homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.217.122
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 588 message thread spans 20 pages: < < 588 ( 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 > >     
Does Google Ban or Filter Web Directories?
moftary




msg:726185
 1:06 pm on Jul 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the subject worth a thread itself. It's a suspision so far. Yet I don't see dmoz, yahoo nor any major web directory were banned/filter nor PRed zero as my web directory did. I tried to check it in Alexa (powered by google) and I see some results from my site. Appearently, Alexa brings old results from Google but something weird is that Alexa itself has PR0 now. But that's another story!

If you run a web directory, feel free to post your experience here.

 

alwaysthinking




msg:726575
 8:53 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

HA! Maybe this nonsense will kill this thread, finally!

moftary




msg:726576
 9:00 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hopefully, alwaysthinking. And shamefully in the same time.

WebFusion




msg:726577
 9:15 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google To Face Class Action Lawsuit:
Take a look at this!
[free-press-release.com...]

The Moral: Never let the uneducated near a keyboard. My 12 year old could write a better press release than that.

Ask SearchKing how successful it is to cry about how Google is "treating you" in the courts....

reseller




msg:726578
 9:32 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor

I really like your detailed well written posts. But with all due respect, most of them smell of Google as* kissing.

You talk about AdSense as junk which make any AdSense publisher to feel as people enemy #1.

moftary




msg:726579
 9:37 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

hmm, regardless than those silly posts and how silly this thread is becoming, I have an interesting finding..

check [dmoz.org...] against its clone [google.com...] and cache:www.google.com/alpha/Top/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/

moftary




msg:726580
 9:40 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

oh forget what i just said and keep flaming eachother:)

europeforvisitors




msg:726581
 10:13 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor

I really like your detailed well written posts. But with all due respect, most of them smell of Google as* kissing.

Why is it as* kissing to talk common sense?

The Contractor is just showing tough love toward those who put on rose-colored glasses before looking at themselves in the mirror.

You talk about AdSense as junk which make any AdSense publisher to feel as people enemy #1.

He didn't suggest that AdSense was junk; he implied that sites using AdSense as the only "content" above the fold were junk (or at least not worthy of inclusion in Google's index). Unless you're one of the offenders, why would that make you feel slighted?

The Contractor




msg:726582
 10:13 pm on Aug 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I really like your detailed well written posts. But with all due respect, most of them smell of Google as* kissing.

Yep, go back and read my posts since I have joined...you will see I am always sucking up to Google.

I call it as I see it. This thread is about what Google thinks of the websites that got hit from this.

In the case of this thread I have stated my opinion clearly, but I will state it one more time as no-one really reads anymore anyways.

If you want to put up duplicate sites, scrape others for your content, or use duplicate content for the majority of your content that is fine by me. My problem is, don't try to mislead yourself, the SE's, or others on what you are doing or have done. If you are going to play that game, don't whine when the SE's don't agree with it.

In the case of a sites content makeup being 80% Adsense ads, 19.90% duplicate content, and .1% (if that) original content I simply don't agree those site owners should be so amazed that Google took action.

The same goes if the majority of your site is duplicate content or you have multiple sites running the same content. This is nothing new, it's just that they started targeting it more. Think of it this way – I can go to almost any real estate agents site located in the United states. Almost all of them have the city information, schools, yada, yada, yada… Tell me when was the last time you saw one of those sites ranking for any of that information when searching on a locality? Why is that? Because that info is duplicated/syndicated over and over again… Why are people so amazed Google decided to act on this?

In the case of the directories like I stated above - I surely wouldn't want to run my ads (AdWords) on a site like that. As a matter of fact I wouldn't even want to be associated with a site like that.

Maybe Google figures that AdWords advertisers can only block X number of sites before they get tired of blocking these types of sites and give up on the content-network altogether. Either way you look at it you have to be honest with yourself – If you were in Google's shoes would you want to return sites like that in your results?

JuniorOptimizer




msg:726583
 1:04 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor looks more ignorant to me every time he prances back into this thread with his opionions stated as fact.

Can anyone honestly with a straight face pretend that Google, Inc. is not capable of making mistakes? They are capable, and they are making mistakes constantly.

Sites get dropped all the time for no reason. As Google themselves stated to me: "its tough to keep track of 8 billion web pages". Not every webmaster is guilty of wrong-doing, and many innocent sites have been dropped yet again.

When Google makes mistakes, they do not own up to them. Instead they ignore any attempt at dialogue.

theBear




msg:726584
 1:44 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

In that respect Google and Website owners have the market cornered.

The Contractor is far more correct than some of you give him credit for.

Some sites do get caught in the crossfire and best we not forget a lot of it is in fact crossfire, from multiple locations, in number not always two.

There is your riddle for today.

tigertom




msg:726585
 1:52 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google makes its money from presenting relevant results; that, and its super-clean interface, made it famous.

It has to get rid of irrelevant results. Even two non-techy friends of mine said 'Oh yeah' when I mentioned these pseudo-directories coming up in them.

It's cleaning house. I've been at this forum long enough to have read similar griping about previous updates. At this stage it's comical.

Maybe I'm going mad, but I feel the urge to giggle when people go on and on ad nauseam about the behaviour of big search engines in forums, as if they'll heed long rants demanding the clock be turned back, and cursing Google.

The Contractor has made the most incisive analysis I've read yet. If he were evil, he could keep this thread going for a few more days by calmly stating the likely reasons for our bans, and wait for the angry repudiations.

Everyone else seems to be hoping to leave their site as is, or that by complaining at length GoogleGuy will rush back to the office and shout 'The webmasters are revolting!'

[cue riposte "yes, we know!"]

I'm in the process of splitting my (clean!) content to seven other sites, leaving my quirky misc. (clean!) stuff on my main site. I've removed the junk from all sites, and am now looking for any other minor infractions.

Then I'll stop blocking the GoogleBot via robots.txt, and see what happens.

Any helpful suggestions gratefully received. I put up a post about this, but it seems not to have been approved: too tricksy, or maybe more duplicate content (of material in other posts here).

Pre_Emptor




msg:726586
 2:33 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Its not google's job, right, or position to evaluate the quality of sites. They may think and act like it is, and you all may support it bcs they have a monopoly, but it isn't. Google's job is in keyword search, connecting users with all the possible options.

At any rate, we were finally returned to the index after much contacting. We asked our user base to contact google to let them know people used us, and we are back to our #1 positions. Our PR rank hasn't been returned yet, but its better to be listed than not.

PE

ncwonline




msg:726587
 4:32 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am feeling the pain as all of you. 16000 page niche directory for a certain industry online since 2000 adsense added in 2003. Then gone from google in a flash.

I think I know exactly why this has happened. It is because of google local. Google is eliminating the sites who compete with it. Before they went public I think they had a more casual attitude about this but now they have to have a long term plan that some pretty boy vice prez can squawk about at board meeting and estimate more income.

Pretty damn easy target for some junior tech boy to walk in and say. Oh look, If we eliminate all these pesky little competitors we can make X more money every yr.

This is my theory. Fire away and tell me what you all think.

I have been surviving nicely due to msn search, yahoo and AOL search.

Got my notice today about the yahoo Publisher Network see below:

-----------------------------
Today, Yahoo! Publisher Network launched a new self-serve platform that will provide small- and medium-sized web publishers with easy access to Yahoo! advertising and content. We're very excited about our new offering, not only because it will enable a broader set of publishers to generate revenue from their sites, but also because it can offer publishers access to many of Yahoo!'s other products and properties.

The Yahoo! Publisher Network self-serve platform is currently available as an invitation-only beta. If you haven't received an invitation yet, please be assured that we will be extending additional invitations over the course of the coming weeks and months. Our goal is to learn from the feedback we receive during the initial beta period, refine the platform and add new features, then open the program up to the general publishing community before the end of the year.

We're looking forward to working with you to build a strong and successful community through the Yahoo! Publisher Network.

Sincerely,

The Yahoo! Publisher Network Team

-------------------------------------
He,He, here's mud in your eye google.
Time for a change of advertisers.

###

McMohan




msg:726588
 6:15 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor has given such valuable info, which some high rankers will charge in thousands. Appreciate your perseverance and clarity of purpose The Contractor, despite majority here not understanding it and on top of it criticize.

brizad




msg:726589
 8:53 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Man I can't believe this discussion is still going strong. Days ago I got tired of posting and saying the same thing over and over to those who were in denial.

There are obviously a few souls here who have more patience than I do. They are really trying to help and share their knowledge but instead they get called names. That's too bad.

I'm tired of my mailbox overflowing with replies to this post. You'd think I'd know this by now, but I've never been driven to do it before. How the heck I can unsubscribe from email notifications of replies to this post?

Anyway, back I go to making more sites... ;-)

JuniorOptimizer




msg:726590
 10:45 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"The Contractor has given such valuable info, which some high rankers will charge in thousands. Appreciate your perseverance and clarity of purpose The Contractor, despite majority here not understanding it and on top of it criticize."

LOL. Wow, and he offered it for free. And you are right, The Contractor's advice is so stunning, that most of us simply do not understand it.

Angelis




msg:726591
 10:46 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Cont is right though, some people just dont want to even entertain the idea that he is right.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:726592
 10:47 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor is right about what?

Josefu




msg:726593
 10:53 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, me too (back to making sites). Thanks for the brilliant read - it took me almost an hour!

This thread is a great lesson in website integrity if anything: if you've actually got something to say on the web and you gear your site for it, you'll merit mention - but if your site's goal is simply deviating the flow of surfers towards the content they're looking for as ad fodder, your fake road signs will be found out and removed. IMHO this thread was also a good lesson in personal integrity, through the example set by the coherence of the arguments used to defend the former and latter practices.

Personal conclusion: Google should change its motto from the (rather vague IMHO) "don't be Evil" to: "It's the content, stupid".

[edited by: Josefu at 10:55 am (utc) on Aug. 4, 2005]

Angelis




msg:726594
 10:55 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you need me to spell it out for you re-read his posts.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:726595
 11:04 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

" If you need me to spell it out for you re-read his posts. "

So in other words, nothing.

The Contractor




msg:726596
 11:44 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor looks more ignorant to me every time he prances back into this thread with his opionions stated as fact.

JuniorOptimizer I know your tactics, skills, experience, and common sense far outweigh my own, and I apologize for writing such drivel when there are those like yourself among us …

I'm sure in with your vast knowledge and experience you have worked with programming and databases. If you are storing information - what is the greatest improvement of efficiency of storing information? Answer: do not store redundant/multiple instances of the same information.

Why would Google want to store 1000's of instances of the same information (in the case of dmoz clones)? Why would they want to store multiple instances of duplicate sites? Why would they want to store multiple instances contained on various pages of various sites? They not only have to store it, but it also costs to crawl/index these sites/pages? Doesn't make sense to me if I had a SE, why waste the resources?

The fact remains the difference between you and me is your site(s) was/were hit and the dozens of sites I have developed for myself/others were not (along with millions of other sites). You have an attitude of I'm not going to change – Google will have to change. That's fine as long as you don't want/need traffic from them. Otherwise keep waiting ….

I have seen the innocent sites of almost everyone complaining in this thread, plus many more who have stickied me sites and they all had the same problems which have been stated…. I imagine you are right - it's just a coincidence. I will admit some were innocent in the fact they had no idea their client had 5-14 other sites that were duplicates.

Any helpful suggestions gratefully received.

Get rid of the duplicate content/sites or block them via robots.txt. Write Google with "reinclusion request" in the subject line. Admit what you believe the problem was and how you corrected it. Remember, they have cached pages of your site(s) so don't cleanup your site and act dumb by stating "my site was dropped for no reason".

Got my notice today about the yahoo Publisher Network see below:

Everyone that signed up received that email (myself included), but only a small percentage will be let in it's beta program.

McMohan




msg:726597
 12:28 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor looks more ignorant to me every time he prances back into this thread with his opionions stated as fact

Many participate in these threads looking for some info or trying to find an answer to their problems. Many whose sites are doing well wouldn't even spend a minute here trying to find an answer to woes of OTHER webmasters. Yet Contractor is spending considerable amout of time writing some sense, which I can second going by my first hand experience and I also run a directory. Reason I am writing posts in his favor is as a token of appreciation for a person with a "do good unto others" attitude and that is very rare to find these days.

Josefu




msg:726598
 1:02 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I did forget to say thank you. In fact, if it weren't for time spent here by 'just sense' people like The Contractor and jdMorgan (to name just two who's postings have helped me) webmasterworld wouldnt' have the reference reputation it does. Thanks to those who invest in creating general better practices in the web by contributing to the general search for "what's best" for the web. Thanks to people like them this is a place to find hard fact, not place to find kiddies who trade SEO 'tricks' and flame each other.

It's thanks to contributors who give more weight to knowledge than fame that this place is what it is. It's thanks to this place that I could take webmastering in great strides instead of crawling along as a trial-and-error newbie. So thank you for sticking around to make sure the facts make it through - hell, thanks all around.

tigertom




msg:726599
 1:30 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thank you Contractor.

I just found and deleted _more_ (old) dodgy content today, _after_ I'd emailed the re-inclusion request last Friday.

How long do the engineers take to get 'round to your site? I hope I haven't screwed up my chances.

Pre_Emptor said

"At any rate, we were finally returned to the index after much contacting. We asked our user base to contact google to let them know people used us, and we are back to our #1 positions. Our PR rank hasn't been returned yet, but its better to be listed than no"

I wonder if that's a good idea? It seems to have worked for you, but they might get annoyed, getting a lot of emails.

carlosnx




msg:726600
 1:57 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

After investigating, now I' sure about what happens.

Google did ban some thousends of spammy, doorways and duplicated content websites... just as a camouflage for ban about 75 to 100 serious projects that are a potential danger for its incomes in next future or are competitors with other Google projects.

The good, fair, and original content websites baned ARE NOT THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE...ARE THE REAL TARGET of this action.

And one thing... Google guys posting here, trying to create more confusion...please stop.

webdude




msg:726601
 2:00 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Contractor wrote:
Why would Google want to store 1000's of instances of the same information (in the case of dmoz clones)? Why would they want to store multiple instances of duplicate sites? Why would they want to store multiple instances contained on various pages of various sites? They not only have to store it, but it also costs to crawl/index these sites/pages? Doesn't make sense to me if I had a SE, why waste the resources?

Couldn't agree more. I mean, how many directories do there have to be? Especially directories that are nothing but repeated results from other sources.

To create a site just for the sake of another directory, it seems, is foolhardy. The stuff is already out there folks. To create a directory site for the sake of adsense, or clicks, is downright stupid, unless that directory is totally unique. It doeasn't pay to be lazy.

webdude




msg:726602
 2:05 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh... and by the way, this is directed to The Contractor, thanks for some thoughtful and insightful posts. I appreciate it. I run a fairly comprehensive, unique directory that has not been affected at all. In fact, it gained a few spots. Looks like building that thing by hand and editing it so it has unique and valuable information for my users really paid off.

The Contractor




msg:726603
 2:15 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the "thanks", but it's not necessary. My reasons for posting in this thread is not for the spotlight. I simply like "real" and "original" directories, their structure, and their contents and believe they provide a valuable resource when done correctly. Will the SE's always value them? Who knows?

I also don't like "misinformation" or people chasing conspiracy theories. The theory I have stated has been backed up by what myself and others have seen. I am willing to listen to other theories, but so far in over 400 posts to this thread there has been four reasons for sites being hit.

Google is banning sites because they include the word directory in the title.
Google is banning sites because they use the ODP clone of the "Computers" category.
Google is banning sites because they have been hacked.
Google is banning sites because the majority of their content is duplicate.

I can disprove the first two and of the remaining two I happen to believe that it's a duplicate content issue to put it broadly. This also takes into account what GoogleGuy stated.

People can choose to believe what they want and present their own theory or they can believe Google was hacked and their enemies have removed their sites. That is not to say that some sites were dropped for other reasons including technical problems with Google. I have had a site drop out for 2-months a couple years ago and the only action I took was to continue working on it during that time period. It came back stronger than ever.

added: I'm sorry the following theory needs included as it was added after I wrote the above.
Google did ban some thousends of spammy, doorways and duplicated content websites... just as a camouflage for ban about 75 to 100 serious projects that are a potential danger for its incomes in next future or are competitors with other Google projects.

europeforvisitors




msg:726604
 2:29 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have had a site drop out for 2-months a couple years ago and the only action I took was to continue working on it during that time period. It came back stronger than ever.

I had a similar experience, except that the two-month period was earlier this year.

Google did ban some thousends of spammy, doorways and duplicated content websites... just as a camouflage for ban about 75 to 100 serious projects that are a potential danger for its incomes in next future or are competitors with other Google projects.

If they're banning sites that compete with them for revenue, why do I keep running across Yahoo Travel pages in Google's SERPs?

webdude




msg:726605
 2:42 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google is banning sites because they include the word directory in the title.

I'm glad you included that the first two can be disproved, because my title is "Widget Directory." You had me going there for a minute :-)

This 588 message thread spans 20 pages: < < 588 ( 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved