What did Google achieve? Why did it happen?

[rainchild]

I am still not sure what Google did or whyThe killed the advertising model. Many people were blogging and making a living, now they have to rethink that or drastically change the format of their site.After delaying the Q3 update, the way I see it they manually penalised the Directory Owners on DP who were not listening and this by ambushing them in the serp's where they were least expecting it. They then widened the net, changing the way they calculate PR and sites they deemed to be selling links that pass PR saw a significant drop in their standing.

What were the blogs you refer to selling as advertising? How has Google killed their business? Why was Google wrong to do what it did? If you are going to sell advertising you need to be able to offer your clients exposure to targeted traffic. Is this what those blogs were doing? Has Google de-indexed them? Has Google banned them?

[Dan]

Don't agree with that perspective at all. Google penalised paid text link buying and selling, not DP directory owners.

You only saw the DP fallout. It was much bigger than that, and there was a lot more noise about blogs being hit than directories. A lot more. In fact the noise concerning the blogs is getting louder in volume if you are in the right circles and listening. The noise about the directories losing PR went silent long ago.

Google didn't widen the PR net at all. They admitted their algorithm is broken by handing out manual penalties based on "dobbing in a site". So a whole lot of jealous types, and those who like to suck up, went and dobbed their competition in as selling links. In general, really good sites got slapped, though a handful of bad sites were also hit. But, many more bad sites escaped penalty and continue to fly in the face of Google's new rules. Google thinks that everyone is a snitch and will dob in sites. I haven't dobbed in one, though I see literally hundreds everyday that are breaking their rules. Why don't I dob people in? Firstly, no one likes a snitch. Secondly, I don't have time. I'm too busy taking care of my own interests to give 5 seconds to consider any of Google's. They should take care of their own backyard. The fact that they don't is really just an indication of where they are currently.

Most sites that advertise sell links, it might not be the link they are selling, it is almost certainly the traffic or something else, but that's beside the point. A ridiculous witch hunt then ensued. You saw a lot of havoc on DP because all those people dobbed each other in :)

What were the blogs you refer to selling as advertising?
Any blog that had any form of advertising other than Google's was subject to being hit.

How has Google killed their business?
It has killed their advertising model unless, of course, they use Adsense.

Why was Google wrong to do what it did?
You could point out that it is unethical or it is monopoly building, but really who cares about that? Google was wrong to do what they did because they continue to do what they penalised other sites for to a far greater magnitude

You answer this. Why is it acceptable to penalise sites that use TLA (text link ads the website advertising service) when Google accepts money from TLA to link them above every other website for that terms (text link ads) in their search results.

Ok. So say I never used TLA before, then I see them ranked at the very top of Google and I decide to use them, then later on I find that my site has been penalised for using that service. Umm I got the service from Google's recommendation. Can you seriously not see how absurd that is? If you can't then I'm sorry there is no more light I can shed. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

If you are going to sell advertising you need to be able to offer your clients exposure to targeted traffic. Is this what those blogs were doing? Has Google de-indexed them? Has Google banned them?

It penalised many in varied ways. You, I am guessing, are referring to PR once again. So let's run with that. PR is a measure of Google's trust/value/importance of a page. Ok. So many blog owners found their PR decreasing, and some who questioned that were even told on Matt Cutts blog the reasons why they lost PR, who they were linking to that were wrong, and the reason why Google no longer trusted their site.

How ridiculous is that? Of the comments I read, the blog owners were saying that they had lost trust in Google. They felt like Google was now trying to dictate to them how to run their site, and that instead of telling their friends how great Google was, they were now telling them how bad it has become.

This isn't my opinion. This is written in plain-as-day english on Matt Cutts blog. I am just reiterating what I've read, in particular the bloggers questions and Matt Cutts responses.

Read into it what you will, but don't for a second think that Google achieved anything in your benefit. All the benefit is theirs and a lot of their advertising competition have been walloped, and they have turned the blame off themselves (for having a broken algorithm which cannot detect paid links) and onto the advertisers and individuals themselves, and made everyone feel guilty for making money on the internet. Sad, so sad, but also 100% true.

Edit I moved this thread to the Google forum because we are talking more about Google and less about directories in this topic.

[rainchild]

As I understand it any web master can pay to have a key word rich post dumped onto thousands of totally useless blogs. Is this what we are talking about? This is one of the reasons why I have never really bothered with articles or blogs as a method for building back links.It penalised many in varied ways. You, I am guessing, are referring to PR once again. So let's run with that. PR is a measure of Google's trust/value/importance of a page. Ok. So many blog owners found their PR decreasing, and some who questioned that were even told on Matt Cutts blog the reasons why they lost PR, who they were linking to that were wrong, and the reason why Google no longer trusted their site.

How ridiculous is that? Of the comments I read, the blog owners were saying that they had lost trust in Google. They felt like Google was now trying to dictate to them how to run their site, and that instead of telling their friends how great Google was, they were now telling them how bad it has become.

This isn't my opinion. This is written in plain-as-day english on Matt Cutts blog. I am just reiterating what I've read, in particular the bloggers questions and Matt Cutts responses.
I am at a disadvantage here. I admit I haven't kept up with the developments and I still don't understand what "business" Google has killed. You refer loosely to "advertising" revenue and I assume in the case of blogs that this means bloggers with a high PR were selling links from their sites and that they were using the fact that the had achieved a high PR to talk up the value of these links. Am I wrong? You only saw the DP fallout. It was much bigger than that, and there was a lot more noise about blogs being hit than directories. A lot more. In fact the noise concerning the blogs is getting louder in volume if you are in the right circles and listening. The noise about the directories losing PR went silent long ago.As far as I am aware it all started with a list of seventy to eighty odd directories that were openly selling PR, most of whom were active on DP and who got quietly penalised in the serp's when they least expected it. Was this not the "first wave"? Is the problem you are referring to a PR problem, a jo-joing and fluctuating PR problem or manually applied penalties. Sorry I am not better informed but I battle to keep up.

Not up to speed on Text Link ads either and I did see talk that they had been hit along with all the top tier cadres. Who are they? Why are they an "issue"? Who runs that set up?

[Dan]

As I understand it any web master can pay to have a key word rich post dumped onto thousands of totally useless blogs. Is this what we are talking about? This is one of the reasons why I have never really bothered with articles or blogs as a method for building back links.

That's true, but that's not what I am referring to. I am referring to real blogs that people actually post on. Not multiple blog sites that people set up to create advertisement posts.

I am at a disadvantage here. I admit I haven't kept up with the developments and I still don't understand what "business" Google has killed.

It's less disadvantage and more about perspective. You are talking from the perspective of Google "going after directories" - because that is what you have seen. However, I have seen a far different thing happen, and it wasn't directory based, it was paid-text-link based. Yes, some directories got hit, but some websites in every field/industry got hit.

Forbes got hit, thats a newspaper/magazine. Quite a few of those "types" of sites got hit, but many that have far more obvious followed paid text links like techcrunch, were skipped. No one knows why...

You refer loosely to "advertising" revenue and I assume in the case of blogs that this means bloggers with a high PR were selling links from their sites and that they were using the fact that the had achieved a high PR to talk up the value of these links.

Again you refer to PR selling, and I'm trying to explain it has nothing to do with selling PR. We are talking about a non-PR advertising model. There is no "talking up" of the links because the links aren't sold by the blog owner.

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are stuck in this PR-selling drama and I have been saying ever since it happened that most sites that got hit weren't selling PR. Until you understand that, you won't understand anything I say on this topic :)

Let's repeat it again.

TLA is a text link advertising service.

Google penalises TLA and they fail to rank for their name.

Many people have TLA on their sites, and use TLA in one/more of its many capacities, and they are also penalised.

Google accepts money to rank TLA in the sponsored spot above every other listing, for the TLA name (and other keyphrases).

People see that ad on Google, and go and sign up to TLA, and end up having their sites penalised.

What is so difficult to see about how absurd that is.

Google advertises sites in its SERPs that it penalises. Google advertises sites on Adwords/Adsense who explicitly "sell PR" (they actually state it in the ad). Google advertises sites on Adwords/Adsense who explicitly "guarantee top 10 rankings" (probably the worst of the lot).

Do you get where I am coming from?

The hypocrisy of this entire situation is there for anyone to see. All they need to do is open their eyes and stop viewing Google as an entity that is out to meet webmasters needs. They are an entity that is designed to make bucketloads of money. This is done via advertising/marketing. Taking out competition, especially when you have no watchdog to prevent you monopolising, is exactly what they should be doing.

Companies try and wipe their competition out all the time, though Bricks and Mortar businesses find it increasingly difficult because there are organisations in place who are set up to prevent monopolies and to ensure there is competition.

Edit - It should be noted that I am not grandstanding here to create a "hate Google" mentality. I just believe that on this particular issue (paid text link ads) they have dropped the ball. I believe the algorithm should determine the value of links and the people (that's us) should be left out of it. I am passionate about that point because I believe in sticking up for the little guy when he is getting the rough end of the stick, and that's exactly what is happening in this situation. The little guy lost.

[rainchild]

It should be noted that I am not grandstanding here to create a "hate Google" mentality. I just believe that on this particular issue (paid text link ads) they have dropped the ball. I believe the algorithm should determine the value of links and the people (that's us) should be left out of it. I am passionate about that point because I believe in sticking up for the little guy when he is getting the rough end of the stick, and that's exactly what is happening in this situation. The little guy lost.Is there no upside? I like to believe that there is.

I also rather choose to blame the industry icons that were unashamedly profiteering from the status quo, encouraging the small guys to set up shop, buying forum signatures and payrolling the expediential growth of an industry that was nothing but a house of cards. Google warned us that we had crossed the divide. That it was a move from the sublime to the ridiculous. But no one wanted to listen. Chris Hofman believed he was untouchable and promptly sailed into Bidding directories, big time. That's was just plain dumb. He and people like him are the reason we have this problem. What is he doing these days? We still have this problem, its going to get worse and simply because no one is listening. TLA is a text link advertising service. If TLA have a problem they have the DP Culture Club to thank. If the algorithm got broken when it got changed these are the ones to blame. They pushed the envelope a little too far and the earth shook. And yes its the little guys that have taken the heat. Its the little guys who can least afford it who have to pick up the pieces. Didn't you say that the wide boys are the ones who retire comfortably on the proceeds of their little scam leaving the rest of us scratching our heads.I am referring to real blogs that people actually post on. Not multiple blog sites that people set up to create advertisement posts.If that's the case how can whatever Google has done ruin their businesses?

[Dan]

Yes there is an upside. Google did what everyone had been expecting them to do for a long time. They just failed in terms of the execution. Instead of having the algorithm knock paid text links on the head, they penalised the webmaster. The upside is, they knocked out a lot of paid-text links. The downsides are that they didn't get them all, they penalised webmasters in the process, and they continue to push paid text links themselves.

I also rather choose to blame the industry icons that were unashamedly profiteering from the status quo, encouraging the small guys to set up shop, buying forum signatures and payrolling the expediential growth of an industry that was nothing but a house of cards. Google warned us that we had crossed the divide. That it was a move from the sublime to the ridiculous. But no one wanted to listen. Chris Hofman believed he was untouchable and promptly sailed into Bidding directories, big time. That's was just plain dumb. He and people like him are the reason we have this problem. What is he doing these days? We still have this problem, its going to get worse and simply because no one is listening.

People listened. We listened when it was mentioned back in 2005. We saw what happened to Bluefind, and we took note... that Google doesn't like PR selling. Ok, I agree with them on that, but then Google ads advertisers to its adsense scheme encouraging PR selling, so isn't the message muddied? People see ads like that and they immediately think, hey Google is selling PR on my site via adsense, why can't I sell it too? If the system is supposed to be an ethical and unbiased rank of a page (we know it's not, but for arguments sake let's just assume) then shouldn't the organisation that touts the metric as being such, conduct themselves in the manner that they want everyone else to follow? i.e. lead by example instead of giving us that tired old do what I say not what I do. Google doesn't practice what it preaches in this area, and so why should anyone else?

If TLA have a problem they have the DP Culture Club to thank. If the algorithm got broken when it got changed these are the ones to blame. They pushed the envelope a little too far and the earth shook. And yes its the little guys that have taken the heat. Its the little guys who can least afford it who have to pick up the pieces. Didn't you say that the wide boys are the ones who retire comfortably on the proceeds of their little scam leaving the rest of us scratching our heads.

It has nothing to do with DP. Until you realise that, this discussion will never reach a point of understanding or resolution. You put too much faith in the power of 1 mid-sized forum. TLA were penalised before people noticed directories getting hit. Again, I will repeat, it wasn't directories that got hit it was paid-text-links, via people dobbing sites in.

As much as you have against people like Chris, you also have to realise that he galvanised the industry into action. He gave people hope, that they could have a quality resource too. You mightn't think his directory is worth a peanut, but others do, and it also brought a lot of template designers, coders and other people to the forefront.

It is funny watching certain people argue on DP, when many of them don't realise how this whole thing started. It was sites like Info Vilesilencer and directories like Alive, that got the whole thing running.

There were directories long before, that have stood the test of time, and those directory owners should be proud of what they have, but it was the people that have come after who have pushed directories to achieve more.

Of course, along the way, people are always going to jump on the bandwagon, and do things to extremes to try and make money, and they will do damage, but look at those directories that have always been around? Do they care? have they shut up shop?

If that's the case how can whatever Google has done ruin their businesses?

Because their sites still contain advertising, and they are afraid of Google. They don't want to be penalised, they don't want to wake up every morning and have to check to see if they are still ranking. So they remove their ads, and hope and pray that is enough to prevent them getting blasted into oblivion. You can see it in the posts they've written on MC's blog. There might only be a handful of them on there, but then you visit their blogs and read 100s of posts all in sympathy and also asking them what they have done wrong to be penalised.

[rainchild]

It has nothing to do with DP. Until you realise that, this discussion will never reach a point of understanding or resolution. You put too much faith in the power of 1 mid-sized forum. TLA were penalised before people noticed directories getting hit. Again, I will repeat, it wasn't directories that got hit it was paid-text-links, via people dobbing sites in.
I think you are wrong. TLA got hit along with the Culture Club. They were all manually penalised long before Google changed its algorithm. It was deliberate, it was targeted and intended to serve as a message that needs to be clearly understood. As you well know I started going through the content on Alive and it didn't take me very long to come to the conclusion it was a put up job. I went on record at the time. I didn't bother dobbing them. I didn't have to. It was obvious what they were doing. It was obvious what was going to happen and surprise surprise it did; shortly thereafter.

Tell me Mutt and Jeff have seen the error of their ways and that they have apologised for the mess that they played such a pivotal role in creating. Not a damn. Tell me that they have stopped meddling and left the industry. Not a damn. They and all the blood suckers like them wont be content until they have run this industry into the ground and milked it and us for every last cent they can get their hands onAs much as you have against people like Chris, you also have to realise that he galvanised the industry into action. He gave people hope, that they could have a quality resource too. You mightn't think his directory is worth a peanut, but others do, and it also brought a lot of template designers, coders and other people to the forefront.
Quality and Alive do not go together. What Aviva started up was nothing more than pyramid scheme that they and many others were profiteering from. They knew exactly what they were doing.They knew better than anyone that PR was worthless and they had no qualms about selling their worthless lies at a premium. How can that be called honourable? If they had the balls to admit that they were wrong and if they had what it takes to galvanise this industry into action I would sing another tune. But they dont and they wont.

[Dan]

I think you are wrong. TLA got hit along with the Culture Club. They were all manually penalised long before Google changed its algorithm.

Yes they were penalised long before the public algorithm change. But that proves my point, not yours. Since TLA has nothing to do with DP, and never did.

It was deliberate, it was targeted and intended to serve as a message that needs to be clearly understood.

Indeed, but what message are you getting. The message that is intended to be received is not the one you are proclaiming in this thread. The message is that paid-text-link-advertising is against Google's guidelines - unless it is conducted via their rules (nofollowed or blocked in meta's etc). They've even changed their guidelines now (well and truly after the fact) to reflect this message.

As you well know I started going through the content on Alive and it didn't take me very long to come to the conclusion it was a put up job. I went on record at the time. I didn't bother dobbing them. I didn't have to. It was obvious what they were doing. It was obvious what was going to happen and surprise surprise it did; shortly thereafter.

Again. What you are referring to as the reason why they were penalised, isn't the reason. It has nothing to do with what you are referring to, and that is why you are getting the wrong message.

Incidentally, in terms of "dobbing". You might wonder why I think that happened or how I know that happened. It's really quite simple. On DP I have someone red repping me whenever I post in a thread saying that this site and its entire membership are idiots. Using a proxy and this forums contact form I was also threatened with being dobbed in right about the time that the other directories on DP got hit.

It was a dob-in-job, plain and simple. Anyone that had paid-text-links, that was dobbed in, got nailed. Has nothing to do with what you are talking about, which is a reference to what you believe to be bad content.

[rainchild]

Again. What you are referring to as the reason why they were penalised, isn't the reason. It has nothing to do with what you are referring to, and that is why you are getting the wrong message.
I am not saying that Alive got penalised because they had no problems when it came to listing MFA sites. I am not saying that they got penalised because they were selling links to sites that they shouldn't have been selling links to. I am not even saying that they got penalised for inflating their PR and selling it as something it was not. What I am saying is that Google picked a fight with the Culture Club, that this was deliberate, it was selective and that they are telling us as clearly as possible that they can and that they most surely will devalue our directories if we don't clean up our act.

What are you saying? You cant honestly believe that Alive was impacting Google's bottom line to such an extent that they needed to upset so many of the small people?

I don't know Text Link Ads. Did those adverts happen to pass PR as well? Or was it traffic, traffic and only traffic they were selling. Why did Alive get hit? What were they doing that Google objected to?It's really quite simple. On DP I have someone red repping me whenever I post in a thread That's par for the course on DP. But whilst they might dominate and control that forum I sincerely doubt that they hold much sway at Google HQ. There is very little sense spoken on DP. That's where Aviva and Alive nurtured their QBC. That's how they operate. Reminds me of a Monty Python skit where an offensive sort keeps calling King Arthur out to fight despite having had all of his four limbs removed. Very silly but also very funny at the same time.

[Dan]

I am not saying that Alive got penalised because they had no problems when it came to listing MFA sites. I am not saying that they got penalised because they were selling links to sites that they shouldn't have been selling links to. I am not even saying that they got penalised for inflating their PR and selling it as something it was not. What I am saying is that Google picked a fight with the Culture Club, that this was deliberate, it was selective and that they are telling us as clearly as possible that they can and that they most surely will devalue our directories if we don't clean up our act.

Then you got the wrong message.

What are you saying? You cant honestly believe that Alive was impacting Google's bottom line to such an extent that they needed to upset so many of the small people?

Alive was selling/buying paid-text-links (they are actually just text links, but since someone pays for them, let's call them paid text links). They were reported to Matt Cutts, who has a thread on his blog entitled how to report paid links (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/), Google found them guilty, and subsequently penalised them. Pretty simple huh :)

I don't know Text Link Ads. Did those adverts happen to pass PR as well? Or was it traffic, traffic and only traffic they were selling.

They were selling paid text links. Yes they passed PR. No doubt they were also reported, though they are pretty well known and were probably already in Google's sights.

Why did Alive get hit? What were they doing that Google objected to?

Answered this. It's all about paid text links.

But whilst they might dominate and control that forum I sincerely doubt that they hold much sway at Google HQ.

Which is the whole point why it is absurd to think that Google went after DP. They didn't. They went after paid text links. I don't know how many times I can repeat that.

That's where Aviva and Alive nurtured their QBC. That's how they operate. Reminds me of a Monty Python skit where an offensive sort keeps calling King Arthur out to fight despite having had all of his four limbs removed. Very silly but also very funny at the same time.

Google wouldn't know what QBC is, they wouldn't care what QBC is, and they probably couldn't care less what Aviva or Alive write up as "the best directories" on their blogs, or on the DP forum.

It all comes down to paid text links. Those two directories were buying/selling paid text links, they were reported (when Google created the opportunity for people to dob in their competition), found guilty, and penalised.

Again. I can continue to repeat myself ad nauseum, but the bottom line is this. Site's that were selling paid text links, whether for traffic, for kicks, for PR, for SERP value, for money, or for no other reason than they saw everyone else doing it, are breaching Google's guidelines and are subject to the same penalty.

All it takes is for someone to dob the site in.

Paid-text-links + dobbed in = penalised site

[rainchild]

In simplistic terms maybe. But Google has not said anything one way or another to confirm or deny what you are saying. The facts are that the bottom has dropped out of the PR market as a result of Google's actions. Isn't this what you were referring to when you started swinging punches in support of the "small man"? I don't believe that there is any question that this is what Google intended. I also believe that they knew it would cost them and they knew that there would be considerable collateral damage. But I also like to believe that they did it because they did not wish to be seen to be aiding and abetting sharp operators who don't give a stuff about whose lives they turn upside down in pursuit of a quick buck.

Do you not see that there is a need to change the way things are going? Do you honestly believe that we can keep churning out directories for the sole purpose of getting all that links litter to the front of the search results? Google took us all by surprise and it was a warning we would do well to listen to.

I see www.webslackers.com is down. Maybe temporary, maybe not. Who runs that one?

[Dan]

In simplistic terms maybe. But Google has not said anything one way or another to confirm or deny what you are saying.

Well they kind've did... albeit after the fact.

They changed their webmaster guidelines (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66736) to reflect the message regarding paid text links.

The following, crystal clear, message has been added:

Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results.

They say a lot more on that page. I recommend that everyone reads it.

The facts are that the bottom has dropped out of the PR market as a result of Google's actions. Isn't this what you were referring to when you started swinging punches in support of the "small man"? I don't believe that there is any question that this is what Google intended. I also believe that they knew it would cost them and they knew that there would be considerable collateral damage.

Nope. It's not what has bothered me. The PR's went down for everyone across the board, and you are right that the bottom has dropped out of the PR market, and that is probably a good thing.

BUT...

What I have said all along, and will continue to say until it sinks in, is that Google itself continues to encourage/advertise/promote sites which clearly sell PR links. These sites also mysteriously escaped penalty.

Here is the example (http://info.vilesilencer.com/blog/?p=52) again. I will keep showing it. Till it sinks in.

The little guy got told his site sux by Google reducing his PR. He also got told that selling links is evil. Meanwhile Google does exactly what it has told the little guy not to. See why I'm pissed?

I never was against the action Google took. They have been saying they would since 2005. I'm against the fact that they continue to advertise PR selling, and SERP selling sites, on Adsense when they penalised everyone else for "allegedly" doing the same thing. The example (http://info.vilesilencer.com/blog/?p=52), I have given is concrete evidence, that I am telling it like it is. This site, Info Vilesilencer, has been penalised and Google, using Adsense as the vehicle, is advertising PR selling on my site, after penalising me for doing the same thing (which I never did). Absurd? absolutely :)

Do you not see that there is a need to change the way things are going?

You know I do. We have had this discussion. I haven't spent 2 years redeveloping the back-end of this site for laughs.

Do you honestly believe that we can keep churning out directories for the sole purpose of getting all that links litter to the front of the search results?

No. I don't. And if you go back as far as this forum goes you will see that I said on here from the outset, that directories NEED to evolve. I even gave you starting points from where to do it. They were ignored. They are now out of date. I could give you other ones, but they would be ignored too.

Google took us all by surprise and it was a warning we would do well to listen to.

Only if we want to be dictated to. Google needs to heed its own warning before anyone else should care less.

[rainchild]

The little guy got told his site sux by Google reducing his PR. He also got told that selling links is evil.PR has never meant anything to me so my advice to little guy would be to forget about it. Its meaningless, always was. But if he had spent a small fortune building his business on the sort of bullshit that was being dished out at DP I would advise him to go talk to the Aviva and Alives of this world and to then start working as hard as possible to put Google out of business. If I read you correctly you are criticising them for not doing enough, for being two faced and inconsistent. That's Google alright but it shouldn't cloud the issue to the point where people forget who the bad guys are and why they got lumbered. They were screwing the system as well as everyone who believed in and depended on them.

Nor should it cloud the need for constructive and positive change. You have not commented on the link in my signature yet or have you? What should we be doing to cushion the fall that's coming? How can we build long term value into the sites which we depend on for the links we have built over the last couple of years?
This site, Info Vilesilencer, has been penalisedIn the serp's or just PR? I did a search on vilesilencer and you are still listed as an Authority Site :) What's the problem? Maybe Google has concerns about the banner exposure bidding directories get. I don't think that there is any question that Google is being vindictive and selecting sites based on association. This is what surprised me and lot of others when they took out the paymasters with the first wave of penalties. You have been very vocal in you criticism of Google and whilst you are not wrong and are entitled to voice your opinions its all been a little one sided. One could be mistaken for coming to the conclusion that the bad guys are in fact the victims in this little tragedy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google does in fact read this and other forums. If I was concerned about the direction the industry is taking which I am, and if I was in their shoes, which I am not, I would be watching this forum very closely. We need to help Google to clean up the search results. We need to help ourselves, to help ourselves to build an industry we can depend on. An industry that will grow and prosper. Personally I cant see the point of raging against the machine. Why don't we change the way these things work instead.

[Dan]

That's Google alright but it shouldn't cloud the issue to the point where people forget who the bad guys are and why they got lumbered. They were screwing the system as well as everyone who believed in and depended on them.

True it shouldn't but the issue is clouded, and quite frankly, the damage these "bad people" were supposedly doing is far far far less than the damage Google did to innocent sites. It's like jailing an entire suburb/county/state because 5 people in that suburb/county/state have broken the law. It's just stupid and Google did it.

In the serp's or just PR?

PR, but you've missed the point. The penalty is there to tell me that Google has found the site guilty of "selling links". I'm fine with that, as long as they hit every other site that does the same (i.e. about 95% of the web). They didn't do that, they hit sites that got dobbed in.

Look at Alexa.com, they have blatant paid adverts called "Sponsored By" on their front page, they should be penalised the same as everyone else.

Now, you might be thinking "but it's only PR who cares?". But it's not only PR. I stated already in this thread that Google have changed their guidelines in regards to paid text links. The PR penalty is the warning. The SERP penalty that follows is the real penalty (and I can imagine that any site that had their PR wiped that doesn't get rid of their paid links soon will cop a SERP penalty).

So when sites get done in the SERPs and we are sitting here discussing this again, and we both look at Alexa.com (as an example) again, and we both see that it isn't penalised, are we going to wonder why? Or are we going to remember what I said earlier about how hypocritical and downright dumb this whole exercise has been.

You have been very vocal in you criticism of Google and whilst you are not wrong and are entitled to voice your opinions its all been a little one sided. One could be mistaken for coming to the conclusion that the bad guys are in fact the victims in this little tragedy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google does in fact read this and other forums.

I'm providing the balance to your argument, that's why you will see me debate one-side of it. I never said Google was wrong to penalise for paid text links. I've written blog posts and forum posts defending Google's warning from 2005. I never said this was a sudden and unexpected decision. It's not a surprise to me at all.

What is a surprise is the execution. I said they got some bad guys. Good on them. But they also hit far more innocents, and let far bigger bad guys off the hook. Why should I sit here and clap-clap like a good little sheep? I won't do that, when what was done was wrong.

The algorithm, this great wonderous magical piece of the Google puzzle that we are all supposed to bow down and worship, can't detect paid links. If it could there wouldn't be such a manual and vocal public penalisation of websites. Google could simply change their guideline and state "all paid text links are detected and devalued by our algorithm". Now that would be something, it would also be the ethical and correct way of devaluing link buying for PR. The question is Why didn't they do that?, the answer that people are assuming is Google's algorithm is broken. Is it? I don't know, but if they need to ask people to report paid links and dob everyone in, then it sure seems like it.

It's like the police force saying "ummm well, we need you guys to tell us who the criminals are because ummm well, we have no idea *shrug*, so you tell us who they are then we will lock them up". An absurd notion, but it accurately reflects what happened.

The other problem that it introduces is *hidden* paid links. So, now people know Google cannot detect paid links, they go and change their system of selling/buying (don't ask me how, but I am sure there's a number of ways they could). So you end up with a black market link selling trade, that still continues and because Google has publicly penalised sites, surely the cream rises to the top, and those that aren't penalised are considered the great sites by Google? So people will trade off that, despite the fact that most of those sites are probably guilty to a greater magnitude than the rest of the sites that actually got penalised.

So it's not the penalties themselves I am against, it's the way it was handled, and the fact that it wasn't consistent at all, AND that Google still (I have them on my adsense block of ads everyday) advertises sites who sell PR.

I doubt Google's engineers spent more than 1 minute on this site when awarding a penalty. They would've got a report (someone would've dobbed the site in - probably the person that threatened to) they would've gone to the home page and seen the words "sponsor","featured", and "advertising". They may have even navigated to the promotions page to confirm there are paid links. They would've seen there are and they would've applied the penalty.

I doubt site associations have anything to do with it. If they did then the site would probably no longer rank at all.

If I was concerned about the direction the industry is taking which I am, and if I was in their shoes, which I am not, I would be watching this forum very closely. We need to help Google to clean up the search results. We need to help ourselves, to help ourselves to build an industry we can depend on. An industry that will grow and prosper. Personally I cant see the point of raging against the machine. Why don't we change the way these things work instead.

Google wouldn't care less about anything we do here. They certainly wouldn't be thinking that us changing "the way we work" is going to make a difference to their search results. I think you are very idealistic. It sounds great, but in reality it doesn't work that way.

That doesn't mean that we don't do it. Of course we will change. I've been saying it for 2 years, I am waiting to see people actually do it. Everyone's standing around talking about it, no ones actually doing anything or offering anything.

Raging against the machine is a waste of time, I agree, but it is important for people to see how "the machine" works. It is important for people to understand that it doesn't matter how well you follow their guidelines, how great your content is, or how white hat you are - you can still get dumped, purely because "the machine" doesn't give a rats about who you are or what you do.

Edit I've done a few edits to the post.

I'm with you on the need to change, I always have been, and the new back-end of the site and the way we encourage a greater amount of detail in directories will ensure that we do move towards greater quality.

Edit 2
I did a search on vilesilencer and you are still listed as an Authority Site

I know this was said tongue-in-cheek, but let's be careful about how we label the site. If you are right, that Google has people watching this forum, then labels like that will do far more harm than good.

NB: This was one of the reasons you might recall that I encouraged these discussions for the private forum, but you never start them there.

[rainchild]

True it shouldn't but the issue is clouded, and quite frankly, the damage these "bad people" were supposedly doing is far far far less than the damage Google did to innocent sites. It's like jailing an entire suburb/county/state because 5 people in that suburb/county/state have broken the law. It's just stupid and Google did it.It happens. Its called collateral damage. Someone always gets caught in cross fire and one has to learn to live with that. But the question is, who do you blame? The bad guys or the "innocents" who see nothing, who hear nothing and worst of all do nothing.

The point here is that we all knew it was coming but no one actually believed Google would pluck just anyone from out of that pack of pavement specials with sharp teeth and then proceed to slap them silly, in front of their mates. But that's what they did just before they broke their algorithm. There is a message there for us. They were the ones Google was after and they were making sure that we all know who to blame and why. We were also the ones that forced Google into doing what they did and we can either let things carry on the way it always has or we can change the way things get done in this industry.I'm with you on the need to change, I always have been, and the new back-end of the site and the way we encourage a greater amount of detail in directories will ensure that we do move towards greater quality.We all talk change but when it comes time to start drawing lines in the sand everyone shuffles their feet and finds something else to do. I have got a couple of serial spammers constantly submitting their sites to my directories and I just keep deleting them. It shouldnt be this way.

[Dan]

It happens. Its called collateral damage. Someone always gets caught in cross fire and one has to learn to live with that. But the question is, who do you blame? The bad guys or the "innocents" who see nothing, who hear nothing and worst of all do nothing.

Well you could blame the judge, jury and executioner :)

The point here is that we all knew it was coming but no one actually believed Google would pluck just anyone from out of that pack of pavement specials with sharp teeth and then proceed to slap them silly, in front of their mates.

Actually your wrong there. I fully expected them to hammer sites who were making them look stupid. What I didn't expect them to do was harm innocent sites. Many SEO's with long memories would have been fully prepared for it too. We saw Google do it with SearchKing, and then we saw them do it with BlueFind. There is precedent, this is only a new thing for new directory owners, for the rest of us its par for the course. The difference this time around is that rather than target the bad guys, they pulled out the shotgun and everyone (bad, good, oblivious) got hit.

But that's what they did just before they broke their algorithm. There is a message there for us. They were the ones Google was after and they were making sure that we all know who to blame and why. We were also the ones that forced Google into doing what they did and we can either let things carry on the way it always has or we can change the way things get done in this industry.

True, they knew who to get, but that's because they also introduced "dob in a mate". I go back to my cop example. That's why its absurd. Sure, it gets the job done, eventually, but Google should be policing its own backyard. We are talking about a billion dollar company here, and it has an algorithm that cannot detect paid links, so it needs people to dob in their competition and sites they are jealous of in order to get its job done... I find that notion absurd and the main problem with it is that the majority of sites that were/are doing the bad thing, got off scot free - and now no one thinks those sites were ever doing anything wrong because they never got penalised.

We all talk change but when it comes time to start drawing lines in the sand everyone shuffles their feet and finds something else to do. I have got a couple of serial spammers constantly submitting their sites to my directories and I just keep deleting them. It shouldnt be this way.

Of course they do because it is largely a monkey-see monkey-do industry. We've set 1 trend, making directories SEO friendly, and it took off. So we can set a few more trends, get ambitious and try and encourage people to move towards high quality and away from link farms.

My contribution is wrapped up in developing the sites backend. By having it available and opening up the list to more contributors I am trying to get more hands on the tiller, and to get a direction that we can all follow - Until that happens though, my time is scarce...

[rainchild]

We are talking about a billion dollar company here, and it has an algorithm that cannot detect paid links, so it needs people to dob in their competition and sites they are jealous of in order to get its job done... I find that notion absurd and the main problem with it is that the majority of sites that were/are doing the bad thing, got off scot free - and now no one thinks those sites were ever doing anything wrong because they never got penalisedYou are asking Google to automate their processes to the point where we no longer have to think. That's not going to work.The problem here is the people. I don't share your sympathy for the bad guys. Its all a question of how far one is prepared to let things deteriorate before you do something. And I cant believe you wouldn't dial in if you were a witness to child molestation, or an act of terrorism. We should never have let it get that far. We allowed it to happen, we allowed the Culture Club to bend, twist and pervert all in the name of self interest and greed. And we can sit back and complain or we can start making changes. So we can set a few more trends, get ambitious and try and encourage people to move towards high quality and away from link farms.How do you do that? What is quality other than the quality of the content listed in a directory?Actually your wrong there. I fully expected them to hammer sites who were making them look stupid. I am not wrong. We had this same discussion about Alive just before they got taken out. In that instance I was very right and you were very wrong. We were arguing about content and the only factor we have to bother about is what listed in these directories. You cant automate that process. Yes Google can auto-penalise sites by changing its algorithm and they are going to devalue directory back links unless we put a stop to the wholesale abuse that is the very foundation of this industry. If we want to see this business grow we have to change the market and ensure that there are incentives for real people to list real sites.

[Dan]

You are asking Google to automate their processes to the point where we no longer have to think. That's not going to work.The problem here is the people.

No matter how good it gets they will never automate it to the point of not needing human interaction. What I am saying is that not being able to detect paid links is a major weakness in the engine.

I don't share your sympathy for the bad guys. Its all a question of how far one is prepared to let things deteriorate before you do something.

Do you share my sympathy for the majority of people that were innocent that got hit? Or doesn't that matter as long as a handful of bad guys out of tens of thousands of websites got hit?

And I cant believe you wouldn't dial in if you were a witness to child molestation, or an act of terrorism.

True, but what we are talking about isn't a crime is it? Or are you of the belief that Google's guidelines are laws that you must follow or your website sux?

We should never have let it get that far. We allowed it to happen, we allowed the Culture Club to bend, twist and pervert all in the name of self interest and greed. And we can sit back and complain or we can start making changes.

What changes? Offer some. What changes are going to make the industry better? If you are suggesting we all bend to Google's will you've lost me, I won't do it. If you are suggesting that we create a system that is useful in it's own right, regardless of Google, then I am with you.

How do you do that? What is quality other than the quality of the content listed in a directory?

Indeed, what is quality, we've come full circle. So how do you create a directory that is respected and not a link farm? We start with small ideas and build on them. Baby steps. Think of Bernard's idea. Simple yet has the potential to revolutionise the way people use their directories. He proposed to have a "cat strength". I can hear you groaning "Oh Gawd not another metric" but if you cannot measure something you cannot improve upon it. So you go through and rate the usefulness of a directories category structure. Do they dump all travel sites in one all-encompassing travel cat, or do they break it out so that like-sites sit with like-sites?

So It's not just the content that creates quality it is also the way that content is displayed to the end user. If they are looking for a certain type of website, then having all of those websites listed together seems to be one indicator of quality.

I am not wrong. We had this same discussion about Alive just before they got taken out. In that instance I was very right and you were very wrong.

Not in the context you are discussing it. We were talking about a link being a link. I am saying that all links are not equal, you were saying they all were. Once again, Alive wasn't penalised based on the reason that you thought it should be. i.e. its content.

I'm only wrong in the respect of how Google penalised. I expected them to discount the paid links, in fact I was of the opinion that they already did. I was wrong in thinking that they wouldn't just blanket penalise a massive bunch of innocent sites in the hope of catching a few bad guys. How stupid of me to think they would do something that they said they never would. i.e. allow your competitor to dob you in. Google's motto, apparently, is do no evil. I think they have to re-review that after the way sites that were innocent were penalised.

We were arguing about content and the only factor we have to bother about is what listed in these directories. You cant automate that process. Yes Google can auto-penalise sites by changing its algorithm and they are going to devalue directory back links unless we put a stop to the wholesale abuse that is the very foundation of this industry. If we want to see this business grow we have to change the market and ensure that there are incentives for real people to list real sites.

I disagree with you, because once again you are talking from a perspective that just isn't taken into consideration. You think you were right about directories getting penalised, but you are wrong. I can't tell you that though, because you feel vinidicated that Alive got penalised and aren't willing to see that the reason it got penalised is paid-text-links, and has absolutely nothing to do with content whatsoever.

If Alive removes paid advertising, and drops links it purchased - in line with Google's requirement not to engage in paid links - I believe it has the opportunity to have the penalty reversed. It wouldn't have to do one thing to its content.

I've shown you already, in private, how the penalty worked. I've also proven with a real example (ie. this site) that paid text links is what triggered the penalties. If you don't want to believe me go and read Matt Cutts blog. He's supposed to be a spokesperson for Google, and he's mentioned over and over and over again in plain as day English that sites engaging in buying and selling paid text links are breaking Google's guidelines and are being penalised.

I can't make it any clearer and I feel like this conversation has been a waste of time because you fail to see that you are wrong about how Google looks at websites.

[rainchild]

I am just taking the debate one step further. I am no expert. And I might be a bit slow on the uptake but I am a practical man and see no point in running around in blinkers. I work from gut feel, intuition and instinct. No, its not a precise science but shit happens when people lose sight of what is nothing more than common sense.

Google's business is search results. Yes they are monetising those search results for maximum profit but if they allow people like Aviva and Alive to keep screwing the system they stand to lose the very foundation on which their empire is built. Hundreds of thousands of directories which are set up to sell links litter is a very real threat to Google's business and that is what is happening right now. Is it not? What Google has done is to try and remind us that they can and more importantly that will not hesitate to devalue this entire industry unless we effect a 180 degree about turn.

Those directories that were selling PR to whoever was stupid enough to pay their price got whacked. It was a high profile scam. A bubble that made a lot of noise when Google popped it and anyone who got hurt in the process should know who to blame. How can Google in all honesty go up "against" anyone selling advertising or paid links as you call it. Do they not claim to be "against" anyone who is charging to manipulate and more importantly to abuse the search results? Not in the context you are discussing it. We were talking about a link being a link. I am saying that all links are not equal, you were saying they all were. Once again, Alive wasn't penalised based on the reason that you thought it should be. i.e. its content. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that Alive was a scam, that we all knew its was a scam but we were prepared to play along just the same and to pretend it was something it should have been patently obvious it was not. I am also saying that content is the key to the turn around that's needed. It is the only factor that we should be paying attention to. Furthermore we should be looking for ways to incentivise webmasters not to fall prey to the temptation to accept review fees for the sort of content Alive was listing and trying to bullshit us that it was "quality". True, but what we are talking about isn't a crime is it? Or are you of the belief that Google's guidelines are laws that you must follow or your website sux?
Like anyone who uses the "search engines" I would like to find the sites I am looking for when I search for something and I do have a deep seated dislike for the scum who think that they have the licence piss wherever and whenever they feel like it. Make no mistake if I had enough time and thought that it would make a difference I would dib dib dob whenever the opportunity presents itself. I believe its the right thing to do. However much like you I don't believe that Google knows its arse from its elbow and figure its simply a waste of my time. What changes? Offer some. What changes are going to make the industry better? If you are suggesting we all bend to Google's will you've lost me, I won't do it. If you are suggesting that we create a system that is useful in it's own right, regardless of Google, then I am with you.
Its not a question of bowing to their will. First we need to face facts. Ninety nine percent of all directory masters are sorting content for Google, no one else. We work for Google. Once we accept that all we have to do is to ensure that the sites we list are sites that deserve the vote they get. Not because Google demands it but because that's the way it should work.

But how do we change the current thinking and what is and what is not generally accepted within the industry. It's simple. Show me the money.

Will Google help? No. Will the establishment buy into it? No. Can it be done? I think so. I am busy building a link farm. This to replace the links I am slowly losing through attrition but the difference is I am adding a purpose to the sites I set up. I am adding people rather than employees and even if we do get zapped when the crunch comes the chances are that by then the businesses we create in the process will cushion the blow and allow me to do a bit of the rage thing myself.Could we not offer the #1 slot to a directory master who nominates their site for a close up and who gets through without a challenge. We could then rotate the other positions amongst the remaining directories until they all qualify or are eliminated.This was one suggestion.To get something started I would like to put together a list of directories which are committed to listing quality content and which will not accept MFA, affiliate marketing sites, links litter and spam. Anyone and everyone is welcome to add their sites to this list on the understanding you will make yourself publicly accountable for the resource you are building and invite comments and feed back.Here was another One sticky thread to start with. This would be to list the "endorsed" service providers and it could cover everything until there is a need to start carving it up. The horse trading could then take place as threads are started and managed by members using the forum.And I have a installer if not two who I will recommend in due course.

[Dan]

Ok. Well rather than quote you and refute most of what you've said and repeat myself which is getting boring, let's pull the positives out of what you've said and use them

Google's business is search results. Yes they are monetising those search results for maximum profit

Agree. So let's remember that whenever they do something. It's not done for our benefit it's done for their benefit ;)

However much like you I don't believe that Google knows its arse from its elbow and figure its simply a waste of my time.

It is a waste of time, so don't waste your time doing it. You might get some bad guys and maybe you will feel good about it, but they will be replaced. Instead, concentrate on your own interests.

Ninety nine percent of all directory masters are sorting content for Google, no one else. We work for Google. Once we accept that all we have to do is to ensure that the sites we list are sites that deserve the vote they get. Not because Google demands it but because that's the way it should work.

I think this is one of the problems. Statistically it would be a high proportion and that's one of the things we need to change. We shouldn't be working for Google, because then we are at their mercy. We should be working to gain independent traffic, and helping each other.

I still think that it is important to get it right in the search engines, but once you've done that don't obsess over it. Stick with your strategies and spend the majority of your time improving in user areas.

Could we not offer the #1 slot to a directory master who nominates their site for a close up and who gets through without a challenge. We could then rotate the other positions amongst the remaining directories until they all qualify or are eliminated.

Sorry, I hadn't looked at the spotlight yet, but yes we can do something like that. Maybe we could do something like this. Have a top 3 in the spotlight each month, that gain 75% of the rotation and then give the remaining 25% to the participants? I don't know but we can talk about it more with the new site release because it won't be done until then.

To get something started I would like to put together a list of directories which are committed to listing quality content and which will not accept MFA, affiliate marketing sites, links litter and spam. Anyone and everyone is welcome to add their sites to this list on the understanding you will make yourself publicly accountable for the resource you are building and invite comments and feed back.

Ok. I will create the list. Do we include all directory types? Just free? or Free, Paid and Niche. We both agree on Bid directories so we won't include those.

One sticky thread to start with. This would be to list the "endorsed" service providers and it could cover everything until there is a need to start carving it up. The horse trading could then take place as threads are started and managed by members using the forum.

Working on this one I need to install itrader first.

The second suggestion was really the only one which would encourage "change" that we are talking about. In that you are pushing people to adopt a quality angle.

How hard do we push that angle though. e.g If I question you about listing gambling resources are you going to tell me to go **** myself?

Because, gambling resources are considered iffy on the quality scale.

If we allow this open scrutiny of directories then we have to accept all points of view on what is considered quality in order to get the greatest concensus.

[rainchild]

How hard do we push that angle though. e.g If I question you about listing gambling resources are you going to tell me to go **** myself?

Because, gambling resources are considered iffy on the quality scale.

If we allow this open scrutiny of directories then we have to accept all points of view on what is considered quality in order to get the greatest concensus.As hard as we can but I don't like to use the word quality. Content and useful content is what this should be about. Think about hundred of thousands of directories making a constructive contribution to the results being returned by the search engines. Think about the possibilities it presents for those Directories of Directories. Think about a world without spam and all sung to the tune of twinkle twinkle little star (by a three year old).

I don't see anything wrong with gambling sites. That is as long as offer they service they claim to and as long as they are not scam artists. That would be an interesting one. Is there a name and shame forum for the gambling industry? Surely the same criteria would apply to gambling sites as it does to Travel sites The problem I have is with affiliate sales type sites and "why don't you make yourself a fortune by buying my ebook" type sites. This becomes a question of personal preferences at the end of the day. You might have a different idea to me and its the debate that's important, not us. We might not list a site for any one of a number of reasons but another list master has the right to list and promote whatever or whoever they choose. At the end of the day its the sum of the differences and this is why we need to keep repeating content to the deliberate exclusion of everything else. Instead, concentrate on your own interests. Its in my interests. I have no doubt about that. Just as I have no doubt that its in everyones interests. But I know its not going to appeal to a lot of people. People with a lot of money. People that are hiding behind, who depend on and who are not shy to take full advantage of the way things are and the way they work currently. People who have no interest in change. People who are in it for the quick buck. People that Google was kind enough to point out to us. :)

[nov7]

they should have never got by the anti trust tests ..the fcc debates sirius satelite merger for yr. but google's monopolistic mergers sails through.now we see the abuses that comes with monopoloy power...running the small players out of business.Why doesn't google like text links buying?..cause it upsets there search ranking..so what?who crowned them king of the internet[they did].it is the only way to make money if adsence is not served..and it now adsence not being served or pay reduced to a level that is not worth bothering...so they attempt to bend the internet to there will .Do business with us or do no business at all.what einstein thought that letting the people who control search ranking should be biggest advertizing company on the net.would u let walmart run the ftc?or the attorney generals office?.google is the ambasdor of american greed around the world..many are gunning for them.when your #1 you got no where to go but down..hope its soon

[rainchild]

No ways Google is responsible for stuffing up the internet. No ways they are jerking the small man around. To the contrary they are the ones that make it possible for almost anyone to launch a business,to get themselves seen and to compete with the biggest and the best. That's all part of the internet dream as I understand it and Google is most definitely Big Daddy and they deserve recognition for that fact.

Furthermore the only reason they enjoy that demi-god status you present is the fact that by comparison everyone else is nothing short of inadequate. And the problems we have are the slime balls who know they can work the system for short term gain and stuff the consequences. Who were the guys who took a bath when the bottom dropped out of PR market? Who were the ones that just didn't see it coming? Who did? Who had contingency plans in place? Which ones are back in business pretending butter wouldn't melt in their mouths?

Answer those questions and you will have it all figured out.

[Dan]

I think Google are absolutely responsible. Their advertising model doesn't weed out the garbage sites that are MFA does it? Why should the onus be on us to review/edit those sites and determine which ones are garbage. Google makes billions of dollars from their advertising arm, shouldn't they be ethical and weed out the garbage? You put so much responsibility on the webmaster and none on the search engine. It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you do that.

When you realise that, you will have figured it all out.

[rainchild]

What's the difference between what we are talking about and an everyday thing like garbage and litter. I believe that each and every one of us is personally responsible and the we have a social duty and obligation. How about global warming? What's the difference? Isn't also just a question of attitude? Has anybody taken the trouble to dob @barrett? If they have why haven't they started crowing about it? You don't like MFA. Why not dob them if not just to watch what happens?

Surely its the right thing to do. :)

[Dan]

What's the difference between what we are talking about and an everyday thing like garbage and litter. I believe that each and every one of us is personally responsible and the we have a social duty and obligation. How about global warming? What's the difference?

Ok. Let's go with your analogy on the environment. Who is the most responsible? The ones the produce the most garbage? Or is everyone equally responsible. Google produces the most garbage, therefore they should be the most responsible. Also since they tout themselves as the example that everyone should follow, then they should also ABSOLUTELY practice what they preach. And you and I both know they don't.

They allow sites to advertise the sale of PR via adsense

Do I really need to show you the graphic again?

http://info.vilesilencer.com/images/Google-ads-1.gif

Figured out what's wrong with that yet?

Why should I waste my time dobbing sites into Google, when they aren't doing it themselves? They encourage, through their advertising arm, the practices that their search arm is penalising for. Bit underhanded don't you think?

It's the old adage. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely and in Google's case that is 150% true.

Back to your query regarding Barrett, why don't you dob them in to see what happens? Why do I, or anyone else, have to do it? You want them gone, why not dob them in and see what happens yourself. Then tell us your results, if any. That's a more interesting thing to discuss than trying to turn me into a snitch, which you will fail miserably at doing, because you will never convince me that it is a good idea. Even if Google offered $1000 per site correctly dobbed in.

[rainchild]

Who is the most responsible? The ones the produce the most garbage? Or is everyone equally responsible.Are you suggesting that just because we have a dysfunctional local council I should do nothing when my youngster tosses his empty coke can into the forest stream? I dont follow your line of reasoning. Its totally alien to me That's a more interesting thing to discuss than trying to turn me into a snitch, which you will fail miserably at doing, because you will never convince me that it is a good idea.This is where we differ. I have been teaching men to fish for as long as I can remember. I have seen a man burnt to death for being a snitch and it taught me an important lesson. He was a man of principal. He was a good man, a civilised man. And its exmples like that which enable us to build and progress beyond the gutter politics of self centred and greedy people.Back to your query regarding Barrett, why don't you dob them in to see what happens? Why do I, or anyone else, have to do it? You want them gone, why not dob them in and see what happens yourself.I dont have a problem with them. They will dig their own grave. Its your failure to recognise right from wrong that concerns and more importantly disappoints me.

[Dan]

Are you suggesting that just because we have a dysfunctional local council I should do nothing when my youngster tosses his empty coke can into the forest stream? I dont follow your line of reasoning. Its totally alien to me

Not at all but you are responsible for him, as his parent. You aren't responsible for a random stranger doing it are you?

However I do like you comparing Google to a dysfunctional local council. Because in regards to this particular topic, they are absolutely that. They are the ones saying recycling is compulsory, and then allowing big companies to dump toxic waste in the river without penalty. They are also taking kickbacks to promote pollution (see the adsense image). In those instances they are directly responsible, and you and I are not.

The fact that we can "morally" bring them to the local council's attention is only worthwhile if the council does anything about it. You already admitted they won't, and you knew that I always thought that way. This is where the problem lies. Not that we have opposing views, because we don't. It's in the wasting of time where we differ. You have no problems wasting the time, I unfortunately cannot afford to waste it when I know nothing gets done.

This is where we differ. I have been teaching men to fish for as long as I can remember. I have seen a man burnt to death for being a snitch and it taught me an important lesson. He was a man of principal. He was a good man, a civilised man. And its exmples like that which enable us to build and progress beyond the gutter politics of self centred and greedy people.

I'm not suggesting the idea doesn't have a moral appeal. I'm suggesting it is a waste of time because nothing is going to get done about it. Simple fact. You and I are not going to change the world by dobbing half a dozen websites in every week. Hell even if we had 100 people committed to dobbing in 100 sites each in a week, it wouldn't make 1 shred of difference. You know that, so I don't know why you keep pushing these ideas that will never work. Why encourage people to do something that they already know is the right thing to do, and they already avoid doing because they know it is a waste of time? That's all I am saying. It is a waste of time.

dont have a problem with them. They will dig their own grave. Its your failure to recognise right from wrong that concerns and more importantly disappoints me.

I understand the right from wrong. I just choose to be realistic about the outcome of doing what you are suggesting. I know what you are suggesting, but you make statements like "Why hasn't someone dobbed them in?" It's a rhetorical question, and you already know the answer, and so does everyone else. i.e. because it is a waste of time.

So why bother prattling on about it? We know it's wrong, but we also know that whingeing and whining and carrying on about it, which is all this thread has been about, achieves nothing. 3 pages mate, what have you achieved? Is anyone listening? Does anyone care? I doubt it. I'm only responding because you are directing comments to me. If you weren't, I wouldn't.

[rainchild]

I'm not suggesting the idea doesn't have a moral appeal. I'm suggesting it is a waste of time because nothing is going to get done about it. Simple fact. You and I are not going to change the world by dobbing half a dozen websites in every week. Hell even if we had 100 people committed to dobbing in 100 sites each in a week, it wouldn't make 1 shred of difference. You know that, so I don't know why you keep pushing these ideas that will never work. Why encourage people to do something that they already know is the right thing to do, and they already avoid doing because they know it is a waste of time? That's all I am saying. It is a waste of time.
Submitting to directories which are going to go belly up is also a waste of time but we still do it all the same. Why do we it? I dont know about everyone else but I understand that there is a short term gain. I understand that everything is relative. The same applies to spam and its the thought that really counts. The understanding and recognition of the fact that link pimping and littering is anti-social and should have no place in polite society. What I have suggested is that you host an incubator for emerging attitudes but the very thought of it appears to get you all flustered and curling at the edges. I have not asked you to do anymore than to lend your tacit and moral support to a project that could make a very positive contribution to the future of this industry. But you just cant bring yourself to admit that our directories offer value to web masters looking for back links. What is it about my proposal that scares you so?

[Dan]

Submitting to directories which are going to go belly up is also a waste of time but we still do it all the same. Why do we it?

How many have gone belly up? Do you realise that most of the directories we remove every update, convert to paid models and actually continue going or do you just assume that every update we kill 80 directories? Bring some evidence to the table and shock me. Go through the removed list on the excel (which is massive) and tell me the number of 100% dead directories.

So to answer your question. Why do we do it?

Because we have faith that they will continue to run. We also do it because even if a directory only lasts for 1 year, we have derived 12 months benefit out of the link for taking a couple of minutes to submit. So if you are ranking for a full year based on a temporary listing, do you feel that you have gained something? I do.

I dont know about everyone else but I understand that there is a short term gain. I understand that everything is relative. The same applies to spam and its the thought that really counts. The understanding and recognition of the fact that link pimping and littering is anti-social and should have no place in polite society.

Another rhetorical question then. You already understand the benefit. The fact is that many directories have been around for years, and will continue to hang around despite your best attempts to make them go down. They'll have bad times and they'll have good times.

You'll have to explain link litter to me, you use it a lot but if it is different from spam then you need to define it. If you are suggesting that having a link to Google, Yahoo and MSN in the search engine category of your directory, despite them not submitting, because you think they are worthwhile resources, is a bad idea, then I disagree with you. In that instance it's called seeding and it's how empty directories get rid of duplication, get pages indexed, and make their resource actually worthwhile.

If link litter means something different than seeding, explain it.

I assume by "link pimping" you are referring to PR selling. We already agree on that, so there's no point continue debating it.

What I have suggested is that you host an incubator for emerging attitudes but the very thought of it appears to get you all flustered and curling at the edges.

To the contrary, I still have a thread sitting there waiting for "emerging directories" to announce themselves. It doesn't fluster me at all rainchild. You brought me the idea and I implemented (here's the thread once again in case you forgot... rainchilds emerging directories idea), now you've stalled at the start and blamed me. The idea is there, you haven't taken advantage of it, or encouraged others to get behind it. It is YOUR idea, you should be the one pushing it, not me. BUT you choose instead to encourage people to discuss it on your blog. Now, that's your prerogative, but when you do that, you can't blame me for not spending time on here to entertain the idea can you?

My time, as short as it is, is tied up in the development of this site. A fact that I have appraised you on, on no less than a dozen occasions but that doesn't interest you because you cannot see what I am doing. The whole point in doing this development, has and always will be, to free my time up. Why? So I can get involved in actually changing things. Right now I spend most of my free time wading through endless directories removing junk and finding new ones. I have to review each and every directory that makes it on the list, that takes time, it's not a quick process. Because I also have to ensure that threads are updated and respond to everyone it is extremely slow. The point of the new site, is to cut the timewasting. That's the number 1 point. That involves paying someone a lot of money to build databases, categorising those databases correctly, and allowing specific people access to those databases to correctly move directories into their right locations, and to review them with closer scrutiny.

You don't see any of that. You just whinge that the resource isn't taking advantage of the community it has. I know, more than anyone else, what we can achieve. If I didn't why would I waste tens of thousands of my own hard earned investing in it?

Just remember, you continually tell me that I don't see the DM behind your directories and that I do not know what's going on. Well my friend, you have absolutely no idea the amount of money and time I spend behind the scenes of this site, because if you did, you would sit quietly in your corner and be thankful that I continued talking to you after the way you openly insult me every chance you get.

I have not asked you to do anymore than to lend your tacit and moral support to a project that could make a very positive contribution to the future of this industry. But you just cant bring yourself to admit that our directories offer value to web masters looking for back links. What is it about my proposal that scares you so?

I've lent my support to it. The thread is there, you've not taken advantage of it (rainchilds emerging directories idea). My only advice to you was that when you review a directory you review it, make apparent in a nutshell what is wrong with the directory then move onto the next one. I don't expect you to go through every category of that directory and question every link. I wanted people to get a "snapshot" based on a sample. That's how people run polls in society and it is how it should be done on here. Also I would expect that opinions of the directory owner should be kept in your head and not voiced allowed. If you think a directory is crap, that's your opinion it's not helpful to the review.

I have never said that your directories don't offer something to webmasters. I've said the opposite on a number of occasions. But once again, you don't listen. Nothing about your proposal scares me in the slightest. I point once again to the thread I created (rainchilds emerging directories idea), simply because you asked me to. So why would I bother doing that if I didn't think the idea had merit. The fact that you didn't even post the link in the thread, disappoints me that I wasted the time. You talk so much, and do so little, it is disturbing. Take control for once, and stop expecting me to.

[rainchild]

If you haven't noticed an increase in the number of directories which are not renewing their domains you are not watching the historical stats very carefully. This is flaky industry. I figured that out three years ago when I started building my safety net and there are times when I wonder whether its not going to prove to have all been in vain.

What sort of value do you put on a link? Whilst its a thumb suck I wouldn't put it much more than 50 cents US a year. This is a high volume, low value industry and if I pay $5 for a review I want to get at least ten years value out of the site.
You brought me the idea and I implemented (here's the thread once again in case you forgot... rainchilds emerging directories idea), now you've stalled at the start and blamed me.And all those nasty unpleasant comments you make equating start ups with those selling PR. Do me a favour. You wont support change, you wont support a directory build and you wouldn't be caught dead encouraging anyone to snitch on the pimps strutting their stuff across at DP. You have made that quite clear and it really is the thought that counts.

I asked you for a forum that sits next to "Cream of the Crop". I asked for your moral support and we got neither. Who are you trying to kid? But that's water under the bridge. As I said the workshop has moved on. Why should we scrub toilets for someone else? Might as well do it all ourselves.

[Dan]

If you haven't noticed an increase in the number of directories which are not renewing their domains you are not watching the historical stats very carefully. This is flaky industry. I figured that out three years ago when I started building my safety net and there are times when I wonder whether its not going to prove to have all been in vain.

I've noticed, but by the same token, any industry entered into with the intent of making a quick buck will yield the same results. It's not just directories, look at social media sites, anyone that believes that isn't even more fickle is fooling themselves. Yet they are lauded, by SEOs, SEMs, webmasters and general population to be the "current big thing". Same thing happened with directories ;)

It benefits us to have directory numbers dropping. The more they grow, the more garbage has to be weeded through.

What sort of value do you put on a link? Whilst its a thumb suck I wouldn't put it much more than 50 cents US a year. This is a high volume, low value industry and if I pay $5 for a review I want to get at least ten years value out of the site.

Hard to pinpoint. Depends what we are defining as the "value" in the link. If we are just counting it as a backlink and nothing else, then it's not worth much. If it is offering something additional (such as traffic) then it is obviously worth more. If it wasn't then advertisers wouldn't be valuing places like Facebook as a goldmine (and it certainly wouldn't be getting valued in the marketplace at $15bn unless it had some massive traffic/impressions to offer).

And all those nasty unpleasant comments you make equating start ups with those selling PR. Do me a favour. You wont support change, you wont support a directory build and you wouldn't be caught dead encouraging anyone to snitch on the pimps strutting their stuff across at DP. You have made that quite clear and it really is the thought that counts.

On the contrary I've helped you every step of the way - you should acknowledge that :)

I will agree I won't be caught dead encouraging snitching, thats a kids game. Not interested in weeing in the sandpit. Whilst everyone is dobbing on each other I'd rather spend my time making my area of the web look awesome - you should do the same. Forget about everyone else and concentrate on your own endeavours. The fact that you won't commit when I have clearly created the place you wanted, is demonstrating that you are more talk than action. I'd like to give you a push, but I've been doing that all along and you won't take the bait.

You asked for a forum? NO you asked for a thread, and you got it. You then proceeded to ignore it.

When I moved everything to a subforum on the Promotional Forum you asked me to move it to it's own forum, which I also obliged you. That's two ticks to me so far.

You gave up. That shows where you are at. You are a quitter. Once again. Don't blame me for that, you have only yourself to blame. Don't ever bring it up again. You quit not me - I've also red-repped you for even suggesting I have.

I created your forum, I created your thread, all you used it for was to ridicule members. (Check your comments in AMRAY's review). Nothing about that helps him. You indicate that because he has PR5 he is a scam. That's ridiculous.

As I said before. You need to concentrate on your own issues/problems with your own directories and stop delighting in the flaws of others. You relish the opportunity to put people down, but you don't relish the opportunity to help people, and I find that absolutely strange from someone claiming to run a grass-roots worskhop. I expect you, more than anyone on this forum, to be polite, helpful and compassionate. You have demonstrated none of these qualities. I think you need to if you want others to be sympathetic to your cause.

[rainchild]

I'd rather spend my time making my area of the web look awesome - you should do the same. Forget about everyone else and concentrate on your own endeavours.That I am doing but you are never going endorse a site like BVI (http://www.bvi.co.za). You have called them worthless trash and I intend to prove you wrong.The fact that you won't commit when I have clearly created the place you wanted, is demonstrating that you are more talk than action. I'd like to give you a push, but I've been doing that all along and you won't take the bait.You want me to nominate a site for a review but you cant review a directory which is almost empty. I have asked you how you work your way around that one and you never bothered to answer. Furthermore I gave you Golf Tours (http://www.golftoursinsa.com)which was the site my directory master was working on and you also ignored that. What sort of push does that add up to?

It'll happen, I just need time. Not today, but maybe tomorrow :)
You asked for space and I gave you space. Time passed and all I got from you was a nasty side swipe accusing me of tying to persecute the directory masters running the directories whose content we were reviewing. You have your reason for not supporting what I am doing and that has a lot to do with the people you talk to, what they are doing and what you are doing. I don't belong, never will and that's why its a mistake to think that our workshop will ever be accepted by those who have a vested interest in "the machine".Its quite simple, we don't belong.
What we need is forum for Emerging Directories to Watch. An incubator for the Cream of the Crop. A medium where a directory master can get their site listed and one that link brokers use when looking for low value low risk sites to submit their clients sites to.
Why does it need to be reviewed. There is nothing in it. Is there a spotlight list for Emerging Directories to Watch? Surely he should be evaluated on the work that he does looking for links litter rather than the content he does not have in his directory?

What I would like to see is one hundred or more rookies scratching around for links litter and tracking down the spammers who waste my time submitting their sites to our sites knowing that we charge a nominal amount to review their submissions.


Yes I was looking for a spotlight for the Emerging Directories. One for the toffs and one for the workers. Workers with the right attitude who are getting started right and who have all the incentive they need to keep it right and set the example we need.I think you will generally find that I know what I am talking about and that when I make mistakes I fix them.

I created your forum, I created your thread, all you used it for was to ridicule members. (Check your comments in AMRAY's review). Nothing about that helps him. You indicate that because he has PR5 he is a scam. That's ridiculous.

I was just pulling his leg. You are beginning to see a conspiracy with every wrap. You need a holiday.


Its a good way of attracting attention for all the wrong reasons. Kind of ironic if directory masters could start earning by selling aids that assist directories to shed their PR and become less conspicuous.

[Dan]

That I am doing but you are never going endorse a site like BVI. You have called them worthless trash and I intend to prove you wrong.

I have never called any of your sites worthless trash, though if it gives you impetus to believe that, go ahead.

You want me to nominate a site for a review but you cant review a directory which is almost empty. I have asked you how you work your way around that one and you never bothered to answer. Furthermore I gave you Golf Tours which was the site my directory master was working on and you also ignored that. What sort of push does that add up to?

I ignored it because you made a demand in one of your "reviews" for me to add the site. Put it in a new thread and I would've added it, rather than me having to try and remember which thread you put it in and waste hours trying to find it. Better still put it in the thread that has been allocated to it.

How does on review an empty site. Good point. You cannot. Without content, you cannot properly review a site. You do not know what the site owner intends or what they have brewing, because there is no content to base your assumptions, opinions or review from is there? So no, you cannot review a directory without content, but by the same token you also cannot say its a great directory, it isn't because it has no content to back up its claim. Without content, we can't do anything with a site.

I was just pulling his leg. You are beginning to see a conspiracy with every wrap. You need a holiday.

Yeah right, you brought it up twice. Once is a joke, twice is ridicule. Sorry, you can't fob that one off.

You are right I do need a holiday. It's meaningless arguments like this which thoroughly waste my time and drain my energy. Quite frankly I am over it, and because this thread is no longer about Google and is once again about me. I'm closing it. Either stay on topic, or don't post.