homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.200.172
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

    
Another banned directory
Just found a PR 0 which previously had some 5+
fischermx




msg:471437
 8:21 am on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

There's a nice-looking directory which used to have something like PR 5-6. I was about to send a site for listing there, and today I found the site is gone from Google SERPs! Also their PR is gone as well. I don't know what happened to it really.
It does not have huge listing, but at list the idea was original, or well, I've not seen nothing similar but the verbs in gimpsy.
This let very clear, that Google is in a clear war against directories.

[edited by: skibum at 1:40 pm (utc) on Aug. 8, 2005]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]

 

Event_King




msg:471438
 11:44 pm on Aug 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google getting scared? lol. Can't do them any favours by turning down potential business revenue from directory companies.

Didn't have a problem indexing directories before - so why the change of heart? I hate companies that pull this kind of thing. Time to move away from Google I think.

klackers




msg:471439
 12:37 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

What directory was it that got hit?

Webwork




msg:471440
 3:24 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd consider it a weaning and be thankful.

Webwork




msg:471441
 4:10 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

My point? It's not a war. It's an education.

A directory that is dependent upon a search engine for its vitality is what? Vestigial? At least from the POV of any search engine it might as well be.

[google.com...]

I cannot imagine a directory that sees it's sustenance in search engine traffic - especially, sustenance that's essential to its success - as being any more than a temporary scheme to make a few bucks "whilst the sun shines" or the SEs remain open to the latest SEO ploy.

Now, don't get me wrong. There's been plenty of people who have used this approach to make hay. However, for anyone creating a directory with more than that in mind the "essential interdependency" model is bad architecture IMHO. Yes, such traffic is great, but it better well be only 1 of a dozen sources of merchantable traffic if you're in the business of directories.

Weanings aren't wars. They're tests of fitness for survival.

Event_King




msg:471442
 10:37 am on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Many will waste their time and money, if one isn't unique.

klackers




msg:471443
 4:25 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

So it was Gimpsy that got hit?

mrdch




msg:471444
 7:06 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

So it was Gimpsy that got hit?

No.

fischermx




msg:471445
 1:55 am on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, it was note Gimpsy! god forbide!
The dir one who got hit is another.

dataguy




msg:471446
 1:14 am on Aug 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I belong to the ISEDN which has about 45 member search engines and directories. It appears that about 10%-15% of them got hit by the July 28th massacre.

dataguy




msg:471447
 1:21 am on Aug 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd consider it a weaning and be thankful.

While I agree that a directory should not rely on search engine traffic (just like any other legitimate web business) I think being de-listed like so many have on July 28th is over the top.

A grey-barred directory is different than simply not receiving any traffic from Google. It's more like Google saying that your directory is evil, which would make it difficult for a directory to get people who wanted to be listed, as well as advertisers.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved