Why doesn't Google penalize Yahoo's Directory?

[Webnauts]

We recently created a new niche web directory SEO Search Bot and we were thinking of charging annual fees for our featured links offer.

But after the recent happenings about buying and selling links, we came to the conclusion that we may only charge a one time (lifetime) review/submission fee.

But is that fair?

I assume not! You might be asking yourself: Why not?

Then I would ask you: Why doesn't the Yahoo Directory get penalized, since they ask for a fee of $299 per year? Inclusion fee? Why should I pay for an inclusion fee if I am already included?

So that means that my site can be included for one year for the above amount, and when the year is over, I am kicked out. Right? And then I should pay again and request a re-inclusion?

What is that if it is not a paid link?

Ah!!!!! I got it! Yahoo does not sell links. They rent links. And we rent links! Google never said that renting links is not OK. Or?

Or did I miss something?

I would appreciate your feedback very much.

Thanks,

John

[innominds]

You are right, but google itself has clearly indicated that it loves yahoo directory links, showing a step mom treatment on the other paid directories.

[ctabuk]

Webnauts - you are an editor on JoeAnt - it sells links.

Directories are a totally different aspect of paid links.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Webnauts - you are an editor on JoeAnt - it sells links.

Directories are a totally different aspect of paid links.

And what do you think about this? How to contact matt cutts? - Page 3

[ctabuk]

I would say 'Twaddle' - there is no way on this green earth that Google can discount Directories. At this rate it will start saying that Blogs are link farms.

Some Directories are rubbish but others are not and use Anchor text and relativity of content. I'll go further and on record in a public forum.

If Google wish to become a totalitaristic empire - determining how people earn their money in their website designs and charges then they are on one road and one road only. Downhill.

[ctabuk]

Digital Point Forums

It would appear that many other people asked the same question - is it really him?

My personal thoughts - If it is him he needs to address his posts - they appear not to be written in his normal flowing self. I'm in his blog - I will ask the question.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

I would say 'Twaddle' - there is no way on this green earth that Google can discount Directories. At this rate it will start saying that Blogs are link farms.

Some Directories are rubbish but others are not and use Anchor text and relativity of content. I'll go further and on record in a public forum.

If Google wish to become a totalitaristic empire - determining how people earn their money in their website designs and charges then they are on one road and one road only. Downhill.

Imagine how many spammy or low quality web sites already dominate the popularity of high quality sites like ours, simply investing some money to buy some links, just to manipulate the heart of Google - to achieve a higher popularity (PR). And you can be sure that our sites have been hurt for years from those PR thiefs.

Who said we cannot buy or sell links? Sure not Google!!! We definitely can do that. We only have to make sure that the nofollow attribute is there. Why not? If it was true what I am reading all over the place that PageRank does not affect rankings, why don't those guys buy or sell links? Only because of the green bar? That is very strange to be honest. Can you explain me that? I am getting confused somehow.

After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links is unethical and unprofessional, and make for Google more complicated to serve us high quality and relevant results.

Thanks Google that they are taking over to solve this everlasting abuse.

Any further comments David?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Digital Point Forums

It would appear that many other people asked the same question - is it really him?

My personal thoughts - If it is him he needs to address his posts - they appear not to be written in his normal flowing self. I'm in his blog - I will ask the question.

I am in his blog too, but I will never ask him a question again. Do you know why?
I posted a question here More info on PageRank and a couple hours later he deleted it.

My question was:

Matt, you mentioned above in one of your comments that PageRank is one of more than 100 ranking factors, and I would just like to ask, how much weight does the PageRank have when it comes to rankings. Lets say in percent?

Why did he delete that? I am not wondering, as I know why. But I do not want to comment that here...

[ctabuk]

With those thoughts I agree - there are hundreds of spammy directories and anyone foolish enough to simply add a link without anchor text is niave.

I no longer use the Google toolbar - so I have not got the foggiest what the greenline says about mine or any other site - I am not interested.

But Google should remember one thing and one thing above all others. It has a duty of care -it is a multi billion pound business - if it starts to penalise natural search results then it will no longer reflect the very basis of the internet.

That being a place of research for day to day enquiries that should reflect those sites that have both optimised and linked in accordance with their original guidelines and therefore deliver the results based on two things. Content and Relativity to that content.

Anything else will result in a Dictator state on the Internet. People will, as the media no doubt would capitalise on - begin seeking alternative Search Engines.

Google would be well advised to read two books. Animal Farm and 1984 - both written by George Orwell

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

But Google should remember one thing and one thing above all others. It has a duty of care -it is a multi billion pound business - if it starts to penalise natural search results then it will no longer reflect the very basis of the internet.

David I hope that was a joke. Google is penalizing the un-natural results. Did you really read my posts above. I have the feeling that you have not. Or did I miss something?

[tamecrow]

David - you've touched on a whole new subject there. The '1984 Effect' with regards to Google is something that's been banded about for a while now. The Google Toolbar is used to send data to Google on search queries and user behaviour - one of the reasons why you have chosen to uninstall it. Of course, Google's main aim is to provide relevant, quality search results to the end user. But at what cost? Is the aspect of web behaviour tracking a fair compromise for increasingly qualitative search results?

Directories are easy links. It's for this reason that Google has been increasingly devaluing free directories. There are, of course, some directories of a much higher quality and authority, and these are still valuable resources for those hunting high-quality links. Yahoo and MSN still place a fair amount of value on directory links and I can see those trends sticking for a little while yet. However, far too much attention is given to the perceived value of directory links. When all is said and done, it's just another one of the hundreds of techniques at our fingertips. Personally, I don't submit to tons of free directories. Some websites require the attention that the larger, quality directories give but it certainly isn't a priority of mine.

As for the Yahoo Directory, I would certainly suggest sticking with it if not only for the extra attention you're bound to receive from Yahoo. If the three main players have extraneous technologies and resources which will raise their awareness of your website, it's good practice to take advantage of this

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

David I hope that was a joke. Google is penalizing the un-natural results. Did you really read my posts above. I have the feeling that you have not. Or did I miss something?

No - it's two sides of the same coin.

Google is penalising not the un-natural sites - it is penanlising sites that may have perfectly good pages and content but have arrived on SERP by what Google determines as 'forced' - Google bots do not understand a sites intentions. It could be someone giving away widgets as opposed to someone selling widgets for profit.

It is determing the SERP of the pages - not what the site represents. Subtle difference.


Tamecrow - as always well written - if the Internet was to digress into a Totalitaristically run entity - ie Google - then the Pigs would rule for a short period only. At the end of the day we have freedom of choice. As Pakistan is about to find out and to its cost.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

No - it's two sides of the same coin.

Google is penalising not the un-natural sites - it is penanlising sites that may have perfectly good pages and content but have arrived on SERP by what Google determines as 'forced'

Sorry David but don't get me wrong if I say that what you stated is non-sense. Google penalizes perfectly good pages and content when they try to manipulate PR and therefore the search results buying PR or supporting that with selling PR.

Do you want my statement backed-up? An evidence?

Look at the pages and content here of this site, and see how Google treated it: Search Engine Optimization Company - SEO Workers

So whats next?

[ctabuk]

That is exactly what I have just stated - have a coffee John

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Google bots do not understand a sites intentions. It could be someone giving away widgets as opposed to someone selling widgets for profit..

At least they are getting better and better in checking if someone is selling or buying PR. So no matter what the sites intentions are, if the try to manipulate PR, their intentions cannot be honest, and they can only spoil the quality of the search results. Or doesn't PR have something to do with rankings? Please explain brother.

[tamecrow]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

That is exactly what I have just stated - have a coffee John

Don't worry David - he's gone into one again

[ctabuk]

Internal PR has everything to do with SERP - but you know that better than most John.

I have no belief in TBPR in anyway shape or form.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Internal PR has everything to do with SERP - but you know that better than most John.

I have no belief in TBPR in anyway shape or form.

So PageRank is important for rankings. Great. That is what I wanted to hear. Thanks.

[kgun]

My subjective view / opinion follow below.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Imagine how many spammy or low quality web sites already dominate the popularity of high quality sites like ours, simply investing some money to buy some links, just to manipulate the heart of Google - to achieve a higher popularity (PR). And you can be sure that our sites have been hurt for years from those PR thiefs.

Quality is a subjective magnitude. Bought links, isn't that part of this update to eliminate the influence of bought position?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Who said we cannot buy or sell links? Sure not Google!!! We definitely can do that. We only have to make sure that the nofollow attribute is there. Why not? If it was true what I am reading all over the place that PageRank does not affect rankings, why don't those guys buy or sell links? Only because of the green bar? That is very strange to be honest. Can you explain me that? I am getting confused somehow.

What is wrong with bought links with or without a nofollow attribute on the link on a site with much traffic like my favourite example W3 Schools with more than 30 mill visitors / month? Is that traffic less relevant than Google AdWords? How many real ad magazines are there in the world? How many digital? Why did MicroSoft buy 1.6 % of FaceBook for usd 240 mill? Traffic outside Google?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links is unethical and unprofessional, and make for Google more complicated to serve us high quality and relevant results.

Thanks Google that they are taking over to solve this everlasting abuse.

Completely disagree. So you wan't Google to monopolize digital ad through ad words or ad sense?

What if enough big players used the following lines in their .htaccess file?

order deny,allow
deny from all bots
allow the rest

Would that be a new web?

I think that is only a theoretical issue, since IMO Google's SERP's are among the best. It is of course up to Google to have ad words on their own free organic SERP pages.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

But Google should remember one thing and one thing above all others. It has a duty of care -it is a multi billion pound business - if it starts to penalise natural search results then it will no longer reflect the very basis of the internet.

That being a place of research for day to day enquiries that should reflect those sites that have both optimised and linked in accordance with their original guidelines and therefore deliver the results based on two things. Content and Relativity to that content.

Anything else will result in a Dictator state on the Internet. People will, as the media no doubt would capitalise on - begin seeking alternative Search Engines.

Google would be well advised to read two books. Animal Farm and 1984 - both written by George Orwell

Excellent, IMO.

My bolding. Natural is the KW, but that is not a static concept. What was natural yesterday may be unnatural today. Algorithmes hopefully improve.

I have read Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave new world. My son have told me about animal farm. I do not think that has anything to do with Google in 2007.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I posted a question here More info on PageRank and a couple hours later he deleted it.

Your post is listed on his blog - not deleted (nor answered)

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

At least they are getting better and better in checking if someone is selling or buying PR. So no matter what the sites intentions are, if the try to manipulate PR, their intentions cannot be honest, and they can only spoil the quality of the search results. Or doesn't PR have something to do with rankings? Please explain brother.

PR has much to do with rankings (as you already know). Don't you agree this is the main reason sites attempt to buy
links from high PR sites soley for the purpose of increasing their own PR (and hopefully a ranking increase).
Is this unnatural - yes. Manipulative - yes. Should G attempt to crack down on this practice - yes - because it
alters the quality of search results.

On directories - is it safe to say the vast majority of the search world uses G, Y or Msn as their preferred search engine?
If this is true then what is the purpose of the hundreds of 2nd and 3rd tier directories? I've always had some curiosity
about this.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by dartman

Your post is listed on his blog - not deleted (nor answered)

I am sure it was gone. So it is back? Thanks man!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by webnauts

After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links is unethical and unprofessional, and make for Google more complicated to serve us high quality and relevant results. Thanks Google that they are taking over to solve this everlasting abuse.

Originally Posted by kgun

Completely disagree. So you wan't Google to monopolize digital ad through ad words or ad sense?

Let me rephrase, as I guess I was not clear enough, as I did not sleep the last 39 hours yet.

After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links without using the nofollow attribute* is unethical and unprofessional, and make for Google more complicated to serve us high quality and relevant results.
_____________
* Edited/added.

Do you agree now?

If not, then you claim that buying and selling PR is ethical and professional. And if you still do so, then we must disagree, but I am sure we both can live with that.

Thanks Google that they are taking over to solve this everlasting abuse.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Let me rephrase, as I guess I was not clear enough, as I did not sleep the last 39 hours yet.

After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links without using the nofollow attribute* is unethical and unprofessional, and make for Google more complicated to serve us high quality and relevant results.
_____________
* Edited/added.

Do you agree now?

John, you know I am an economist. Do you mean that a bougth link is necessarily inferior to a non bought link? Some extreme market economits will even say that bought links will be the most relevant. So there is a correlation between purchasing power and quality of an IBL. A proffessional web master would of course not buy or sell every link. He would look at the relevance and context of the link. Those paying most would get the best placement, like Google does themself on the Adwords part of their pages. Who owns the PageRank of a site?

LinkBrokerage, like other brokerage is a legal business as far as I know. Google, the owner of the green indicator, should have good enough algorithmes to rate content, whether the placement is bought or not.

In an ideal world, it should not be possible to buy position on the SERP's. Content and links should be judged by objective measures. My personal hope is that Google always aims at getting better at positioning relevant hits on their SERPs. Is using the nofollow tag a necessary and sufficient condition to achieve that? In my view Google should rely on their own algorithmes to figure out what content is best. I have a lot of pages myself that were put there long time ago? So you mean that I shall put nofollow on all these links? Isn't that a fairly large burden on a single person driven site? What will the next guidline be that puts burdens on webmasters?

Again who owns PageRank of a site? Wich of the following would you sell? I speak of one and the same link?

1. Bought link without no follow price USD 0/month. That is a free link?
2. Bought link without nofollow price USD 0/month. That is also a free link?
3. Bought link with no follow price USD 1/month?
4. Bought link without nofollow price USD 10/month.

Why should only bought links have nofollow attributes? Is it illegal to make money? Can you imagine that an eCcommerce site that bids most also has the best products? Many economists will say that there is a natural tendency for those that pay the highest price, to have the best products.

Google is of course free to decide their linking policy. They are free to penalize bought postion on links without nofollow. They make their algorithmes.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If not, then you claim that buying and selling PR is ethical and professional. And if you still do so, then we must disagree, but I am sure we both can live with that.

Thanks Google that they are taking over to solve this everlasting abuse.

This is a very delicate and fast conclusion in my view. So it is legal for Google to (directly or indirectly) sell Pr on their own pages, the SERP's? But it is unethical for other to sell PR on their own sites. I do not see the point unless Google owns the global PR.


To answer your question:
Re: Why doesn't Google penalize Yahoo's Directory?

Do you mean that the Yahoo directory does not deserve this position? Do you mean that dmoz is a better directory?

Google rates dmoz higher with their little green indicator. I am not sure.

dmoz (ODP): Tb PR=8

Yahoo directory: Tb PR=7

Seems that Yahoo has been penalized for selling links already.

8 Things we learned about Google PageRank

5. NoFollow is a Sign of No Trust, We Trust Our Sponsors

"Why nofollow someone you trust and want to thank? Is that a slap in their face? Will I have to and will they continue to sponsor? Time will tell".

Why nofollow somebody that pays?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

John, you know I am an economist.

Sure Kjell. And I never doubted your competency in that field.

Originally Posted by kgun

Do you mean that a bougth link is necessarily inferior to a non bought link?

Sure not!

Originally Posted by kgun

Some extreme market economits will even say that bought links will be the most relevant. So there is a correlation between purchasing power and quality of an IBL.

Because a group of market economists have that opinion, does not mean that it is the golden rule.

Originally Posted by kgun

A proffessional web master would of course not buy or sell every link. He would look at the relevance and context of the link.

And that is because there are some differences between off-line and on-line marketing.

Originally Posted by kgun

Those paying most would get the best placement, like Google does themself on the Adwords part of their pages.

Since when do those links generated through Adwords receive PR?

Originally Posted by kgun

Who owns the PageRank of a site?

The site owner.

Originally Posted by kgun

LinkBrokerage, like other brokerage is a legal business as far as I know.

Sure it is a legal business, as far they do not try to manipulate or harm companies or the general public. Link Brokerage is to generate traffic and convert sales. Not to manipulate search engines and their search results, and therefore harm their users (searchers).

Originally Posted by kgun

Google, the owner of the green indicator, should have good enough algorithmes to rate content, whether the placement is bought or not.

Do start with that stuff Kjell. They are working non-stop on improving their software and their services. You as an economist, you should already that Google provides the search service for free, which is a marketing tool for their paid services. They are not a social foundation. All the way around, they could do the following:

Google could unite with all major search engines and agree to discontinue the free (organic) search, make paid search, and provide search results with bids like they already do with AdWords. But here do me a favor. Please do not trigger a new discussion about alternative search engines or so. It was just a hypothesis to explain my point.

Originally Posted by kgun

In an ideal world, it should not be possible to buy position on the SERP's.

You can. AdWords? You already mentioned that above. Or did I miss something? Sure not.

Originally Posted by kgun

Content and links should be judged by objective measures. My personal hope is that Google always aims at getting better at positioning relevant hits on their SERPs.

That is what PhraseRank and PageRank algorithms are made for.

Originally Posted by kgun

Is using the nofollow tag a necessary and sufficient condition to achieve that? In my view Google should rely on their own algorithmes to figure out what content is best.

Kjell, I thought you have the most understanding here when it comes to software engineering. If you publish on the web a TXT file, do you expect that an algorithm can be created which for example can tell when a word or sentence is met to emphasized? Hey man, slow down. I am a fan of artificial intelligence and I am tweaking my site seoworkers.com to conform to such systems when they will be used to perceive my site, but what you are saying is going far beyond that. I would leave that up to God.

Originally Posted by kgun

I have a lot of pages myself that were put there long time ago? So you mean that I shall put nofollow on all these links? Isn't that a fairly large burden on a single person driven site? What will the next guidline be that puts burdens on webmasters?

Kjell, I think you have too much free time. If you have external links on your site, I suppose you have them as you consider them useful for your visitors. If they are were not useful or not relevant to your site's theme, you would not have them there. If some webmaster thinks that he has relevant to your site theme useful content for your visitors and and you want to charge him for the webspace you provide him for those few characters or for a full page, it is very ok, so far the intention is not to harm in anyway the web democracy, and for example in this case, manipulating the democratic system called by Google PageRank.

Originally Posted by kgun

Again who owns PageRank of a site?

Again. The site owner!

Originally Posted by kgun

Wich of the following would you sell? I speak of one and the same link?

1. Bought link without no follow price USD 0/month. That is a free link?
2. Bought link without nofollow price USD 0/month. That is also a free link?
3. Bought link with no follow price USD 1/month?
4. Bought link without nofollow price USD 10/month.

Bought link with no follow price USD 1/month! You know why? Because I am someone who respects the web community, and I am only for ethical practices. Otherwise, I would have been doing already BLACK HAT SEO. Got it?

Originally Posted by kgun

Why should only bought links have nofollow attributes?

Could it be that you are repeating yourself again and again? I already explained above.

Originally Posted by kgun

Is it illegal to make money?

If you do that in a legal way, which in other words, you do not harm someone, then yes.

Originally Posted by kgun

Can you imagine that an eCcommerce site that bids most also has the best products?

Can you make a difference between bids and piss take?

Originally Posted by kgun

Many economists will say that there is a natural tendency for those that pay the highest price, to have the best products.

I agree. But that is not always the reality. Does the word scammers tell you anything?

Originally Posted by kgun

Google is of course free to decide their linking policy. They are free to penalize bought postion on links without nofollow. They make their algorithmes.

AMEN!

Originally Posted by kgun

This is a very delicate and fast conclusion in my view. So it is legal for Google to (directly or indirectly) sell Pr on their own pages, the SERP's? But it is unethical for other to sell PR on their own sites. I do not see the point unless Google owns the global PR.

You mean AdWords? Non-sense. But I already commented to this above.

Originally Posted by kgun

To answer your question:
Re: Why doesn't Google penalize Yahoo's Directory?

Do you mean that the Yahoo directory does not deserve this position? Do you mean that dmoz is a better directory?

Google rates dmoz higher with their little green indicator. I am not sure.

dmoz (ODP): Tb PR=8

Yahoo directory: Tb PR=7

Seems that Yahoo has been penalized for selling links already.

Finally. The anwser to my question! Are you sure Yahoo directory have been penalized? This would be very interesting if it is true. I still did not submit my site to them, and if that is true, I prefer not to.

Originally Posted by kgun

8 Things we learned about Google PageRank

I learned more than 8 things about Google PageRank. But thanks for the link. I might will have a look if I have time.

Originally Posted by kgun

5. NoFollow is a Sign of No Trust, We Trust Our Sponsors
"Why nofollow someone you trust and want to thank? Is that a slap in their face? Will I have to and will they continue to sponsor? Time will tell".
Why nofollow somebody that pays?

The nofollow attribute is created by W3C. And the purpose was not to signalize NO TRUST! I agree that it is not fair from Google or others, using this attribute for such cases. They probably should have found new attributes called for e.g. paid-link, or sponsor-link, or so ever. For indicating no trust or so ever, there is an attribute called "nsfw" which is the abbreviation for "Not Safe For Web". But after all, we have to live with it, or stop caring if we rank well or at all in Google's organic search.

I am willing to answer further questions, if you will not repeat questions I already answered.

[kgun]

Some comments in a hurry.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Since when do those links generated through Adwords receive PR?

Do you see an indirect effect?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

The nofollow attribute is created by W3C. And the purpose was not to signalize NO TRUST! I agree that it is not fair from Google or others, using this attribute for such cases. They probably should have found new attributes called for e.g. paid-link, or sponsor-link, or so ever. For indicating no trust or so ever, there is an attribute called "nsfw" which is the abbreviation for "Not Safe For Web". But after all, we have to live with it, or stop caring if we rank well or at all in Google's organic search.

What about this:

<div id="advert">

[joer80]

I submited a site about a year ago to the paid yahoo directory and saw no increase in organic rankings. only a few hits from directory traffic.

I am now a beliver that yahoo paid links do not pass pr/linkjuice.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

What about this:

<div id="advert">

Does Google understand that?

Here is something in that direction: rel-nofollow - Microformats

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by joer80

I submited a site about a year ago to the paid yahoo directory and saw no increase in organic rankings. only a few hits from directory traffic.

You cannot blame the Yahoo directory for that. I am sure there are many other factors that caused your problem.
How about telling us which site are you talking about? That would make more sense for all of us here.

[Webnauts]

I do not think that Google would be fair if they will discount my own web directory PR, if I also add an annual subscription as they do here: SEO Consultants Directory - Search Engine Marketing Companies

So I think I must run an experiment. I was thinking of reporting them to Google and see if they will get penalized or not. If they don't, I will add to my directory annual subscriptions too.

What do you think about that? It is just an idea. Didn't do that yet.

I would first like to hear what you think about that.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

What about this:

<div id="advert">

Kjell, I just proposed your idea to W3C.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Does Google understand that?

Here is something in that direction: rel-nofollow - Microformats

Great link John.

Also note:

"Rel-License is one of several MicroFormats. By adding rel="license" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is a license for the current page. E.g. with the following hyperlink:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc by 2.0</a>

the author indicates that the page is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Required license".

Also note this:

DOM Scripting Task Force - The Web Standards Project

"As a pioneer of standards-based design, he helped put an end to the browser wars and made Web sites available to all"

Jeffrey Zeldman: King of Web Standards

That must be 2 good 2 be true

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

Great link John.

Also note:

"Rel-License is one of several MicroFormats. By adding rel="license" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is a license for the current page. E.g. with the following hyperlink:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc by 2.0</a>

the author indicates that the page is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Required license".

Also note this:

DOM Scripting Task Force - The Web Standards Project


"As a pioneer of standards-based design, he helped put an end to the browser wars and made Web sites available to all"

Jeffrey Zeldman: King of Web Standards

That must be 2 good 2 be true

I am already using MicroFormats on my site already.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Webnauts - you are an editor on JoeAnt - it sells links.

As an editor, I dropped by to make something clear here about JoeAnt:

Submission is free, but $39.95 review fee guarantees 48 hour review. That has nothing to do with paid links.

[Tubby]

Webnauts said

"After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links is unethical and unprofessional, "

John I think this is a very limited perspective. My website serves a very precise user group. This group use older model cars either as a hobby or through necessity. Classic car enthusiasts...

Many of these early parts have value only as patterns or as a restorable bit of tin. these bits of tin are mostly worthless, (except to an enthusiast) My site list these parts as a free service.

My users are perfectly content for me to cover site cost any way that I can. Simply put, If enough of my revenue streams are curtailed, there would be one less free site on line.

my site serves many hundreds of pensioners (amongst others) , that have maintained the same car for twenty and thirty years. parts for these cars can often be had for no more than the delivery price.

I feel I am justified in selling links . . Google might well feel that I should add a no follow tag. You feel I am unethical and unprofessional. My users do not find the parts they are looking for on eBay, there is no big money in selling most of these obscure parts.

My incoming traffic is not boosted by Paid links or with unethical or unprofessional attitude. I merely charge for placing any, non year, make, model advert, (or broad spectrum link). and I simply do not place a ' no follow' on anything. . . I do not really give a damn if Google follows or doesn't. If I accept cash for a link, then I give a link.
I will continue to except payments for links that are of a broader perspective, and are in my users interests, and I will continue to display AdSense adverts.

I do give a damn john , when webmasters like me seem to come under your
"After all, I hope I made clear enough why buying and selling links is unethical and unprofessional, " description...

I do not think it is unethical or unprofessional. . rather I am inclined to think if Google cannot get its results the way they want them. . then Google has every right to adjust it algorithm to get a better result for searchers. I really do think that shifting the burden for better results away from Google and labeling webmasters as unethical and unprofessional is a bit over the top.
iI is Google, that is Getting the search results wrong
It was Google that propagated the trend of high value inbound links.
it is Google that is adjusting its own errors.

It has nothing to do with unethical webmasters. . that in my opinion is an extremely narrow and very pro yourself biased observation.
this whole topic should be about Google fixing its own mistakes

Google (good on them) are doing this. . I think it is about time some of WPW more prominent members stop pointing the finger everywhere. and simply accept that this is what it is. Not a punishment. not retribution, not a pat on the back for the holy ones. just Google trying to adjust its results the best it can - following its stupid acceptance as some sort of God among sections of the SEO industry.

[Webnauts]

Tubby I think I have not be explicit enough in this thread. I met that buying or selling links for manipulating PR is unethical and unprofessional! If you add to such links the "nofollow" attribute, it is very ethical and professional.

Tubby could it be that you did not read my previous post in this thread? Why doesn't Google penalize Yahoo's Directory?

Please do that and tell me if you still have the same opinion. And if you do, let go on discussing this.

[dburdon]

An interesting, if sometimes wayward discussion. Google says it recognises the Yahoo directory because it vets the links. Hmmm.

I also think its because even Google realises it needs competition. And those $299 annual subscriptions go a long way to keeping Yahoo's profits on an upward trend. Personally I'd be extremely reluctant to part with the $299 every 12 months.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Tubby

I feel I am justified in selling links . .

Maybe it's semantics but I see your site as selling ads, not links. If I sold hoods for
old Ramblers your site would be a good fit for my ad dollars and you would be well
justified in selling me ad space. I doubt I'd care about a nofollow tag since I would
want traffic, not PR. Seems a lot of obscure sites, especially in a highly competitive
niche, are better served by buying an ad on a popular site.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Tubby I think I have not be explicit enough in this thread. I met that buying or selling links for manipulating PR is unethical and unprofessional! If you add to such links the "nofollow" attribute, it is very ethical and professional.

My bolding - precisely what G is trying to fix - buying and selling links solely for link juice
to manipulate the natural algorithm results.

[Tubby]

John. I always read your posts carefully. Sometimes I add my own perspective to your words that might well reflect a thought that you did not intend. (we all do this) This does not alter or diminish my respect for you.

I like to ad a different perspective now and then. I really do believe that this whole problem is simply Google fixing up its own internal mess. I wanted to Put that perspective on the board.

I do sell links, and I suspect that those I have sold were being used as "link juice" (I liked that term) I get a clear indication of this when I get a request for a particular page to insert the link. Mostly requests are from car insurance companies (but it varies) , and I must admit I do have a personal preference for multi quote comparison companies. I do charge for a 12 month listing. I think with a few thousands outgoing links - a few dozen paid links fit well with my theme.

I am not overly concerned how Google manipulates its result. I continually manipulate my configurations. I look after my users. . Google looks after its users.


John a repeat
"Tubby I think I have not be explicit enough in this thread. I met that buying or selling links for manipulating PR is unethical and unprofessional! If you add to such links the "nofollow" attribute, it is very ethical and professional."

John I know what you meant. BUT, I simply had to bite . . Simply my own behalf and on others more silent than me, unethical and unprofessional! was an unfortunate phrase that was too big a target for me to resist. Many good webmaster amongst us on this site were effected by this change, I feel none of us are guilty of anything...


dartman said
'Maybe it's semantics but I see your site as selling ads, not links." yes. but there is a good few paid links there
"If I sold hoods for old Ramblers" if you sold old hoods for ramblers, You would be offered free web pages with room for photos, and guaranteed traffic - because my users want these items. (I would have had no great problem getting a local car insurance agent to help cover the costs) or another website that wanted to tap into my traffic. My job here is to get these parts to my users.

My last thought is a slight confusion. I consider an action to be either right or wrong. I am not a believer in "justification"
If I ad a link, this is the action . . It is right if I don't get paid - It is wrong if I do get paid. It is wrong if is for link juice - it is right If it is for something else. To me an action is either right or wrong. justification seems to be a growing trend that enable people to do wrong, and not feel guilty. Or as in some instances to discriminate against 'right' actions that suit somebody else. I think it is Total Bullshit to say - I do not do it, so therefore you are wrong if you do it. and then create some rules to justify an action. This is intelligence gone nuts.

I sometime hear the opinion voiced that google is akin to a monopoly. if and when a court case ever arrived to settle such an accusation. Google might well argue. That they are in fact blameless. That webmasters have manipulated their own websites in a manner that favours results for google, and denying a good natural result for search users, other than Google. Why are we doing this?

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by dburdon

An interesting, if sometimes wayward discussion. Google says it recognises the Yahoo directory because it vets the links. Hmmm.

I also think its because even Google realises it needs competition. And those $299 annual subscriptions go a long way to keeping Yahoo's profits on an upward trend. Personally I'd be extremely reluctant to part with the $299 every 12 months.

Well - I have never renewed - I reported it as SPAM to Yahoo and 6 years on - I am still listed.


Downloaded today
Web | Images | Video | Local | Directory | more »

• Shopping
• Answers
• Audio
• Jobs
• News
• All Search Services

Advanced Search




Directory Results

1 - 2 of about 2 for CTAB - 0.06 sec. (About this page)

RELATED DIRECTORY CATEGORIES

• Canada > Science > Organizations
• United Kingdom > Real Estate > Mortgage Resources
• more...

DIRECTORY RESULTS

1. Council Tenants Advice Bureau UK Ltd (CTAB)
   Provides council house purchase mortgages and social housing advice.
   Category: United Kingdom > Real Estate > Mortgage Resources
   www.counciltenantsmortgages.co.uk
2. Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists
   Federation of provincial professional associations and societies, representing the interests of more than 37,000 Engineering and Applied Science Technologists and Technicians.
   Category: Canada > Science > Organizations

[ctabuk]

Another thing that I have noticed is that Google is still listing MIVA paid Directory listings as part of natural search based on the advertisers Anchor text,

[kgun]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Another thing that I have noticed is that Google is still listing MIVA paid Directory listings as part of natural search based on the advertisers Anchor text,

There will never be a perfect world.

Hopefully the SERP's are better (more objective) in 2015 than in 2007.

Objective? Aren't we all subjective? What about GoogleBOT?