bpcombs
msg:3323919 | 3:14 pm on Apr 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Yahoo appears to be more dependant upon on-page factors than Google. It also seems to have less sophiticated evaluation of links. For instance, they aren't as sensitive to link aging. Brian
|
mattrix
msg:3325210 | 6:59 am on Apr 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
On the topic of link aging - how long do you think it takes for a backlink to give you its full power in Google?
|
Quadrille
msg:3325306 | 11:28 am on Apr 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
A few spidering 'cycles' - ie, the spiders been round the block a few times. With many sites, that'll be a few days, for others it can be weeks. I agree with bpcombs; if you are performing poorly in Google (relatively), then links are the first place to look. get in some quality directories, look specially for those in your niche, and check you do not have links to bad neighborhoods. Indeed, check all your outgoing links for relevance and value to your visitors. For Google these days, it's all about quality links - not, for example, forum links (And I wish someone would tell all the forum link droppers!).
|
mattrix
msg:3325338 | 1:02 pm on Apr 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Thanks for that Quadrille ;) Aside from Yahoo and DMOZ (which to me seems completely rigged with competitors editing the listing) which directories out there would you say constitute quality directories?
|
tedster
msg:3325446 | 5:18 pm on Apr 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
mattrix, rather than getting into promoting any directories by name, it's more appropriate to look at what criteria you can use to make a decision. That whole discussion is a big part of our Directories Forum. Here's a good thread from the Directories Forum Library:
Criteria for Assessing Free or Paid Directories [webmasterworld.com]
|
|
