<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google nukes lots of Web Directories</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/</link>
	<description>Internet marketing and search engine optimisation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:42:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony dee</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-50219</link>
		<dc:creator>tony dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-50219</guid>
		<description>Stop using google as a crutch and build content beefy sites and the traffic will come.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stop using google as a crutch and build content beefy sites and the traffic will come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Altoft</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-8874</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Altoft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-8874</guid>
		<description>The first thing you need to check is whether the directory has a penalty in Google. For example it might have very low PageRank or not rank for it&#039;s own name.

Then check what sort of sites are listed and whether they are good quality. 

I tend to steer clear of most directories and only pick ones that actually rank highly in Google for terms related to my sites.

As long as you don&#039;t use directories for more than a small percentage of your linkbuilding you should be fine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first thing you need to check is whether the directory has a penalty in Google. For example it might have very low PageRank or not rank for it&#8217;s own name.</p>
<p>Then check what sort of sites are listed and whether they are good quality. </p>
<p>I tend to steer clear of most directories and only pick ones that actually rank highly in Google for terms related to my sites.</p>
<p>As long as you don&#8217;t use directories for more than a small percentage of your linkbuilding you should be fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SnakeLady</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-8873</link>
		<dc:creator>SnakeLady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-8873</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been following your blog with interest, and seeing as you&#039;re obviously knowledgeable on the whole link-building subject, perhaps you could clear something up for me? Does Google penalise sites which are listed on directories containing words like &#039;SEO Friendly&#039; or &#039;Featured Links&#039; or anything else which indicates an SEO benefit? I&#039;m planning on doing some linkbuilding for a site I&#039;ve just built, but I don&#039;t want to risk getting penalised down the line.

What would be the repercussions (if any) of posting to directories with something like this on? What exactly does Google look for on directories?

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been following your blog with interest, and seeing as you&#8217;re obviously knowledgeable on the whole link-building subject, perhaps you could clear something up for me? Does Google penalise sites which are listed on directories containing words like &#8216;SEO Friendly&#8217; or &#8216;Featured Links&#8217; or anything else which indicates an SEO benefit? I&#8217;m planning on doing some linkbuilding for a site I&#8217;ve just built, but I don&#8217;t want to risk getting penalised down the line.</p>
<p>What would be the repercussions (if any) of posting to directories with something like this on? What exactly does Google look for on directories?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-5848</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-5848</guid>
		<description>I think we all get what we disserve because we depend on Google do you want to stop them DO NOT use them. The more we make noise about them the more they rob their hands just my 2cents</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we all get what we disserve because we depend on Google do you want to stop them DO NOT use them. The more we make noise about them the more they rob their hands just my 2cents</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-1012</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-1012</guid>
		<description>Most dir&#039;s are crap for users and listed sites...I think it&#039;s a good thing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most dir&#8217;s are crap for users and listed sites&#8230;I think it&#8217;s a good thing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martinsc</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-991</link>
		<dc:creator>martinsc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-991</guid>
		<description>i think it was only a matter of time... Google wants to show its users relevant results and not those that belong to webmasters that can afford paying for links or employee somebody that can request links to directories all day long...&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think it was only a matter of time&#8230; Google wants to show its users relevant results and not those that belong to webmasters that can afford paying for links or employee somebody that can request links to directories all day long&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Castle</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-939</link>
		<dc:creator>David Castle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-939</guid>
		<description>I think that when you boil this whole topic down it relates to one thing and one thing only.&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;toolbar pagerank economy&#039;- when Google introduced the toolbar it was clearly spyware with the added bonus of eliminating those annoying &#039;I have a vid cam in my bedroom&#039; pop ups. So that was a bonus factor. Next thing all the other SE&#039;s joined in. So Google turned to Larry Page and used Stanford Universities pagerank system on the toolbar. Then expert SEO&#039;s found that they could access Google&#039;s algorithm system and the whole pagerank thing begun. Google retaliated by updating it 3 or 4 times a year, but by then the damage was done. Anyone with a high PR Directory was selling links on the false premise that in turn the paying site would go up in the SERP. Now Google has to drop all of those Directories guilty of capitalising on an economy that they themselves created.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that when you boil this whole topic down it relates to one thing and one thing only.<br />
The &#8216;toolbar pagerank economy&#8217;- when Google introduced the toolbar it was clearly spyware with the added bonus of eliminating those annoying &#8216;I have a vid cam in my bedroom&#8217; pop ups. So that was a bonus factor. Next thing all the other SE&#8217;s joined in. So Google turned to Larry Page and used Stanford Universities pagerank system on the toolbar. Then expert SEO&#8217;s found that they could access Google&#8217;s algorithm system and the whole pagerank thing begun. Google retaliated by updating it 3 or 4 times a year, but by then the damage was done. Anyone with a high PR Directory was selling links on the false premise that in turn the paying site would go up in the SERP. Now Google has to drop all of those Directories guilty of capitalising on an economy that they themselves created.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lama</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-930</link>
		<dc:creator>Lama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-930</guid>
		<description>I run a small non paid directory, and I&#039;m not anywhere to be seen in google for the site name.&lt;br /&gt;
So my conclusion is that it&#039;s algo, probably based on the script signature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Google is closing all the doors on easy links. Ranking is just getting harder and harder</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I run a small non paid directory, and I&#8217;m not anywhere to be seen in google for the site name.<br />
So my conclusion is that it&#8217;s algo, probably based on the script signature.</p>
<p>Google is closing all the doors on easy links. Ranking is just getting harder and harder</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alevoor</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-925</link>
		<dc:creator>Alevoor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-925</guid>
		<description>No wonder, given the google&#039;s principles of following the democratic nature of the web. What left me wondering is that the untold story of countless number of &#039;lesser&#039; websites that are penalized by google.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No wonder, given the google&#8217;s principles of following the democratic nature of the web. What left me wondering is that the untold story of countless number of &#8216;lesser&#8217; websites that are penalized by google.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Castle</title>
		<link>http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/google-nukes-directories/#comment-924</link>
		<dc:creator>David Castle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/newblog/google-nukes-directories/#comment-924</guid>
		<description>Greetings from me. OK we all know that paid links has always been a topical debate. But there are &#039;paid links and there are other paid links&#039; - Many people originally paid quite a lot of cash to be on the Yahoo Directory. So will Google in turn &#039;switch off Yahoo&#039;? There are people that will say that Google does not feed from Yahoo -true to an extent. But in essence Google apart from sitemaps has still never really disclosed what links it maintains anyway. And what about the submit to Directories market? Google can seek out the links &#039;paid for&#039; by individuals using the system - too many sites with identical linking. Or simply Directories with a barcode entry that discriminates from attempted block entries. So what is Google seeking the SEO market into. Manual submissions to topic related Directories would be my guess. My solution? Very simple and one as a mod over at WPW I have been saying for years and years. Find out who your competitors are linked to (as best you can LOL)and the ones that Google is not discriminating against and link there. Ahhh - but what if it&#039;s a paid for link?? Your move Google - Your move. &lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greetings from me. OK we all know that paid links has always been a topical debate. But there are &#8216;paid links and there are other paid links&#8217; &#8211; Many people originally paid quite a lot of cash to be on the Yahoo Directory. So will Google in turn &#8216;switch off Yahoo&#8217;? There are people that will say that Google does not feed from Yahoo -true to an extent. But in essence Google apart from sitemaps has still never really disclosed what links it maintains anyway. And what about the submit to Directories market? Google can seek out the links &#8216;paid for&#8217; by individuals using the system &#8211; too many sites with identical linking. Or simply Directories with a barcode entry that discriminates from attempted block entries. So what is Google seeking the SEO market into. Manual submissions to topic related Directories would be my guess. My solution? Very simple and one as a mod over at WPW I have been saying for years and years. Find out who your competitors are linked to (as best you can LOL)and the ones that Google is not discriminating against and link there. Ahhh &#8211; but what if it&#8217;s a paid for link?? Your move Google &#8211; Your move. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

