Webwork - 2:55 pm on Jan 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

Would someone please explain the "no footprints" concern? Is it "no footprints" as in "Dear Google: Please, sir, we really aren't just another spammy, been there done that, directory site"?

It's a matter of the "shame of being a directory"? (In Google's or Yahoo's eyes?) JAD - Just Another Directory - syndrome?

OR is it that, in your mind or experience, it's okay to be a directory so long as your directory is not associated with all of those other spammy PageRank sellling directories, which you feel Google/Yahoo/Etc. identify mostly by their footpring, i.e., the software commonly used by cheesy duplicative directory sites?

So, the cuprit in any directory wonting for search engine love is thw software, not the quality of the directory generated using the software? (Quality = Not the same old DMOZ dump but something more.)

Footprint = Guilt by association of merely using GPL software?

Man, IF Google or Yahoo is that simplistic in their algo or filtering then Google IS broken, for what company more than Google should be backing open source - IF they wish to be viewed as . . progressive? Small guy/gal friendly? Whatever it means to side on the side of favoring opensource software?

Matt Cutts? Are you out there? Please tell me that GPL "footprint" is NOT an issue when it comes to anyone's directory. Please tell me that "the script" and/or the software's "footprint" is nowhere in the formula.

Has anyone anywhere read or heard anything that even hints at any search engine disfavoring a directory or website on the basis of its choice of opensource directory script? That would be a major philosophical blunder. Sure, nail the latest of 200,000 clones of DMOZ but beyond simplisitic cloning there should be no other compelling reason to have to hide a GPL footprint, i.e., shun the freely available solution.

I'm calling BS on this one IF there's any truth to the stated or presumed "footprint sanction".