MSN directory is my favorite one on the market, and using that same structure is a smart move. I also feel the owner has the best intentions with this directory, and looks at this as a long term project. However, at this time, it will only benefit Yahoo! and MSN results (which is fine by me!).
| 6:04 am on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well said bears, just what I wanted to, particularly this -
|A small directory having this problem, I can see, but a PR7 one, something is up. |
|am not convinced that this is the only issue. |
True. It is one of the main issues as I see it.
Their domain name was regestered just about 6 months back, and as I see, theirs isn't an organic growth. They have been too prolific causing few keen scruitinies. Pageone had some wonderful suggestions in a thread, a couple of months back. One that said the need to grow organically. For now, go for it, for it is still useful in Yahoo and MSN.
| 12:00 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I checked into UTN as a place to list my directory site. The first thing that turned me off was an ad about a nudist site that came up on the second page that viewed. I have nothing against nudists, but that's not the kind of publicity I seek for my site. I went to the category where I my site belongs and found just 3 sites there, which was a big disappointment and something I consider to be a bad sign.
I clicked on the link to add my site and immediately was hit with prices, when I had been hoping for a freebie. Then I spotted the top left link about a special that they were running, and thought, "ok, there's my freebie!" Nope. It was a discount if I purchased multiple listings.
I can't imagine why I would pay to be listed in a nearly empty directory, unless some great PR benefits were a pretty sure thing. Since that's not the case, I see no value for me at UTN. I'm willing to pay when I can see a good chance of getting traffic and PR benefits, but without that, then it's got to be free if they want me. Putting a listing in a nearly empty directory does them more good than me.
If they want to be successful, then they need to give away free listings until they are large enough, have good traffic, and good PR. Then they'll have something I would be willing to pay for.
| 12:35 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bingo surfin2u. It clearly smacks off as "in the gambit just to make money". If there is a flavor of some kinda open source, then that improves the credibility.
I run a web directory myself. Recently listed a sub page with Keyword as Title and pronto it was listed without any editing. Now that makes it even clearer of the money making ways.
| 1:03 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|This isn't a "not ranking for domain name" issue, this is a penalty. |
I think that unless you work for Google and know for a fact...nothing is a fact. It could be a penalty, but I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. There could be several things going on including issues with Google itself. All observations should be considered.
In all fairness and as stated in a previous post, I think UTN is actively adding sites that have not paid to build content so they realize that the value of a directory in the long run is content, not Page Rank. Check out their Blog. I think they have added 10,000 listings.
| 3:03 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not to hijack this thread - but i have a question for surfin2u.. You said you'd only list your site if it was "free" (given that this directory is new and sparsly populated).
Would you consider signing up if they offered, lets say, 3 months free, after which they would begin billing you?
Or would this turn you off as well?
Curious to hear your response.
| 5:00 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Would you consider signing up if they offered, lets say, 3 months free, after which they would begin billing you? |
It is absolutely incredible that you ask me that now. I just made that offer today to a couple of potential clients. I'm trying this as an experiment to stimulate new orders.
My answer is absolutely yes, I would accept a freebie on a limited time basis. It would be much more attractive if the offer included some way to convince me of the effectiveness of my trial listing. I do this for my own clients by logging email inquiries, clicks to obtain their phone number, and clicks to visit their website.
All that evidence is a great help when signing up new clients or getting renewals from existing ones, but it's no guarantee.
| 8:53 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your answer surfin2u..it's encouraging to hear something like that, as this has been my "plan of attack" for my new directory.
I'm attacking a "niche" which has acouple PPC engines, but mine would the first "directory" ... i offer stats (clickthroughs) for clients to monitor there sites.
Some of these sites in the niche spend between $1,000 - $10,000 year - therefore, im' hoping that the traffic they get from my directory will make $30/month seem like a reasonable figure.
The clients who list on my sites general sell products ranging in the $2000-5000 range.
Maybe i shold start my own thread and see how it all works out :)
| 10:12 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Some of these sites in the niche spend between $1,000 - $10,000 year - therefore, im' hoping that the traffic they get from my directory will make $30/month seem like a reasonable figure. |
Your model is much different than UTN. You are basically selling traffic. UTN is not directly selling traffic. They are selling "Branding", "Static Links", "Permanent Listing", and "Traffic".
In your case, I think a trial makes sense. In a directory like UTN, I do not think it makes sense. You are talking about roughly per month, what UTN would charge forever. If you can't get ROI, out of "Forever", then what can you get it out of.
Everyone has to make their own decisions on sites, but I will reiterate that a lot of webmasters do not want to spend any money to make money. I do this full time, but I encounter so many part-timers that don't understand that when you launch a new site, you should plan to spend $500-$1000 in directory listings. If you aren't willing to that, how valuable is your site?
| 1:51 am on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Putting a listing in a nearly empty directory does them more good than me. |
While I generally agree with you, and it also makes me wonder sometimes, how comes a directory is almost empty, and still they don't offer any free submissions, but!
When a directory is not crowded, there is more chance you'll end up on the 1st page in a noticable spot with a good PR for a reasonable price. Also, the visitors will more likely to notice your link. In the crowded directories, for a highly competitive subjects, you may end up on page 30 and your site will be just buried under other links, unless you pay a lot for the premium listings, which not everybody can afford.
Spreading over 100s pages of listings is acceptable only for Yahoo or bcentral for example. Other directories, with all respect, aren't even close to yahoo and bcentral. With all reputation and PR of such directories, neither visitors nor spiders will find my link there.
So I'd prefer to be on page 1 in empty paid UTN rather than in crowded free Jayde for example, on page 30.
| 12:06 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So I'd prefer to be on page 1 in empty paid UTN rather than in crowded free Jayde for example, on page 30. |
I agree if there's traffic coming to the page that I'm listed on, the people click on my listing, and the traffic results in revenues for my business. But that's a long string of "ifs", and I think that it's unlikely that a listing in a fairly empty directory will have the kind of traffic that I want. But it's possible...
It's like going into an unfamiliar empty restaurant. Do you stay and try the food or do you figure that it's empty for a good reason and turn around and leave? I leave unless I know that there's something very special about the place.
| 2:09 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So I'd prefer to be on page 1 in empty paid UTN rather than in crowded free Jayde for example, on page 30 |
I think this is the wrong way to think about a directory and unfortunately too many people think this way. You should place your listing in the most relevant category regardless of Page Rank. You should choose a directory that is either established, or if they are new, they are professionally run and plan to be around for years.
You are assuming that the PR for the top page will stay the same. This is a bad assumption. Real PR changes every month and Toolbar PR has not changed for around 4 months now...In reality, you don't know if you are getting a link from a PR 4 Page or a PR 3 page. In addition, the category may be empty when you buy your listing, but full within a week or two.
I just bought a listing in a directory with a zero PR for the page. Why? It was a new category and the PR had not been updated since 4 months ago. Why would I do that. If the directory manager is smart enough to add categories as needed, then I am betting they know what they are doing and are in it for the long haul.
If you want Page Rank and higher SERP for competitive terms, then more likely than not, you will need to but text link ads or build such a terrific site that everyone will link to it. So, in reality, you will be buying text-link-ads. People think $40 is a lot for a submission? Try $40-250 / Month based on PR for quality text link ads.
| 7:19 am on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, I was not talking about high PR. I've already learnt that I should not pay much attention to mischievous PR and submit to the same categories. lol. Which I've been doing for the last couple days through your lists. I mean, since I have to submit to the same category everywhere, I prefer the directories where I'll be on the 1st page of results in this category, and not on 30th: not because of PR, even if it is PR0, but so the visitors can find my link.
You see, the thing is that my dating site is in the DEEP sandbox and will stay there probably for another year or two anyways, no matter how high is my PR and how many inbound links I have. So I gotta get visitors by other means, by being visible at least somewhere! ;)
| 2:05 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, Misunderstood your post...
|You see, the thing is that my dating site is in the DEEP sandbox and will stay there probably for another year or two anyways, no matter how high is my PR and how many inbound links I have. |
Who knows...This is very frustrating and frankly a stupid philosophy at Google. If it is a philosophy and not a system problem. You may want to consider buying at least 1 text link ad from an authority site like a national newspaper or blog that has been around for a long time. Expect to hold this link for 3 or more months. Some think that a link from an authority site may help the sandboxing issue, but no one is really sure.
I launched a new baby site in January and all pages were cached for the first 3 weeks, now just the top 5 pages are cached. Sandbox! It is rockin on MSN.
My other sites are all over a year old so they haven't had any sandboxing problems.
| 4:00 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with KrisVal that spending money to buy good inbound links during the early days of a directory can be of tremendous value. The amount of $500-$1000 sounds right to me and is about what I spent. I also purchased newspaper ads that would create inbound links.
Now my site enjoys a long list of #1 rankings on G and elsewhere, so I believe that the money was well spent.