Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
[edited by: skibum at 1:40 pm (utc) on Aug. 8, 2005]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
Didn't have a problem indexing directories before - so why the change of heart? I hate companies that pull this kind of thing. Time to move away from Google I think.
A directory that is dependent upon a search engine for its vitality is what? Vestigial? At least from the POV of any search engine it might as well be.
I cannot imagine a directory that sees it's sustenance in search engine traffic - especially, sustenance that's essential to its success - as being any more than a temporary scheme to make a few bucks "whilst the sun shines" or the SEs remain open to the latest SEO ploy.
Now, don't get me wrong. There's been plenty of people who have used this approach to make hay. However, for anyone creating a directory with more than that in mind the "essential interdependency" model is bad architecture IMHO. Yes, such traffic is great, but it better well be only 1 of a dozen sources of merchantable traffic if you're in the business of directories.
Weanings aren't wars. They're tests of fitness for survival.
I'd consider it a weaning and be thankful.
While I agree that a directory should not rely on search engine traffic (just like any other legitimate web business) I think being de-listed like so many have on July 28th is over the top.
A grey-barred directory is different than simply not receiving any traffic from Google. It's more like Google saying that your directory is evil, which would make it difficult for a directory to get people who wanted to be listed, as well as advertisers.