Monday, December 28, 2009
Googles PR Fallacy with Directories
While it is completely understandable that directories that charged for links out and long publicly paid for links in, have suffered Google's wrath, there are a large number of legitimate directories that earned their PR organically and naturally.
That said, let's take a look at a comparison between a couple directories. KingBloom.Com vs. Directorytrends.com
KingBloom as a domain has been around over 10 years. Its long been an established directory for more than half that time and has maintained as low as a PR4 and has high as a PR6. The content is maintained and updated every day, and its nearly completely devoid of dead links, bad URL, or crap sites as a result of the constant maintenance that is done. It has no paid outgoing links and has never bought links or PR in. The PR it had was real, organic/natural and earned over a LONG LONG period of time.
Yet Google chose to strip KingBloom of its PR when it waged its blanket assault on all directories.
Let's now look at directorytrends.com. The site is PR7. http://www.directorytrends.com/detail-28.html
Like KingBloom it is a PAID directory. Yet it has PAID unrelated outgoing links on its home page and inner pages.
Let's just take a look at one of the inner subcategory pages here: http://www.webdirectory.com/News_and_Events/
Every link on this page is either a DEAD URL, a redirect, or a register this domain page and or 404.
Yet, this and countless other pages like it are indexed by Google, including the DEAD URLS.
The directory is of a very low quality. Most of the sites listed either do not exist, or are completely dead. Yet it has a PR7???
There are 686 links in. And a paltry 894 sites indexed.
Compare this to over 14,000 indexed pages in Kingbloom.
It's pretty obvious to me that this webdirectory.com place has either faked their PR, bought a boat load of high PR links, or Google in their infinite wisdom thinks that this directory deserves a higher PR than larger, higher quality, longer lived directories.
Either way, something really stinks here. Google, care to comment? Care to explain why this particular directory passes your litmus test for perfection while others do not?
I wonder if Googles decision to allow this directory to maintain high PR has anything to do with the fact that it is an "Environment" related directory and contains several high PR links in from several "environmental" type sites like universities?
I welcome any comments that might help explain why this site has a PR7 while most every other directory has a PR0.
a. The other directory is older than yours, and age is a factor in Google PageRank.
b. The other directory is registered until 2015, whereas yours expires this year. This makes the other directory more trustworthy than yours.
c. It is a fact that your claim of having purged Kingbloom of bad links is not true, I have personal experience which proves it.
d. No real benefit from your directory at all, not even traffic.
I can see age as a factor. The reality is, we are very close in age. More than a decade anyway.
As for item b. The length of registration for a domain has absolutely no bearing on its "trustworthiness" or longevity. I've never heard a more ridiculous suggestion. Not everyone chooses to over register their domain to the maximum age.
C. Can you cite specific examples of bad links? If there are any, we would love to know, since we actually take care of maintaining our directory.
d. The majority of our users and repeat visitors would take issue with your claims. Our own statistical analysis both internal and external also indicates otherwise.
Of those polled with regard to their number one reasons for listing and or re-listing with Kingbloom, incoming traffic was the number one!
Care to address any of the points I made with regard to webdirectory.com?