homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

Lost Keyword Ranking

 5:29 am on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi Guys Plz. come up with some solution...
After we started directory submission we going down in search engine ranking for the keyword "example".

[edited by: martinibuster at 3:47 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed specifics. [/edit]



 7:25 am on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

May be you are submitting your link to unrelated directories/categories which causing you lost in ranking. Try to submit your link to related directories/categories.


 7:42 am on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thanks for suggestion but i am submitting it into relevant category..can you suggest me how many links should be posted in a day.


 8:06 am on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

One of more important steps before beginning directory submission servire is the qualification of the frequency of the addition to directories .
That depends on several factors :What Domain old is - What PageRank* domain have , the quantity and value of back links to domain, current indexing through search engine .

There are no ideal method best solutions in the majority of cases are you should remember so that constantly establishing the number directories submission on the day , regularly get links from directories and about similar the frequency or lightly more enlarging the number of added directorie in the measure of the outflow of the time.

The worst solutions is when one day add. to 150-300 directories with the same title itself adds can end this by filter on word in SERP (site not display by some words) or in the the worst case maybe ban for the whole domain - your site not dispay in search results .


 9:43 am on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

maybe others are getting more links than you are.
and maybe their links are better?


 3:42 pm on Sep 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>After we started directory submission we going down in search engine ranking for the keyword "example".

Well, you just "told" google that you are an SEO, and you are trying to rank for that keyword.

[edited by: caveman at 3:54 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2007]
[edit reason] Exemplified [/edit]


 10:25 pm on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe the directories that you submitted to were caught in that recent banning of directories networking together that were accepting paid links.


 3:34 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Lorel, is there a link to the subject of Google banning directories accepting paid submissions that you could point me to?

I've been submitting my new site to a lot of directories. Some have paid "premium" listings, but also accept free submissions. I only submit to the directories that offer free submissions.


 1:11 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

dickbaker, I'd reconsider that practice.

Believe me I get the whole thing about how hard it is to find links for new sites, etc., but there are a lot of poor quality directories out there that are not worth the time, and more out there whose sole purpose seemed to be to fill the void for providing easy links for new sites; many even talk about themselves mainly in terms of SEO and link value.

The SE's are not oblivious to that, and as alluded to, many directories not long ago got wacked pretty badly by G.

IMHO, it's not that hard to look at a directory in a niche and tell if it's quality or not. Links from quality niche directories, and from a handful of the big mega directories still make total sense. Beyond that, consider looking elsewhere for early traction for a new site. ;-)


 4:45 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Caveman, how would a person know if a particular directory had been "whacked" by Google?

Moreover, if it's possible to damage a site by submitting to directories that have been "whacked," wouldn't competitors be submitting other sites in their niche to these whacked directories?

I always try to think as the people at Google might think. And it seems that a link from a worthless directory is worthless, but not damaging. If you disagree, I'd really appreciate hearing your opinion.

My new site's niche--mortgage related topics--is so competitive and stingy with links that I literally need to go to result #157 to find a site owner who's willing to trade links.


 2:27 pm on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Lorel, is there a link to the subject of Google banning directories accepting paid submissions that you could point me to?

Hi Caveman,

The discussion is on another forum regarding directories "assumed" to be authorities that were charging a fee but were using a networking method that falsly inflated their PR that enabled them to have good enough PR so they chould charge a hefty fee for submission. Google penalized them all.

I haven't seen it discussed here much because you can't check things out without being able to mention names, ect., so I don't think I would be allowed to post the link here. Just search for words related to authority direcories banned by Google."

how would a person know if a particular directory had been "whacked" by Google?

The affected directories (and all in the same network) were no longer appearing for their own business name in searches.


 10:38 pm on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

What Lorel said.

And the way it gets a site in trouble is not just that the site shows some backlinks from those directories...

If you want to think like a SE, which is a very good idea, just know that the SE's are not eager to rank unproven sites or pretty much any kind of site, where a majority of their inbounds from cr*p directories and not much else.

Remember, the SE's are always looking for signals of qualtiy. That sort of backlink profile is sorta the opposite to what they're looking for. ;-)


 10:55 pm on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

and not much else

The problem here is the "not much else". There's nothing wrong with getting listed in directories, but by itself that's not enough.

Everyone has to start someplace, but until you get links from a broader base of sites, Google will simply yawn.


 1:45 am on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

FWIW, recent work and observations have me personally believing what I am SURE some with take issue with: Starting with those directories, if yours is a new site, is likely to push your site out further from decent rankings. At least one SE, and IMHO more than one, have a memory about link dev patterns. Those who are uncertain of this: Read the patent papers.

Think of it this way: Once a person decides another person is sleazy, it can take a long time for that perception to reverse itself. As people, we remember what we see, even if we don't see it again for a long time. It is stored in our memory banks. Hmmmm, reminds me of a SE or two I know ;-)


 3:33 am on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

is likely to push your site out further from decent rankings

If you're right, it opens up a new method of competitor sabotage.

There has to be more to the story ...


 3:33 am on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting idea, caveman.

I'm sure that most of the members here started out with a brand-new site with no PR and no links. In my case, I'm going back three to six years to when that was the case.

I couldn't get links from well-ranked directories or sites within my niche because my site was new. So, I had to go for quantity of links rather than quality. Over time, that changed, of course.

Not much has changed, except that it's nearly impossible to get links within my new niche, as it's just too competitive.

If your idea is right, then that means that owners of new sites must either pray that the owner of a respected site will take pity and offer a link, or pay for links. Waiting for saints can be time-consuming, and the concensus around here seems to be that paid links are anethema to Google.

I've had very good success the last six years in getting sites ranked well. Now I'm reading that everything I learned from Brett Tabke's article as it relates to links has gone out the window.

I'd love to hear any further thoughts you have on this.


 3:49 am on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

IMHO, if a site is linkable, its linkable (no matter how "new" it is) if its not linkable, then it's simply not linkable.

To make a site linkable...

1- make sure it has unique, interesting content that other sites want to link to because doing so will benefit their user base.

2- promote it through the new social networking, tagging, bookmarking, sites.

3- sit back and wait for the links to come pouring in

4- keep creating unique interesting content that more sites want to link to.


 5:23 am on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Petra, what you've described is exactly what I did with I site I launched in 2004.

Once I had the site online, I went begging for directory links or links from one-topic sites related to my niche. It was a hard go even then, as I was turned down often. My site was too new, and had no PR.

"...promote it through the new social networking, tagging, bookmarking, sites."

There seems to be an enormous amount of disagreement about whether promoting a site through the "new" social network sites is of any value. If my site was about a pop celebrity, and her weight gain, I could see where such sites would be of value. But a post on such sites about <a current business-related topic> just doesn't garner many votes for popularity.

"...sit back and wait for the links to come pouring in."

I'm 57 years old, Petra. I can't afford to sit back and wait for long. ;)

Seriously, it's just become much more difficult to get links from established sites to a new site. We all know that.

My very successful 2004 site didn't offer content that was radically new; instead, it offered a central location for content that was previously scattered amongst other sites.

My new site offers content that's similar to that of many, many other sites on the internet. Again, though, what I'm trying to do with the site is make it a central location for content that's otherwise scattered. In other words, replicate a successful formula, but in a much more competitive niche.

The site that I view as my tartetted competitor--and the one that I hope to get close to in ranking--offers a variety of <tools specific to the category>. My guess is that the owner of the site knows javascript like the back of his hand, or has the cash to pay people to construct these <tools>.

Visitors to his site find the tools useful, if they can find them when searching. The greatest benefit I see for this site owner, though, is that he has the scripts hidden in SSI files. He offers them free to other site owners, but the tools have an embedded link to his site. No way around it: if you want to put one of his tools on your site, he's getting an inbound link.

So, the tools probably get minimal usage from his actual vistors, but the embedded links from widget-broker sites to his number in the several thousands.

I hope I'm not coming across as whining here, as that's not my intent. I'm just trying to figure out how to get quality links to my site. Social, blog, old-fashioned sites...I don't see a difference in importance between any of the three.

[edited by: caveman at 5:39 am (utc) on Sep. 17, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed specifics, per TOS. [/edit]


 5:42 pm on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

If your idea is right, then that means that owners of new sites must either pray that the owner of a respected site will take pity and offer a link, or pay for links. Waiting for saints can be time-consuming, and the concensus around here seems to be that paid links are anethema to Google.

Not at all. But I agree with you that times have changed dramatically versus four or five years ago. It's harder than ever to get links, and despite what some seem to believe [webmasterworld.com], that is especially true of new sites.

Remember, the algo's and filters have a lot do do with pattern matching, and assigning likelihoods ... both positive and negative.

For example, the SE's are capable of tracking the growth of links for a new site - let's call it Beta site. If a majority of Beta site's links come from directories that have been penalized or banned expressly because the SE's have come to regard them as existing solely for the purpose of manipulating rankings, then Beta site might be regarded by the algo as representing a high likelihood of being spammy...whether it is or not.

Once Beta site has exhibited a link growth profile that is mathematically associated at a high degree of probability with spam sites, it's not hard to imagine that for some period of time, that site will be put in a holding pattern, and need to prove itself by gaining a substantial number of quality links. It is essentially a variation of what people used to call the "sandbox."

Beta site is better off gaining limited quality links over time, including but not limited to well regarding mega directories, high quality niche directories related to the topic of the site, and as many other sites and/or pages as possible that could be seen as giving legitimate 'votes' to Beta site. Better still, Beta site is well served by coming up witih ideas, features, and yes even just great content, that one way or another leads to, or encourages, inlinks.

How to get those links is outside of the topic of this thread, but the point of this thread should not be ignored. There is evidence all around us lately of the lengths that SEs are going to to prevent sites from ranking well by virtue of buying links, getting links from poor quality sites, etc.

Don't make the mistake of going mainly for cr*p links in the early days of a site, just because quality links are so much harder to come by. There is always a way. Site owners just need to figure out what that way is...or risk delaying the day when their site ranks well. ;-)


 10:12 pm on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let's see - one keyword. That's too competitive in the business you're in and it will probably not help you much to add any number of inbound links. What you could do was to be a little creative with the good old formula of content creation as in:

Create: Basic Content then Alot of Specialized Content and then Even More Specific Content.

For instance you could make a basic article on the epeen keyword of your business, then just begin expanding it from there with some specialized content, describing what to look out for when doing this or that, or how to do this or that and what types of this or that.... and of course make some very specific contents to match the specialized contents.

The specific articles could be definitions of some of the terms and expressions you use as ordinary business language - which people usually never have a clue about what means, but would provide USEFUL to them if they should ever come across your website, its articles, specializations and specifics.

Think it's called a wiki, a few core articles, then just expand from there until there's nothing more of value to anybody to write or explain.

The thing is - if you can't get external links, then get internal links. Perhaps the Search Engines might even think you're serious and actually know something about - you know - stuff.

Sincerely, and have fun,

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
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