Pedro Sttau

Thanks to this website I found a handy script for those of you that absolutely find it absurd that there are still people using IE6 and older versions of the crappy browser.

So I’ve been reading all about SEOMoz’s Rand Fishkin’s supposed vendetta against Web directories. In all fairness I hardly believe he has anything against Directory owners at all. He is merely expressing a point of view that is valid in many ways.

To kick this off, let me just briefly state where I stand on this. I believe that whilst the sale of links through a Web Directory platform is not a very good business model, it is undeniable that they bring value to their clients, even if Rand states otherwise.

Every SEO in the process of Link building submits his client’s websites to directories. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or in denial. There could be cases where this step simply isn’t needed because the SEO holds control over a Network of websites that provide him enough “link power” to discard the directory submissions process; this might be the case for Randy.

A Web Directory, as product to the end user is simply worthless. Keep in mind that the owners of the websites that are listed in the directories are not the end user, or better yet, they shouldn’t be.

Why is it not valuable? To be put it very blatantly, because no one will use it to search for content.

Also, in a Webmaster perspective, I serious doubt that directories generate enough traffic in quantity and quality in the regular category listings to represent a good ROI .

Web Directories have one single purpose, to pass link weight to the websites listed in the various categories.

I have seen some very surprising reactions by directory owners who seem to be taking this rather personally. I’m guessing that the most extreme reactions are coming from owners of small directories, because the ones who have been around long enough know that they have nothing to worry about.

My final take on this, is that of course that certain directories will have a good impact on your SERPS, just select the most contextual directories for your business, and the ones that are authoritative, even if they are generic.

In most countries, with the exception of Colombia, governments combat drug traffic by going after the source of the problem. They do this because it is quite simply the most logical and efficient thing to do. By cutting the supply chain you consequently create a market imbalance that although doesn’t solve the issue; it is highly effective in reducing the intensity of the problem.

If the offer is more scarce, the product price will naturally inflate, and will make it less accessible to buy. Doesn’t take away the need, but it makes it a lot harder buy the product itself. Additionally, the existing consumer base will not just go away, it’s just not that simple. Once an addict, always an addict, and as soon as Google realizes this better for all of us.

So what they are obviously looking into is the sites that are selling the links, hoping to impact the way the market is perceived by consumers who aren’t already in them.

As for us link junkies, I’m guessing at worse we will see many of our inbound links neutralized, but that is pretty much the worse case scenario.

Using the Narcotic analogy, marginalizing Webmasters that buy links like criminals is the same thing as marginalizing narcotic consumers, it won’t solve the problem, it will just help create more and more.

So the only way Google can fight this is by killing the supply chain, and I believe that it is exactly what they are doing, regardless of all of the Fire-works stating that they are after the buyers.


read more | digg story

So it seems that Google is starting to take more active measures against the purchase and sale of links. In a recent post in his Blog, Matt Cutt’s states that Google is testing new systems against the purchase and sale of links. Whether this involves a direct Algorithmic change or not is not clear, but it is definitely something that is being prioritized.

My guess is that Google is improving the mechanism used of find sites that are selling links and automatically preventing them from passing on Page Rank and Link weight.

It doesn’t seem plausible that Google is pursuing the purchase of links itself, as it is pretty much impossible to attribute responsibility for external content.

Even the new Spam reporting system isn’t very clear. Matt Cuts encourages Webmasters to report sites that are selling and buying links by adding the “transaction” trace in the report form.

But how exactly does this prove anything except that site A is selling links? What prevents anyone from buying a bunch of cheap links with his competitors URL and then sending a nice tidy report via WebMaster Central?

Additionally, before selling links, many directories add sites without asking the owners for permission, making it impossible to know if a purchase was done or not. So it is obvious to me that Google is going after the source of the problem rather then those who are taking advantage of this loophole in Google’s Algorithm concept.

If the Anti-Spam team finds an effective way of neutralizing the sites that are selling links, spending money in buying them will be useless.