Cache Problems Growing for Directories?

[mixer28]

Less pages of the tier3 and tier2 directories seem to be cached by Google in the last 2 months. As I'm submitting sites its taking longer and longer to find directories with cached pages that are relevent. This can include established directories like Joe Ant etc

Out of 25 shortlisted directories I am finding I can only submit to 1/2 now as pages are just not being read anymore. Anyone else finding similar problem? Anyway we can get round it?

[sem4u]

I was going through a directory list the other day and found the same problem. The same goes for reciprocal link pages on sites. Some pages even have a PR value in the toolbar but no cache.

[mixer28]

yeah - this changes the classic seo model of link building for new sites to my mind.

For the last 3 years its been a great way to entrench new and existing sites but with even the more established directories struggling and reciprocal links lacking in effect I'm scratching my chin a little bit to figure out a solution.

One issue may be that directories need to make an effort to get links pointing to their actual listing pages - this could help as the pages then have atleast some form of external citation in Google's eyes?

[seoguyuk]

It is not just directories, many other non directory sites experienced this. In one of my sites, Google had shed almost 20'000 pages, which lead to drastic cut down in my traffic

[stoner3221]

I’m sure it’s not just directories but the effect of the Big Daddy update I have seen on directories starting around mid March has been in two directions. Many underdeveloped newer directories lost large numbers of cached pages. Larger well established directories now have more cached pages now then us operators ever considered possible with Google.

Personally I have a smaller niche directory that took a huge beating and two well developed long established general directories that have benefited immensely from the Big Daddy update with a large number of cached pages and the organic search results that come from having them.

My conclusion is Google wants a directory to be established, have a lot of content and the content must be of good quality. The new directory now is going to have to work a lot harder in developing it to be able to provide good link value for its submitter.

It used to take three years of hard work to develop a directory and I think we are back to that point again.

[Marcia]

It's the same phenomenon that's been hitting non-directory sites as well, with a limit to the levels in that will be crawled and indexed.

The truth of the matter, as far as directories are concerned, is that with a lot of the directories that have sprung up out there, there's a bogus link profile, with the majority of their IBLs coming forum posts and from linking to each other - and from sites that capitalized on the craze and/or were making profit from promoting them.

For many months people promoting directories (and makng profit from doing it, I might add, in a few different ways) were running around repetitiously doing multiple URL drops in forums all over, linking to the directory sites. At this point in time such links aren't worth squat, and haven't been for a while.

IMHO that was part and parcel, not of creating valuable directories for webmasters and surfers, but rather for getting the directories out and about for the purpose of buying and selling text links.

The people who were doing the URL-dropping may play wide-eyed innocent now, but to some extent we all have them to thank for pushing the envelope so far that Google had to take drastic measures to stop the epidemic. Thus - Big Daddy wielded the mighty rod and many who were and are innocent are feeling the sting who had no involvement and don't deserve it. No doubt, that's a big part of the reasoning behind the new "system" because it hits right in the bread basket and stops a lot of it from profiting algorithmically.

Oh, everyone may have been gung-ho at the time of that fad, except those who figured out what the overall scheme of it all was and saw the handwriting on the wall. No suprise what has happened - as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Added:

Y'all might want to take a look back at this thread:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=6642

Note: I'm not implying that that is all of the problem and cause, because there's definitely more to it, but the non caching indicates dumping, and from the looks of it, it's redundancy and page stuffing that were targeted, though in some cases the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

[stoner3221]

I’ve just been sitting back watching and shaking my head for the past year and a half. Now that the ax has fallen and the links that put many website of marginal and poor quality in good positions are worthless; we can now listen to all the crying over it. Experienced reputable search engine marketers have been warning about this for over a year but have been ignored by far too many.

It’s unfortunate that many good websites with hard working devoted webmasters were also taken down with the Big Daddy ax. Search engines are just machines and far from perfect. Hopefully the problems that caused the good websites to loose cached pages will be corrected in the near future.

[obuwebco]

Yep i hear ya.

A directory site we built for a client about 8 months ago, that was steadily growing in usage. about 30k pages indexed, now shows 14 pages indexed in google.

Which is a real shame, no spamming links, no funny business. Just good old fashion sorting of businesses.

[goodluck222]

I am new to this forum, it is very well informed and knowledgeable one to boot. AND very pleased I found you. . .
But, I have just had the 'stuffing kicked out of me' as I(just a month old) started an article directory website without having all this information.

so, i am doomed before I even begun. Which is a real shame as I had hoped to make a living from it. I had big plans to be an internet marketer.

Joining forums and learning, reading from forums is all a waste now.
I will stick around to learn what works and what does not. as you mentioned about being in forums.

Right now, i am unable to start a new project. So, I can just give up before i waste my time trying.

You all been sincere in your comments and I am sure you most likely right.
I am no great webmaster(Im not a webmaster) by any means but willing to learn. But, I will have to rise up again another day

[stoner3221]

I am new to this forum, it is very well informed and knowledgeable one to boot. AND very pleased I found you. . .
But, I have just had the 'stuffing kicked out of me' as I(just a month old) started an article directory website without having all this information.

so, i am doomed before I even begun. Which is a real shame as I had hoped to make a living from it. I had big plans to be an internet marketer.

Joining forums and learning, reading from forums is all a waste now.
I will stick around to learn what works and what does not. as you mentioned about being in forums.

Right now, i am unable to start a new project. So, I can just give up before i waste my time trying.

You all been sincere in your comments and I am sure you most likely right.
I am no great webmaster(Im not a webmaster) by any means but willing to learn. But, I will have to rise up again another day

Don’t give up on your project. I’m sure the near future will show some improvements in the area specifically that seems to be causing the problems. I’m not an expert but I have a blog post here (http://wowdirectory.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-daddy-update-and-cached-pages.html) that’s far too long winded to put on the forum that might help you understand some of what is going on. I strongly believe we will see some modifications and websites gaining back some of the lost cached pages.

[Cristian Mezei]

This problem is certainly not a directory targeted one.

It's all over the place and IMHO, directories as a specific niche of websites, have not been affected in particular.

[SEO1]

The problem deals more with links being devalued, as should have happened due to link spam. As stoner has posted, a few of us have stated that the link sprees webmasters have gone on in the past... are going to come back and bite them in the butt.....seems that has happened / is happening.

Where it was once thought to go deep... it now seems better to go wide... not deep....remember the old adage about keeping everything within one click?? now might make that an imperative.

Link to your sitemap page from the home page if you do not currently. Subdomains would seem to do well now more than ever considering the state of things.

Another consideration is microsites....something to chew on...

[PhilC]

It's nothing to do with the depth and one-click stuff. Many of the remaining pages of sites that have had most of their pages dropped are deep - I know of as many as 4 sub-directories and 3 clicks deep, while one-click pages were dropped. There is no pattern concerning the depth. If I'm not mistaken, that's what stoner3221 found.

And it's nothing to do with link sprees either. Sites that never did any link-building of any kind are suffering the same fate.

From what I can understand, it's to do with evaluating a site's IBLs and OBLs to decide how much of the site to index, and if a site doesn't score very well, some, many or most of it's pages are dumped to match the score. The evaluation concerns the types and quantities of links, and certain types are not being counted.

And Clint, there never was an adage to keep everything within one click, and it was never thought better to go deep ;)

[stoner3221]

It's nothing to do with the depth and one-click stuff. Many of the remaining pages of sites that have had most of their pages dropped are deep - I know of as many as 4 sub-directories and 3 clicks deep, while one-click pages were dropped. There is no pattern concerning the depth. If I'm not mistaken, that's what stoner3221 found.

And it's nothing to do with link sprees either. Sites that never did any link-building of any kind are suffering the same fate.

From what I can understand, it's to do with evaluating a site's IBLs and OBLs to decide how much of the site to index, and if a site doesn't score very well, some, many or most of it's pages are dumped to match the score. The evaluation concerns the types and quantities of links, and certain types are not being counted.

And Clint, there never was an adage to keep everything within one click, and it was never thought better to go deep ;)

PhilC you hit the nail right on the head. It will surprise a lot of folks to see what I see developing now in major directories. Pages 3 and 4 topics deep with good content having a higher page rank then the 2nd level and pages 6 levels deep rating as high or higher then second level. Topic depth means very little; topic content is the primary factor. If a topic is doing poorly then chances are it has excessive 404 sites or some poor quality submissions. Every topic page has to be dealt with like a single page website. Don’t expect it to rank highly but unless it is maintained well don’t expect it to rank at all.

[Cristian Mezei]

Some older directories don't have a problem, even if they have questionable (outbound) content (http://botw.org/top/Health/Pharmacy/). .

I think it's much more than just a statement of "IBL and OBL quality". It's about age, trust, and other things.

The stability of the IBLs might also have something to do with the crawling patterns (deeper or superficial).

Empty categories too.

But this is certainly not a directory-only problem. The indexed pages fever has(is) migrated(ing) to a lot of niches, even to very old quality websites.

[SEO1]

Phil

Had you read my post the reference to 'go wide' is advice. As for deep crawling I think you are mistaken there as well, it has been a mantra for a while for most marketers..

Next I doubt OBLs have much to do with things ...unless you play the link spam game...say links to a forum for geeks from a mortgage site. Mortgage site should get a penalty. If the forum was found to have particpated then they too should have the link filtered.


Next did you read your post. Your first two lines contradict themselves

It's nothing to do with the depth and one-click stuff. Many of the remaining pages of sites that have had most of their pages dropped are deep

It has nothing to do with depth, yet the next sentence says the pages dropped are deep..

Tis what I said...and the advice again

Go wide..Peace and goodnight.

[Marcia]

first two lines contradict themselvesNo, they don't contradict if they're not pulled out of context and if they are read along with the rest of the paragraph, within the context.

First and second sentences:
It's nothing to do with the depth and one-click stuff. Many of the remaining pages of sites that have had most of their pages dropped are deep - See, sentences have subjects and predicates and clauses, and if we read that with understanding of what the subject of the sentence is, then it makes perfect sense and there is no contradiction.

Read: Many of the sites that have had most of their pages dropped have many remaining pages that are deep. Interpret first sentence: in those cases, it has nothing to do with the depth and number of clicks.

Rest of sentences expressing the thought in context:
I know of as many as 4 sub-directories and 3 clicks deep, while one-click pages were dropped. There is no pattern concerning the depth. If I'm not mistaken, that's what stoner3221 found.Very simply, what that is saying follows right along with the previous sentence - there are deep pages in sites that are 3 and 4 clicks deep that are NOT like the ones being compared with on the sites, one-click pages that were dropped - those deep pages weren't dropped.

It's the sites that have had many pages dropped - that is not saying that the deep pages were dropped in those cases - it's referring to the site, and then saying that deep pages weren't.

In spite of the slightly convoluted sentence structure, and one sentence that's fragmented, what's been said is perfectly clear. But now that we've got that straightened out, discussion can go on about a very good point that was made. Which I'm not 100% sure I agree with, but I'm all ears to hear more.

[PhilC]

Thank you Marcia :)

In a nutshell, Clint. Sites with deep and shallow pages have some pages remaining, and the rest dumped. Some of the remaining pages are deep and some are shallow. Some of the dumped pages are deep, and some are shallow. I.e there is no pattern concerning depth.

I know that this thread is about directories, but the problem doesn't just concern directories - it concerns all types of sites. Even so, I have a small niche directory that has been hit, and it's small enough to have only 12 pages left out of many thousands that were fully indexed. With only 12 pages left, it easy to see things. One of the things that I see is that a page's content doesn't make any difference.

The nature of the directory's listings is such that some of them are linked, most of them are not linked, some have descriptions (more relevant text on the pages), many of them don't. Of the 12 pages that are fully indexed, one is the homepage, one contains only links to lower cats but no listings (a one-click page), some have no linked listings and no descriptions, some have a few OBLs and some don't have any, and so on. In other words, it's just a general mix of pages without any discernable pattern of content, clicks, OBLs, whatever. So what I see with that site doesn't match what you said about yours, stoner3221. If anyone wants to have a look for patterns, it's www.forthegoodtimes.co.uk

The site was designed to be squeaky clean, and no link-building was done for it, other than giving it a few IBLs from my own sites to get it started. It was discussed in another thread, so there's no need to discuss it in detail in this one.

Putting what I see with that site together with what Matt Cutts wrote, I am led to the conclusions that (1) all the site needs are some good IBLs - the same will be true of many sites that have been hit, and (2) the remaining pages are not chosen according to some criteria of content or links, but the homepage and any other pages are chosen to make up the number that the site is allowed to have in the index. I even checked the order in which the site's pages were orginally crawled, and the order that they appear in the Sitemap, and there is no correlation between those orders and the pages that remain.

It's my opinion that Google now examines a site's IBLs and OBLs to determine how many of a the site's pages they will allow in the index. Certain types of links are not counted (e.g. off-topic IBLs/OBLs, reciprocals), and the score of the links that are counted is used to determine how many pages to allow. Your suggestion concerning "trust" etc. fits it very well, Expertu - it's about which links to count (trust) and which links not to count (trust), and the overall evaluation determines how many pages to allow in the index.

There may be other factors, such as site age, but I don't think that site age would be used, because it would mean disallowing up to date stuff. Imo, the new crawl/index function is about dealing with the link pollution that's been causing the deterioration of the index for many years.

That's my view of it, anyway.

[SEO1]

Marcia

Thank you foir clearing that up.

Has anyone looked at pages dropped vs. Google sitemap implementation?

Is there something in your Google Sitemap such as update frequency that might have something to do with pages dropped?

Or

Are you using a Google Sitemap?

As for inner pages having higher PR's I have seen this on my own site, and have a feeling it has a bit to do with intrapage linking and inbound links to the child pages.

In some instances if the highest PR site was a 7 pointing to a child page on my site, it would make that pages' PR higher, but not the overall site. This would seem to be bouyed if my home page highest PR IBL was a 6 or lower???

[PhilC]

Has anyone looked at pages dropped vs. Google sitemap implementation?For the site I just mentioned, I looked at the Sitemap order and compared it with the remaining pages - no correlation. Also, the Sitemap doesn't specifiy an update frequency for any pages.

[stoner3221]

With the sitemap system I use I have not been able to analyze the theory. My sitemaps are not static; when a submission is accepted the topic title and domain is automatically added to the sitemap. I think it better facilitates keeping Google crawling pinpointed to fresh content and not wasting it’s time going over recently cached content. It doesn’t appear to have had any effect on topics that seldom receive submissions or sitemap exposure. With all the changes in Google it’s been difficult to determine if the sitemap program has been beneficial to deep crawling or to what degree. Matt Cutts has indicated a larger roll in the future for the sitemap program and for this reason I would consider it a necessity for a large website.

[SEO1]

Phil

Okay well that tosses that out the door perhaps but hard to say with a newish site. Something older and more established might be a better base.

I cannot use my own sites as I moved hosting last month and show just the index page for all of my sites in Google.

You said

I am led to the conclusions that (1) all the site needs are some good IBLs - the same will be true of many sites that have been hit,

While this may be true for the new site you speak of a great many of the sites being hit are older established sites that had links built already it would seem.

Could this be the casting off of any and all reciprocal links not directly on topic??? I hope so.

I have written about the worthless value of many links for ages now and it is funny how it seems to have come true.

http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Google-Optimization-Help/Links-Why-They-Are-Of-Little-Value-In-Helping-To-Achieve-Front-Page-Google-Results/

I checked some of my clients sites.

Two UK Retailers who moved from .com to co.uk TLDs are nowhere to be found in Googles index when searching their site URLs however each has Google PR5 in the toolbar and front page rankings still.

Another has 10,000+ pages doing well
Results 1 - 10 of about 10,300 from www.puertobanusguide.com

Phil here is something else to look at...site navigation method...I am looking at a clients Cached dates in Google....Home page May 26th 2006 All interior pages June 2005 :eek: (maybe now he'll listen to add text links)

Also I hate to say this, but I think Googles having the canonical URL issues again.

okay maybe Google's insane...I just checked the URL above two minutes later and get this from Google.

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400 from www.puertobanusguide.com for

Where did I pick up 100 pages???

Anyway here are the three results from searching the URL in Google.

http://www.puertobanusguide.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,300 from www.puertobanusguide.com

www.puertobanusguide.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,300 from www.puertobanusguide.com

http://puertobanusguide.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,900 from puertobanusguide.com

Off to explore......

[SEO1]

For added fun I have another question

Anyone see a correlation between pages dropped and the use of relative linking inside your site pages?

Anyone using all absolute linking structures, not seeing pages dropped???

[PhilC]

Could this be the casting off of any and all reciprocal links not directly on topic??? I hope so.That's not been in doubt for several weeks now. But it's not just about reciprocals. http://www.webworkshop.net/google-madness.html was published 3 weeks ago.

I have written about the worthless value of many links for ages now and it is funny how it seems to have come true.Yes, it's funny how what you've said for ages seems to have come true. It's even funnier how what everyone else has been saying for so much longer seems to have come true ;) In other words, stop trying to score points, Clint - you have nothing to score with. It's better just sticking to the topic.

Where did I pick up 100 pages???From a different datacenter.

With my hit site, I've seen that there is no pattern to the pages that are left intact, whereas stoner has discerned a pattern with his site. It would be good if you would examine it in more depth, stoner, to either confirm the pattern, or to find exceptions that would disprove it.

For a little while, I wondered if the quality of content might be having some effect. For instance, my site's listing pages may not appear to have good content to a programme - many of them having lots of links and not much else. But then I asked myself, why leave any of the pages fully indexed, including one that is nothing but links, and why de-index the About page, which has loads of text on it. So I don't think that a page's content has anything to do with it. I think it's just a new evaluation of links that determines how many of a site's pages can be indexed.

[stoner3221]

I’m sorry it’s taken so ling to get back here but it’s been a busy week. PhilC I have studied in depth search engine crawling patterns on my sites. My conclusions still show that OBL’s and the quality of can be a strong factor in your overall trusted rank with Google. I don’t have a lot of control of IBL’s since a wide variety of websites link back voluntarily in appreciation of the service they receive. Many are new and very poor websites at best. If IBL’s were a strong factor then I would be in a lot of trouble. I agree with you 100% that the trust ranking determines how deep and often a site will be crawled. Matt Cutts in at least one example I was reading used OBL’s as a reason why a site lost its cached pages. It’s going to be determining what factors exactly carry what weight in determining the trust factor that will unveil a great deal of speculation and will be the challenge for the search engine marketing professional. For the non-professional like me it will be trial and error to see what works and does not work.

I just whish more webmasters would grasp today’s market environment and stop wasting their time developing useless and irreverent IBL’s thinking it will help them. Developing a quality website with relevant trusted source IBL’s and OBL’s would be far more beneficial.

I think Aaron Wall had one of the first articles I read related to trust ranking. He was highly criticized about his theories related to the possible future of it. What he had speculated has become reality although he highly criticized all directory links initially. Some directories have become trusted source links. Others have become dead useless websites, one of my own included WoW Yellow Pages. WoW Yellow Pages had serious canonicalization issues, excessive 404 links and lacked sufficient content even though the domain was over 2 years old and lost almost all cached pages.

For me at least it’s going to be a trial and error over time to determine exactly what it takes to become a trusted source with a site that has not met those criteria as it will with many who are up to date. Those with sites that have been lucky enough to meet the trusted source criteria are experiencing the benefits. I think Google has some problems that will be worked out in time but is doing the best job ever of deep crawling sites that meet its trusted criteria. This is probably the only good things I have said about Google since it turned so many webmasters into link and PR freaks. They are finally on the right path again.

[Webmaster T]

IMO, associating the problems some directories are having with BigDaddy is a mistake because you're likely attributing it to the wrong cause. First I should say that after Florida it was pretty clear to me that directories were going to be the only "long term" safe pro-active IBL strategy. So... myself and a couple of members at SeoPros started tracking and finding new directories about 3 months after the florida update. It became SeoPros "Reviewed Directories".

We quickly had a list of 125 that grew to around 175-200 (not sure because some of those with degraded PR were removed) which were reviewed monthly for about six months. We discontinued the tracking because a number of them were showing degraded PageRank (none or grey bar) on interior pages. Some made perfect sense they were either inflating "index" counts by linking to their own results or were adding large numbers of low grade sites for a fee. Interesting is that this was also when I noticed a rash of new directories and older ones offering paid options for reviews. Do you see a theme?

IMO, some problems attributed to BigDaddy just didn't show before it because they were only reflected in PR adjustments and IMO, PR got less weighting in the algo after Florida so... no red flag raised by lower rankings because that was negated by the lower weighting in the ranking algo.

IMO, since Florida there has been an ongoing effort to put "repuatation" back into the Google link algo in a meaningful way. The highest penalty a SE can apply isn't really a penalty it is de-indexing, reduced crawling or moving to the supplemental index (these still appear in a very limited set of results, so not quite as harsh). So... they aren't penalizing they are just adjusting crawl, indexing and the index the pages are in. Calling it a penalty, IMO, is wrong. It's a penalty in the sense that these sites are adversely affected but it isn't a penalty, IMO, penalties happen because a guideline was abused. If you call de-indexing a penalty well... there's a lot of sites being penalized by Ask's refresh and crawl rate! :-)

IMO, it's justified because Google has the right to change the algo anytime they want they don't need approval from SEO's to do it and it fits the "crime" because it is a deterrent! If you play with the bull don't be surprised when you eventually get the horns! Let's face it, for over 3 years the pre-occupation with link building by SEO's has been out of whack with it's weighting in the ranking algo.

IMO, that also exacerbated how the algo seemed to be dominating the SERP's. WHY, well it makes sense that if a lot of the manipulation activity is centered around this algo then it will "seem" to be a bigger factor than it really was! Considering that 5 years ago few SEO firms listed link building as a service and lately I've seen it on every SEO site I've reviewed... If there were No Google would these firms be offering this service? I doubt it, it's a low revenue generator and is very labor intensive.

As with all techniques used to manipulate SE's they all eventually loose their "pop". So... the moral is? Don't game em' by playing the algo chasing game because that always end up how this one has! I play the algo game but... I'm looking at it and trying to figure out what's next, or why the adjustment?... not what are SE's doing now! If you play the game that way you are anticipating what is going to affect you in the future, adjust your strategy and therefore when it happens you benefit.

Now I'm not so sure about directories being a safe "long term" pro-active IBL strategy. For some directories it will be, for others.... they may/could get you de-indexed. IMO, be very wary of any directory with only "paid" reviews and don't rely on PR to decide that. Look at the "indexed pages" in Google. IMO, PR isn't an indication of anything as it likely isn't the PR that's really being used in determing ranking. IMO, displayed PR is only being shown on pages to further confuse the issue.

The good part about the links mania was that it finally gave directories a way to monetize their project. Now, they'd be smarter to use adSense or for niche directories figure out how to monetize it in a manner other than paid listings. I have seen some of that happening... they are also the ones that likely aren't worried about being de-indexed.

IMO, there is a correlation between monetization of directories and de-indexing. I have seen a few major directories that got hit shortly after placing an ad for a link broker. They're back and the link is still there, but... I think it's more than co-incidental that more than one major bit the de-indexing bullet after adding the link to a link broker (IMO, likely a bad neighborhood). So I stronly recommend those directories that are monetized and de-indexed to analyze who they linked to and what is the quality and status of their OBL's "link Neighborhood".

If you have low quality sites than you might want to put the "review" back into "paid review". :-)

[stoner3221]

I can agree that the monetization of directories and quality have a great deal to do with thrust rating and crawling. Many of the trusted source directories have been handing out more refunds then submissions lately.

These are the directories that have not been not been influenced by money verses content quality and are doing well with Goggle. Unfortunately it cost money to hand out refunds to all of the many MFA sites that try to submit and using Services like Paypal who charge me $1.85 each of the refunds for a $40.00 submission are draining the already low profit margin. Not to mention all the chargeback’s which have gone wild in the past year and cost fortune.

Most directory quality operators have been attempting to keep the costs down but it’s getting difficult. Major directory operators are going through financial hell to make ends meet. I know by the end of this year if I show a profit it will be a miracle. We have survived many years without a profit and will I’m sure survive more.

[Webmaster T]

Well, you should at least charge them the costs of processing. At SeoPros we
charge a flat fee for reviews whether you are included or not. Perhaps if they know they will not get a full refund they will think twice about submitting. That is a cost to the ORG so why we should bare the brunt of costs when on top of processing fees there is a cost in time and resources. IMO, the quality sites you would admit anyway aren't deterred from submitting and the ones that are border line may choose to not submit. Either way you shouldn't be expected to loose because you chose not to accept the submission. If anyone should loose it's the person who submitted since... they just wasted your time (the most valuable resource any business has).

[SEO1]

Well, you should at least charge them the costs of processing. At SeoPros we
charge a flat fee for reviews whether you are included or not. Perhaps if they know they will not get a full refund they will think twice about submitting. That is a cost to the ORG so why we should bare the brunt of costs when on top of processing fees there is a cost in time and resources. IMO, the quality sites you would admit anyway aren't deterred from submitting and the ones that are border line may choose to not submit. Either way you shouldn't be expected to loose because you chose not to accept the submission. If anyone should loose it's the person who submitted since... they just wasted your time (the most valuable resource any business has).

your attitude and policy are at best

customer disservice..

I would love to know what resources you used clicking a mouse button to review a site....

Even Yahoo as pompous and arrogant as they are WILL refund the $299.00 review fee if not accepted.

Plus your policy is unsound... if anyone wants to use your services...they simply place your charge on their credit card.... and if you do not accept them.... they can turn to their credit card for a charge back....

Poor policy and a worse choice posting it online....

[PhilC]

Since when did Yahoo! refund the money if the site isn't accepted? They didn't used to do that.

[SEO1]

Phil

I had a client try to submit a pharmacy site ( I advised him against it) and after rejection, they agreed to refund his money, in fact if I am not mistaken it was in the rejection e-mail they sent him.

I was shocked to say the least.

Credit Card charge would hold true for them as well.

Nobody has the right to take your money and NOT perform a service. No matter what printed word says on a website.

[PhilC]

I'm very surprised by that.

I disagree about refunding though. It isn't a matter of "clicking a mouse button to review a site" - it takes a lot more than that. It only takes a few minutes, if that, but it's a lot more than clicking a mouse button - and then refunding the money will take another few minutes.

[Marcia]

It's quite a bit more than "refunding" IMHO. The service being paid for is a review of the site for consideration for inclusion - that's what's being paid for, *not* inclusion.

[SEO1]

Well yes we can twist words and make things "seem" correct and I do see both your points of view Phil & Marcia, though price & time usually do not correspond correctly especially in a directory review scheme.

Next the orgainization "represents" itself as a non-profit and as such is supposed to be on the side of the company making the submission. Therefore if the submission did not meet SeoPros requirenments rather than "taking" money they should be helping the submitting firm to write a better submission, in fact

the non profit for the money they take could correct the submission quickly to meet their guidelines just as DMOZ and others often do.

To be honest if this were a regular directory making such a statement I probably would not even responsed, but this being a supposed "non-profit"
it is a bit different.

Reading thier bylaws they claim to one to provide something to member & non-members..... but yet here in SEW they take a stance of once we have the money nobody is getting it back

To form an organization of search engines, search engine optimization ("SEO") consultants, Internet marketers and developers of remote technology used by consultants and marketers to submit to and monitor search engine positions. The goals of the organization are:

a) Promote and develop "best practices" for search engine optimization consultants and developers of remote technology accessing search engine resources;

b) Provide materials and information to help educate consumers, members and non-members in the industry about "best practices";

c) Provide and promote a process in which member and non-member organizations within the industry not implementing "best practices" can be identified and encouraged to adopt "best practices";

Nowhere in the above does it say to take someone's money and if they are not up to the directories 'expectations' too bad????

Non-profit????

yea right

[Chris_D]

For web sites that do not feature adult content or services, the Yahoo! Directory Submit service costs US$299 (nonrefundable) for each Directory listing that is submitted.
For sites that include adult content or services, the nonrefundable initial fee is US$600 and the recurring annual fee is US$600.
......Important note: Use of the Yahoo! Directory Submit program does not ensure that your submission will be accepted for inclusion in the Yahoo! Directory.
https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/reference/cost

You acknowledge that the payment of this fee is for consideration of your site AND DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE THAT YOUR SITE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE DIRECTORY. Your payment only guarantees that Yahoo! will consider and respond to your request within seven business days, by either accepting or not accepting your site. You expressly agree to pay to Yahoo! such fee whether or not your site is accepted or denied inclusion in the Directory.
https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/reference/submit

Note - Yahoo!'s bolding and CAPS - not mine.

[SEO1]

Hi Chris

Not sure what that is all about.

But here are my thoughts

1. Yahoo did not come into a forum and post we are going to take your money whether we approve or not.

2. Yahoo never claimed to be non-profit.

3. Yahoo can also write that it will take your money if not included, however Yahoo also knows if the fee is charged to the card and no service provided, the CC company will charge back, and as such this adds an expense to Yahoo's bottom line, which they do not want, so I imagine they refund when someone asks.

4. Many people have guarantees they make...95% of the time is not used. So Yahoo posts that if you are not included, they are keeping the money, because they know most people will not bother seeking the refund.

5. If the SeoPro's organization were as marketing savvy as they claim, they would have known this fact as well, and read this post and went on about their business without posting a thing about it...

I have some difficulties with a "non-profit" taking this stance, when in their own bylaws it states they do things differently.

Also this is getting off topic.

[PhilC]

I agree with you about SeoPros, Clint. I can't see anything to suggest that the fee is non-refundable. It's not a fee to be listed in a directory, though, so that part of the reasoning doesn't apply. It's a membership fee, but, even so, I would expect a membership fee to only be taken if the person/company actually becomes a member. I've never come across any club or organisation where you have to pay a membership fee if membership is declined.

At SeoPros we charge a flat fee for reviews whether you are included or not.I don't see anywhere where a review is mentioned, so that's simply not true. The site puts itself forward as an organisation, and the fee is for membership - not for a review.

As for the non-profit part - at the membership rates they charge, there must be profits, and my guess is that they are used to finance certain things, such as travel and accommodation costs for committee meetings, and if they take a leaf out of Sempo's book, someone or some people may even get paid for their time. Whatever the money is used for, the organisation certainly profits. imo. Having said that, the number of members is very thin, so the profits won't be high.

That is a cost to the ORG so why we should bare the brunt of costs when on top of processing fees there is a cost in time and resourcesBecause you wanted the organisation, presumably to further your views and opinions. At the very least, you should be honest about it, but not stating that the membership fee is not refundable if the person/company is refused membership is dishonest.


Correction:

I've found a bit about reviews:-

Review and administration charges are not refunded for Firms which do not receive a favorable review outcome as these are costs incurred by the Organization in processing the submission request. So I was mistaken about that. Nevertheless, the whole thing is put forward as a membership fee, and not as a fee for review. I'd be very interested to know what costs are incurred "by the Organization in processing the submission request". It seems to me that only time is involved, and, if the reviewer isn't getting paid for time, then there are no costs. But if the reviewer does get paid for time, then it's not a non-profit organisation.

[SEO1]

Well put Phil

It is indeed a membership fee as you said.

When you look at some of the sponsorship fees that is when the doubts as to non profit comes to play.

Too far off topic though..

I'm Done

[PhilC]

Yep - it's tended to stray off-topic.

The thread is about BD and directories, but what's happened isn't just to directories. This is what happened from the beginning...

Before Google came along with their links-based rankings, natural linking on the Web worked fine. But then everyone realised that links get rankings in Google, so people stopped linking for usefulness, and started linking for rankings. As unnatural linking grew, the quality of Google's index and rankings deteriorated. Google actually caused the destruction of natural linking on the Web - the very thing that their system depended on. With BD, Google has started to seriously address their problem.

The irony is that Google caused the destruction of natural linking, and now they suggest that we unnaturally build natural links if we want to be treated fairly by them. Some suggestions that they've come with are, create a buzz, which almost all sites simply cannot do, and write article and blogs that people will want to link to, but most sites aren't suitable for those things, and most website owners don't have anything to write about.

That's an overview of the very big picture, but it's just about right.

[Chris_D]

Clint - you posted Even Yahoo as pompous and arrogant as they are WILL refund the $299.00 review fee if not accepted.

Clearly - their TOS says otherwise.

Thats what that is all about

[g1smd]

>> I would love to know what resources you used <<

Time. Lots of it.

You should not run at a loss.

At the very least, processing costs should be taken off any refund.

A charge for a review, for a paid directory, should act as a dis-incentive for spammers and junk sites to submit their time-wasting suggestions.


Mail order goods companies often charge a restocking fee for unwanted products that are returned for example.

[SEO1]

g1smd

I agree you did use time...lots of it though would differ to each person I suppose.

Yes you are right catalog mail order will charge a restocking fee however I would say 95% of the retailers Do Not charge a restocking fee...just because one industry does something there is often no justification for such actions amongst others.

Companies make mistakes Enron, Exxon, Tyco, etc. however it is not often intentional and should not be emulated.

It is simply a matter of my not agreeing with your policy

and hey dont feel bad, I dont agree with most policies & decisions of the current leader of the US.

little I can do about it ;)

Peace

[goodluck222]

All I can say is that maybe google will change its system in the near futurre to benefit us directories

goodluck222 :confused: