Forum Moderators: open
Their main page for an strange reason had a PR0 for a few weeks, but now it's back ti PR8.
If you optimize the directory to show up in the serps, then the traffic will come and people will find value in BlueFind.
I totally agree with this. I have some clients with dozens of links from directories that all produce PR 0 because they are databases or some other problem not passing PR. It's gotten to the point that before I will submit to a directory now I check the PR of the page where it should appear and if it is in a database I move on unless I have experienced high traffic from that directory in the past. I have noticed lots of directories taking the effort to produce sites that pass PR and those are the ones that will prosper--unless PR becomes extinct.
I have no idea why you reacted to my remarks negatively. It's criticism. Since these few directories have been promoted so freely and I've paid a significant amount of money to them, I have a right to criticize them as I see fit.
Anytime someone asks for a short list of the "best" directories on the Internet, someone like Awall will come in with his recommendations of websites like "Pharos Search" or "Webatlas". I doubt any real list of the best directories on the Internet would include these.
As a note, I don't dislike any of these guys, they seem amiable enough. They just seem a bit wild-eyed in their promotions.
"Dallas"
Did you know that there were actually multiple endings to the show that were filmed and the real one was never known (not even to the actors) until it aired?
Always thought that was great.
My comment isn't anything but a humorous interjection, and was not meant to imply anything relevant to the current discussion.
[edited by: bakedjake at 5:12 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2004]
I do agree that everyone that pays into a directory should have the right to comment and evaluate the listing and let others know of his or her findings.
One person has said he believes that some of the pages are passing page rank. Now how would we go about finding what pages do?
Maybe directories should spend less time telling people how much money they spent working on and marketing the directory and tell everyone how many hits it gets that way everyone knows if it will be good for them or not. Then again there are always pros and cons to that.
hey just thought our world renowned directory owner "JR Scott" is having a few bullets fired at him, lets hope he make a comeback ;)
At least we have a winner for "most untrue statement of the year."
<And glad I wasn't the only one to sit through the Dallas reunion show....>
At least we have a winner for "most untrue statement of the year."
Maybe he thinks PR is truly indicated by the little green bar?
My problem with what Bluefind considers "advertising" is that it is based solely around PR. If the efforts for advertising was based around branding and bringing in visitors, they'd be throwing up a $.05 ad for their own name in Google. Not to mention other terms like web directory and specific ads pointing to some of the most populated categories.
The biggest concern with a directory such as this is that it is completely dependant on the text links being purchased. I applaud them for the aggressive marketing, and wish other directories would do the same. However, with very little natural link building, will Bluefind be able to maintain their current advertising budget in 2 years? When major competitive categories are filled with 40-50 sites, will they still be able to pull in the same number of new signups as they do now?
I certainly don't blame him for defending his site, especially when many of these attacks seem personal. Bluefind is what it is, a $50 directory that may or may not help you in the SERPs. If this is a big hit to your marketing budget, skip it. If not, I can't imagine this being anymore of a risk than any other paid directory.
Nice to see a little humour in WebmasterWorld. :)
Like I've said before, the day-to-day status of BlueFind in Google, or any other search engine, has nothing to do with our long term goals or the value of the directory listing.
Oddly enough, it doesn't even affect the submissions. For a while there the majority of BlueFind pages had dropped from the index, and yet submissions remain strong.
Dynamoo, treat those PR predictions for the rubbish that they are. PR prediction is, like astrology, only there for amusement.PR at next update would be 10
That should have served as a clue ;)
The conclusions you draw are therefore flawed.
Hardly. The point is that BF has enough inbound links to put it right at the top of the scale, and the link base appears to be growing. This will put it on the radar of all those PhDs at Google.
Using a PR predictor tool is a sight more useful than just doing a link count, although you can do that too and come up with extremely high numbers.
This will put it on the radar of all those PhDs at Google.
Absolutley correct, look at the problems that other Search directory had that tried to be King (pun intended)
Wish all a happy new year!
Mc
Not one of 5 links I have shows as a backlink.
My theory is it's because the page the links are on don't appear in Google. They are one of the many "supplemental results" you see. Bluefind sure looks to be suffering from a real bad case of "Duplicate Content".
Not one of 5 links I have shows as a backlink.
I have stood back and not posted to this thread. I am not in any way connected with BF and do NOT even have a link in their directory that I know of.
If you haven't noticed Google not showing some of the best links you have to a site - well I suggest you look again ;)
I know many/most sites that show only the very worst of their backlinks (scraper sites and dmoz clones) when using the link command on Google since Google made the switch on which backlinks they show. I wouldn't suggest basing your value of a backlink from BF or any other site on if it shows in Google by way of the "link:" command. Do you think they did this by accident ;)
a) See if the page it is on has a PR.
b) See if the link is a text link.
c) Make sure there is no jump cgi/php script type page that the link passes through to get to your site.
I don't trust the results that you get when you use link:www.site and I have read in other forums that it isn't accurate.
Mc
I will provide my personal information for statistical purposes so that you can get an idea of where I get my opinion from.
I submitted a site to a nearly empty category many months ago which had a PR of 4 (I believe). As I check now (and this could be being "fixed" by Google) that category has no PR, nor does its parent category, nor does its grand-parent category (which is a top level category). I then checked the PR of other top level categories and more than half of them have the white bar, which I would conclude means they are being penalized. This means it is safe to say (based on what we know about Google) that the incoming link from BF is not worth very much from a PR standpoint, although it "may" contribute a relevent link towards my site. However, I do believe that the fact that it appears to be penalized will detract from its ability to boost my rankings in G, as compared to another relevent site that isn't penalized.
As for traffic:
September: 3 Hits
October: 7 Hits
November: 0 Hits
December: 1 Hit
January (thus far): 0 Hits
When I submitted to BF I did hope and think that since I was in a pretty targeted category that is also only a 3rd level one, that I would receive a "reasonable" number of hits a month, and that this submission would contribute to the vast promotional binge I was going on.
However, in a realistic sense, at the current time, BF is not passing me any PR, nor is it passing me any useful traffic. In other words, my submission to BF has been degraded, at the current time, to nothing more than a link to my site from a relevent site with almost no value, as far as I can predict from Google's penalization history.
Would I submit any future projects to BF? Most likely.
The reasons are that I am only charged a one time fee, which I like. Secondly, who knows how much traffic or PR I will be provided with in the future with BF, because the fact is that the homepage has a PR of 8, which means Google places value on the site. I view marketing almost as a metaphor for "building relationships": You don't always foresee the future gain from creating a link, but the more you have, the higher the chances that you will be able to gain from it. And for me, $50 is pretty expendable.
All in all, I would invest in a listing in BF for the future potential, but not expect anything in regards to a boost in rankings or direct traffic any time soon. If it were to crash and burn, I would not regret the loss of $50 since you should take that into account whenever you invest in advertising.
If the link: command doesn't show a dmoz link, then looking through the backlinks in Google is just a waste of time.
Why is it a waste of time?
Why is it a waste of time?
A dmoz link represents a quality link (hope no disputes here), and a backlink query that doesn't return such a link, isn't giving useful data.
Mc
But I just don't get why we should discount the links they do show. I've gone back through the last two pages of posts and am trying to determine why this is relevant to what's being discussed.
They've never shown all the links they know about
Yes. But there was an order to it. They showed links equal to and above PR4.
But I just don't get why we should discount the links they do show.
Well, you may continue to use link: command in Google, if you like the feeling of - did I miss something. In this case you would have missed a lot. But I would rather use yahoo linkdomain: to know all the pages linking.
am trying to determine why this is relevant to what's being discussed
Coz, lot of people here are declaring Bluefind doesn't pass PR, because they don't see one of its pages as a backlink in Google and that is mis-leading.
Mc
[edited by: McMohan at 7:06 pm (utc) on Jan. 7, 2005]
But I just don't get why we should discount the links they do show.
I would pay more attention to the links they often don't show - the ones that don't show are many times some of the best ones to have. Don't use Google for backlink analysis ;)
Well, you may continue to use link: command in Google, if you like the feeling of - did I miss something. In this case you would have missed a lot. But I would rather use yahoo linkdomain: to know all the pages linking.
Yahoo doesn't show all the links either.
I use several methods to find all the links. First google link, then allinurl and then the URL in google then yahoo's link command and I also check referrals in the site meter.
“Is there anything else apart from G?”
He was serious and he sure aint stupid…
Joe public don’t give a flying ****!
“Is there anything else apart from G?”
Do you ever check your referrer logs?
Directories that provide traffic commensurate with their price are few and far between outside of your niche. I undertake link building in a manner I imagine is similar to most, if I have time and I haven't gotten around to it in a while, I try to get some. My particular niche has very few reciprocal partners, so I go bug online editors etc.
I like directory links because it seems sensible to me to have my link in among other relevant links. I'm not aware of true search engine benefit for these links outside of DMOZ and Yahoo! but I'm a big believer in the fact that directory links get me other links, new partners and a higher profile in my industry with the other 'hardcore'industry observers, SEO's, media etc.
It's brand building with an important audience, if you ask me.
Where BlueFind has succeeded is finding a way to launch a directory with a splash. This has little benefit for my site, but it creates the possibility for their sustained presence and that should have a long term benefit for me exceeding the $50 submission fee.
Hey we have reached the verdict; it doesn't pass PR ;)
While John likes to argue for some type of alternative abstract benefit associated with being listed - at present a BF listing does not return either of the tangible benefits that I care about.
