<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/12774203?origin\x3dhttp://directoryeditor.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Are "small" web directories in Google's crosshairs?

Not likely - but a Search Engine Watch moderator seems to have general data to at least have his "theory" heard:
DaveN writes: "I have been collecting quite a bit of data just recently and noticed that some WH sites got canned the only thing I can find is a large % of their IBL's are from directories..."
In my opinion, that data simply indicates bad SEO. Why are a large % of IBLs from web directories? Shouldn't the person in charge inbound link strategy focus on obtaining links from a variety of online resources?? Yes, a web directory will provide a relevant link to a web site but it seems unnatural to have the majority of IBLs coming from one type of resource. Based on the data provided by DaveN, I would say that these "white hat" sites got canned because of unnatural linking. Perhaps they should focus on getting links from a variety of relevant resources to help improve ranking within Google.

posted by boywundah at 8:33 PM   1 comments

1 Comments:

At July 07, 2005 12:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting thesis and I tend to agree with your arguments. Keep up the good work and thoughtful analysis.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home