It's been a couple of weeks since it became apparent that Google was penalizing link directories, at least a few of them, knocking them out of the SERPs even for their own business names. There's still no official word from Google on this, but there is plenty speculation that it wasn't algorithmic.
Editor's note:
The directory earthquake expected never really came, the penalties laid limited to a select few. Let the theorizing begin as nobody at the Googleplex is talking about it. A horse head in the directory bed; a message? Or do you think this is the direct result of selective enforcement via paid link reports? Let us know what you think in the comments section.
The reason that speculation has arisen is that though there was a seeming spate of directories hit, the number of them; up to 60 or so that we know of; is relatively small compared to the number of directories out there, hundreds or thousands passing on PageRank.
One theory suggests that people are using Google's controversial paid links report form, implemented last spring to a furious response. However, shortly after Matt Cutts' invitation to report instances of paid links, Cutts clarified that he and Google's webspam team weren't interested in reports on directories, only instances similar to what he cited on his blog.
Nevertheless, Cutts followed up that question with some rules of thumb for evaluating a directory's value:
That may or may not be a lot to consider, and given that a select few directories have been affected, it may be a cue that Google is considering it more than before. It may be just a strong message being sent, a warning to clean things up.
Editor's note:
The directory earthquake expected never really came, the penalties laid limited to a select few. Let the theorizing begin as nobody at the Googleplex is talking about it. A horse head in the directory bed; a message? Or do you think this is the direct result of selective enforcement via paid link reports? Let us know what you think in the comments section.
The reason that speculation has arisen is that though there was a seeming spate of directories hit, the number of them; up to 60 or so that we know of; is relatively small compared to the number of directories out there, hundreds or thousands passing on PageRank.
One theory suggests that people are using Google's controversial paid links report form, implemented last spring to a furious response. However, shortly after Matt Cutts' invitation to report instances of paid links, Cutts clarified that he and Google's webspam team weren't interested in reports on directories, only instances similar to what he cited on his blog.
Nevertheless, Cutts followed up that question with some rules of thumb for evaluating a directory's value:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn’t speak well to the quality of the directory.
- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site.
That may or may not be a lot to consider, and given that a select few directories have been affected, it may be a cue that Google is considering it more than before. It may be just a strong message being sent, a warning to clean things up.
No comments:
Post a Comment