If google ignores links from "spammy" link directories ...
-
Then why does SEO moz have this list:
http://www.seomoz.org/dp/seo-directory ??
Included in that list are some pretty spammy looking sites such as:
<colgroup><col width="345"></colgroup>
| http://www.site-sift.com/ |
| http://www.2yi.net/ |
| http://www.sevenseek.com/ |
| http://greenstalk.com/ |
| http://anthonyparsons.com/ |
| http://www.rakcha.com/ |
| http://www.goguides.org/ |
| http://gosearchbusiness.com/ |
| http://funender.com/free_link_directory/ |
| http://www.joeant.com/ |
| http://www.browse8.com/ |
| http://linkopedia.com/ |
| http://kwika.org/ |
| http://tygo.com/ |
| http://netzoning.com/ |
| http://goongee.com/ |
| http://bigall.com/ |
| http://www.incrawler.com/ |
| http://rubberstamped.org/ |
| http://lookforth.com/ |
| http://worldsiteindex.com/ |
| http://linksgiving.com/ |
| http://azoos.com/ |
| http://www.uncoverthenet.com/ |
| http://ewilla.com/ | -
Sounds like a loophole to me. But i'll take it!
Thanks for the advice!
-Storwell
-
I know what you mean and I agree but the distinction lies when the directory charges for there time to review your listing and site.
so it isn't technically a paid link
Just like how could Google penalize you if you sponsored your local football team and they gave you a banner on there site as part of the deal.
-
But surely google frowns on paid links no?
100% of the directories listed above are paid.
-
The problem is no directory is ever going to contain reams of pages full of excellent content.
Definition - A book listing individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
So from another point of view - Google's How can Google rank a directory....
Out going links has to be massive - If the directory does what it says on the tin and contains site links in the correct category I don't see the problem.
-
Wow! i should have asked this question months ago!
As for "Define spammy" how about this:
A site that provides no actual service to the public, and purely exists to make money from manipulating search results.
Most of the sites in that list, including Joe Ant look pretty useless to me. If someone sent me a link to one of those sites i would assume they had a virus in their computer or something of the likes. What actual purpose do these sites serve?
Do you honestly imagine a non-seo'r ever to visit one of these sites and say to themselves "Wow, i've found an excellent resource, i'm going to bookmark this page to help me find things in the future" ??
-
I suppose Ryan the problem is how does one classify something "spammy" as with all these things it can be sometimes quite obtuse and a few directories will fall in a potential grey area.
But by and large dodgy directories are easy to spot.
Common sense rules...
-
I agree with Gary.
What method did you use to classify these sites as "spammy". JoeAnt is not spammy at all to my knowledge. I grabbed another directory from your list, anthonyparsons.com, and it does not seem even the slightest bit spammy.
-
I think the answer has to be - How do you judge what is and what isn't a crummy directory.
1. If the directory gives a full check of all inclusions.
2. The site doesnt contain out going links to - Viagra, Cialis etc (you get the picture)
3. Joe Ant - Good right ?
4. How relevant is that directory to your industry so lets say I sell Football kits. Look for sports and football related directories. Listing your webpage on a directory that is related to pharmaceuticals when you sell football kits is bad right ?
USE Common sense and logic when you land on the directory look for the warning signs..
Don't use directories as your main source of links but a few good ones on a link profile in my opinion can be good. It adds to the diversity of your link profile.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Syntax: 'canonical' vs "canonical" (Apostrophes or Quotes) does it matter?
I have been working on a site and through all the tools (Screaming Frog & Moz Bar) I've used it recognizes the canonical, but does Google? This is the only site I've worked on that has apostrophes. rel='canonical' href='https://www.example.com'/> It's apostrophes vs quotes. Could this error in syntax be causing the canonical not to be recognized? rel="canonical"href="https://www.example.com"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ccox10 -
Same page Anchor Links vs Internal Link (Cannibalisation)
Hey Mozzers, I have a very long article page that supports several of my sub-category pages. It has sub-headings that link out to the relevant pages. However the article is very long and to make it easier to find the relevant section I was debating adding inpage anchor links in a bullet list at the top of the page for quick navigation. PAGE TITLE Keyword 1 Keyword 2 etc <a name="'Keyword1"></a> Keyword 1 Content
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATP
<a name="'Keyword2"></a> Keyword 2 Content Because of the way my predecessor wrote this article, its section headings are the same as the sub-categories they link out to and boost (not ideal but an issue I will address later). What I wondered is if having the inpage achor would confuse the SERPS because they would be linking with the same keyword. My worry is that by increasing userbility of the article by doing this I also confuse them SERPS First I tell them that this section on my page talk about keyword 1. Then from in that article i tell them that a different page entirely is about the same keyword. Would linking like this confuse SERPS or are inpage anchor links looked upon and dealt with differently?0 -
Google Indexing Duplicate URLs : Ignoring Robots & Canonical Tags
Hi Moz Community, We have the following robots command that should prevent URLs with tracking parameters being indexed. Disallow: /*? We have noticed google has started indexing pages that are using tracking parameters. Example below. http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html?ec=affee77a60fe4867 These pages are identified as duplicate content yet have the correct canonical tags: https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&site=&source=hp&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&gs_l=hp.3..0i10j0l9.4201.5461.0.5879.8.8.0.0.0.0.82.376.7.7.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..3.5.268.0.JTW91YEkjh4 With various affiliate feeds available for our site, we effectively have duplicate versions of every page due to the tracking query that Google seems to be willing to index, ignoring both robots rules & canonical tags. Can anyone shed any light onto the situation?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JBGlobalSEO0 -
Large Number of Links appearing in Google Webmaster Tools
Hello, In the last week we have noticed an extremely large number of backlink links appearing in Google Webmaster Tools. One of the sites which links to us now have over 101,000 backlinks pointing to us, when in reality it should only have 300-600. We have check the websites have not been hacked, with hidden links etc, but we can not find any. Has anyone else experienced problems with Google webmaster tools lately, displaying way too many links? Or could this be a negative SEO attack, which is yet to emerge. Thanks Rob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomfifteen0 -
"No Index" Extensions
Hi there, We run an e-commerce website and we are aware of our duplicate page content/title problems. We know about the "rel canonical" tag and the "no index" tag but I am more interested in the latter. We use a CMS called Magento. Now, Magento has an extension that allows you to use the "no follow" and "no index" tag on products. Google has indexed many of our pages and I wanted to know if applying the "no index" tag on duplicate pages will instruct Google to remove the duplicate url's it has already indexed. I know the tag will tell Google not to index a page but what if I apply it to a product already indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iBags0 -
Google Manual Action (manual-Penalty)- Unnatural inbound links
Dear friends, I just get from Google two "Unnatural inbound links" notifications via Google Webmaster Tools, the first is for our WWW version of the site and the second is for the NON-WWW version. My question, I should send two identical reconsideration request for WWW and NON-WWW or treat them as different sites? Thank you Claudio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharewarePros0 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Penalized for "Unnatural Links" on Webmaster Tools
Has anyone ever logged in to Google Webmaster tools and seen a message about them seeing unnatural links (as a warning) Our homepage lost all its rankings. I will submit a reconsideration request. We don't engage in link buying practices (some directories, thats all.) Any feedback, please? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PaulDylan0