My Link Directory Is Not Getting Any Love!
You are not alone.
Many agents have called and emailed me about their “state directories” suffering the following symptoms in Google:
1. Many have been stripped totally or lost a considerable amount of their PR (PageRank).
2. Some have lost their cache and/or been completely removed from the index.
3. Some still have a cache, but have no rankings for any terms contained on the subject page.
What has caused these issues?
So, why do real estate agents have these pages on their sites? See if you can pick the best answer from the options below:
a) they add useful content to the page and are an added benefit to the searcher
b) they are an added benefit to the site owner because they generate referral leads between agents
c) they are required by the National Association of Realtors to be on every members site
d) they were set up with the sole purpose of artificially increasing ones PR and/or rankings
Let’s be honest — answer “d” is correct.
The Search Engines Speak Out.
That was also the answer given by the four representatives from Google, ASK, Yahoo!, and MSN during the Search Engine Q & A on Links at the Search Engine Strategies Conference in San Jose.
I specifically asked the panel about how they perceive the links pages and methods that most real estate agents are using, specifically the directories organized by state that have become so popular. I also asked whether or not these pages should be removed.
Adam Lasnik from Google said that there has been a lot of work done to determine the relevancy and purpose of the links. Adam said, “If you feel those links will give your users a benefit because the link has more unique content [then it would be ok to keep them]… If not, in the aggregate, then that is kinda junk.” He then stated that if you just build a bunch of pages that don’t contribute any useful content, then they should be removed.
For more on this topic, read SES Conference Notes – part 2 & Why Reciprocal Linking Won’t Die Regardless of What Matt Cutts Wants.
It should appear evident why many of our directory pages have suffered or disappeared. The search engines think our link directories are… well, “kinda junk.”
After hearing the answer – now repeated countless times – agents always say, “But so-and-so’s site has not been affected.” I say, “Not yet.” Also, it’s important to remember that search engine algorithms are looking for footprints. They have determined that groups of sites – both good and bad – possess common characteristics. These patterns of behavior make a “footprint” to measure other sites against.
Don’t presume that just because one particular site gets away with frowned-upon conduct that it is safe for you to follow. There might be one, two, or ten other elements that push your site over the edge.
What should we do now?
Stop engaging in reciprocal link schemes. No one has said that all reciprocal links are bad; there are many worthy reasons for a reciprocal link to exist. However, be creative and think about how it might serve your user before you proceed. Construct content that other sites will link to naturally.
And ask yourself these questions:
Am I writing content that a local newspaper would reference?
Am I writing content that a national newspaper would reference?
Am I writing content that my local city government would reference?
Am I writing content that my local association would reference?
Am I writing content that my national association would reference?
Am I writing content that other agents will reference?
Am I writing content that my local schools will reference?
Am I writing content that my local non-profit organization will reference?
Am I writing content that my local church will reference?
Am I writing content that my local club will reference?
There you go. I gave you 10 questions to get your creative juices flowing. Now, think outside the [reciprocal linking] box, and go write some great content.
Jim,
Very good post, excellent. Should be a good resource for many real estate agents that do work on their web sites.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:01 amThis assumes that the SE understands the content, which it doesnt. For the vast majority, there are two common and basic reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not a SE or MC or any other entity thinks the content is important or ‘junk’ (btw, SEs dont think) that causes these pages to go supplemental or dropped from the index.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pmSDH said, “This assumes that the SE understands the content, which it doesnt.”
Of course an algorithm can understand content…That is it’s job.
It’s not a complex issue for the search engines algorithms to determine whether a page is “junk” or not.
Hypothetically, if I wanted to design a filter for my algorithm to distinguish “good pages” from “bad”, I might look at the total number of words on such document. I might then look at the total number of external links on that document. I might even look at the number of words contained in the anchor text of those outgoing links. I might then look at what the footprint of a grouping of quality documents in the same search space might look like. I would also look at the footprint of what a group of low quality documents in the same space might look like. With that data alone, I could determine whether a page is “junk” or not.
More later…
September 18th, 2006 at 2:51 pmI am not saying they cant do that, I’m saying it doesnt take near that much effort or work. Those pages aren’t going supplemental or dropping because they are considered “junk” because of the content. Its far more basic than that.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI agree that there are other items that fall under the “bad” footprint.
How does the saying go? Success leaves clues. Well, so do failures.
It’s really easy for the search engines to find reciprocal link exchange directories.
Just look for the following words or phrases:
Links, Link Exchanges, Add URL, Submit your site, Resources, Sponsors, Partners, etc.
Obviously this list is not inclusive, but it should give our members an idea of where to start.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:06 pmThat isnt why most of these pages have gone south. That’s giving Google too much credit for what they need to do to nuke these pages. Google doesnt want to use anymore resources than needed. For 99%, they arent getting past the first trigger of the dupe content filter. If they just changed title and description for each page so as to be completely unique, yet still related to the page – not merely changing the name of the state – many of those pages would bounce back.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:07 amThat is a plausible explanation for some sites problems. However, the reason you illustrated has not been the cause for the several I have consulted with.(so far)
September 19th, 2006 at 9:18 amSo the ones you are seeing all have unique titles and descriptions, other than just a different state name, across all their link pages?
September 19th, 2006 at 10:00 amThe site owners I have consulted with have all had unique titles & descriptions on their directory pages of their sites.
In my research, I have viewed other sites that have similarly named pages across their directories. Such as, State Relocation, or State Real Estate Agents, etc. However, there has not been any evidence that the similar titles have caused any problems. I have seen directories with similarly named pages thrive; I have also seen directories with totally different names get nuked.
Again, for the sites I have seen, there have been other issues. So far, we have been successful in getting them all re-indexed.
I believe the better solution is to stop the reciprocal linking, remove the directories, and begin a long term link building strategy.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:13 amBy the way folks,
Please don’t overlook what SDH has said. Even though our discourse may seem a bit argumentative, I agree with what Bob has said. Certainly, there are cases where the titles & descriptions are tripping a duplicate content filter before any other problems even get discovered.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:35 amEven if SDH is right, the main issue is that there are more than a few filters that can trigger this. There are some other major issues we all have to consider.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:29 pmThe term “arguement” has lost its meaning. Think of it more of a debate (lawyers argue their case) where theories and opinions are put to the test.
In the case of BostonCondoGuy, which was the genesis of Jim’s post, the issue is dupe content on 3 levels:
1. title
2. description
3. text under the banner on every page.
The first 40% or so of those resources pages are dupe content with the exception of the name of the state. These pages are doomed before Google even gets to footprints and link patterns. We wont even discuss poison words like ‘resources’ in the url.
I am not debating the capabilities of Google; I’m pointing out that you eliminate the obvious problems first. Google doesnt need complicated filters to come into play when you trip the first and most basic dupe filter before Gbot even gets to the body tag. Changing link programs is not the issue here.
And yes, there are many sites with pages that are the exception, but there are reasons why some sites can get away with stuff that others cant. BCG is not one of those sites though.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:13 pm