Possible Factors |
Analysis |
| Are they all paid directories? |
No, there are some that are free. Others are free with paid options. Some require only a reciprocal link. |
| Are they predominantly "bid for position" |
No |
| Do they all have a large number of backlinks? |
Yes, directory owners tend to chase PR. |
| Do they all use the same directory script? |
No |
| Do they all use the same version of a directory script? |
No |
| Do they all offer advertising? |
No, many of the directories penalized do not make money by selling advertising. |
| Do they all hang out on Digital Point forum? |
Probably only relevant because directory owners sell links to each other. |
| Do the directories have original category structures? |
I have not looked at this closely, but many of the big ones that I know of spend time creating original categories rather than using knock off databases that are widespread elsewhere. |
| Does a large percentage of backlink anchor text include the trade name of the directory? |
Yes. |
| Does backlink anchor text follow a natural pattern? |
Probably not. In general, a large percentage of links have a few anchors. |
| Do a large percentage of inbound links point to the site's home page? |
Yes, directory owners are usually trying to maximize PageRank. |
| Is the quality of the listings lower on the penalized directories? |
If anything, the quality of the sites listed is higher than the average directories. These sites often charge more and thus get submissions from serious, long-term sites. These are generally quality well-run directories. I know hundreds of really bad ones that were not penalized. |
| Are the directory owners participating in underhanded schemes that would deserve a penalty? |
None that I can find. Some may say selling advertising is but Google has no systematic way of identifying ads. A manual penalty would explain but it is not likely. |
| Did the directories increase their links totals at a fast pace? |
Yes, In many cases, but certainly not all of them. |
| Have these directories had their content duplicated using proxy servers. |
Some have but many penalized directories show no evidence of proxy copying. On the other hand, some non-penalized directories do show evidence of proxy copying. |
| Do the directories have "sitewide" inbound links? |
I have not looked at the individual directories closely but I know from experience that this is common practice. Directories want to get the most brand exposure, traffic and "link pop". |
| Do the directories have duplicate content? |
Yes, like many directories, ad content and listings are have very similar text across sites. |
| Is there a linking relationship between the sites? |
Yes, the vast majority of directories have one or more outgoing links to parts of the group. There appears to be an obvious pattern of links to a core group of sites. |
Factors |
Analysis |
| A linking relationship between the sites. |
The vast majority of directories have one or more outgoing links to parts of the group. There appears to be links to a core group of sites (the Alive group). |
| A large percentage of inbound links point to the site's home page. |
|
| A high proportion of "sitewide" inbound links. |
|
| Incoming link "anchor text" not distributed in a natural pattern. |
In general, a large percentage of links have a few anchors. A large percentage of backlink anchor text include the trade name of the directory |
| Duplicate content within the directories. |
Ad content and listings are have very similar text across sites. I have had a couple of comments from penalized owners who's listings are original content that they added themselves. |
| Directories accumulated inbound links too fast. |
Can be a factor especially for new sites. Would probably raise flags. |
Factors |
Analysis |
| Directories require a payment in order to be listed |
Paid directories usually spend quite a bit more effort to promote their sites so it is likely the links that are getting them in trouble rather than the fact that they are "paid". |
| Directories have sitewide outbound links |
At least half of the directories do not have sitewide links on their site. |
| The fact that they sell advertising |
Many do not sell advertising. Problems are probably more related to sitewide links and links to the linking relationship between the directories. |
| Use of the same directory script |
No evidence that Google is looking for any type of software or design signature. All major scripts including custom scripts have been affected. |
| Many directory owners are active members on Digital Point forum. |
Probably only relevant because directory owners sell links to each other. |
| Directory owners participating in underhanded schemes that would deserve a penalty? |
No evidence found. These are some of the better owners around unlike the ones out for a quick buck. |
| Sep 25, 2007 |
Some sites have started reducing their outgoing links to the group. |
| Sep 26 |
- More directory sites have been added to the list.
- I have completely rewritten the Google / Search Engine Penalty background page. |
| Sep 27 |
- I have added some quality factors to the Google / Search Engine Penalty background page.
- Improved the analysis. Added conclusions of factors probably affecting the penalized sites. |
| Sep 27 |
- Have noticed some "nofollows" have been added to affected sites.
- Have added a possible solutions for directory owners page. |
| Oct 1 |
Some of the directories seem to be affected by a proxy server attack. Analysis is ongoing. |
| Oct 3 |
Added more free directories to the list
Create a separate page of the list of penalized directories. |
| Oct 3 |
Added some analysis of possible proxy server hacking. |
| Oct 9 - Oct 11 |
A few more directories added to the list. |
| Fall 2007 |
There have been some minor signs of penalized sites doing better. |
| Feb 27, 2008 |
Aviva Directory has been excused from Google's penalty box. Aviva has worked hard to get back. it's results improved a month ago and now has PageRank again. |
