BlueHorseshoe

I mostly code quantitative finance related stuff, although C# is used a lot for that as well (and Java). But they tend to favor low level imperative languages in general. I'm pretty clueless when it comes to coding for web development - I can adapt existing CSS and I'm fine with HTML, but most of what you're describing goes over my head. I'm dimly aware that a lot of information aggregator sites are 99% automated in how they source and deliver their content, but if I had to put together a directory I could only do it manually. We should probably stop hijacking this thread now though . . .

I still use an object-oriented version of Pascal nowadays. Although not on punched tape. I keep meaning to get around to learning something more popular like C++ or Python, but like a few others in the thread, I'm not the most eager adopter of new technology.

BASIC? That's how I first started programming. BBC BASIC on an Acorn Electron . . . Around the time Apple were failing to compete in the US desktop computer market, Acorn failed over here in the UK (during my childhood schools had bought Acorns, not PCs running Windows). Acorn's ARM processor, however, was favored by Apple (presumably adapted for Linux rather than its native RISC operating system), and continues to be used in most of its devices. The chip is now incorporated in around 95% of all smartphone technology, and the average UK household is estimated to contain up to fifty ARM processors. In a sense, Acorn did take over Apple It's fascinating how many companies succeed with a different product or service to the one they set out with.

In my opening post I'd deliberately avoided using the term 'PBN' as there's nothing remotely private about the network in question. I've no problem with people building PBNs, I've done it myself. I guess I just find it frustrating that I've put effort and money into creating well hidden networks that have decent content, and yet there appear to be people still getting away with the sort of half-baked link wheel nonsense that I though google had nixed years ago. Of course, I don't know for certain what effect (positive or negative) the network is having - my guess is neither - it's just being disregarded.

No, it's not dating sites. The site is mooretechllc.com and you can find your way into the network via freetradestationprogramming.com/links.htm The network sites are so poor and devoid of content that I can't imagine they're really doing anything positive for the money site's SEO, but at the same time I don't think they're doing anything to damage it either, which by rights they ought to.

Yesterday I was checking through a competitor's backlinks and stumbled upon the most blatant "please, please de-index me google" type of network imaginable. In the middle was a branded domain money site. Then a network of about 15 EMD sites targeting keywords. Each of these sites linked to each other, and also back to the money site, using exact match anchor text. All very shoddy, with sites even sharing graphics. None of this was in any way disguised or hidden. I would have thought that google would have imposed an algorithmic penalty years ago, but frustratingly the site appears to rank reasonably well. I've reported it, on the assumption that if anyone performs a manual review it'll get whacked - does reporting sites in this way tend to work?

Thanks for the really helpful response MKI. And the link to DirectoryCritic, which I didn't know about and seems a useful aggregator resource. I'll start slowly adding relevant directory links alongside the other linkbuilding that I'm doing, and see what happens...

I'm just starting out with link building for a new site, and want to include a few directory links. Although I know most directory links are pretty worthless nowadays, I have read somewhere on this forum in the past that a handful of links from the right type of directories are worth having. In fact, here's Mike mentioning using them last year: http://spartanmarketingacademy.com/forums/topic/536-reputation-management-trick/ I'm assuming that relevance is important here, and that if I'm selling shampoo then a directory site for bathing products is going to provide a far more beneficial backlink than some sprawling 90s covers-everything type directory - correct? Any advice from anyone about how to identify "good" directories would be much appreciated . . . Cheers.

UPDATE: This finally seems to have come to rest in 9th place in search, with no changes to the content on page. So I'm going to assume that one of Mike/Yukon's suggestions above, or something similar, was the cause here.

I can't really comment in terms of SEO benefit . . . But if you go down the brand name route then pause and give some very careful consideration before you commit to anything. If you get branding right, then whatever you'll lose in terms of SEO versus an exact match domain (for which you'd still have to tick every other SEO box), you'll potentially gain in credibility. Another thing to consider is whether there is any rationale for building a brand for your particular market. A comparison site for headphones, as a random example - there might not be too much reason to build a brand around that. When I come to look for headphones again in five, six, seven years time, am I really likely to remember the great comparison site I used today? If you're dealing with something where customers might well return on a regular basis - art supplies, as another example, then building brand begins to makes sense. Hope that's some help.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if people place banners in sidebars etc, if they're too big the theme will normally resize them to whatever the max width is anyway. I'd go for something square-ish, a tall rectangle, a wide rectangle, and maybe leave it at that. You can always mention in your affiliate program signup/dashboard that people can contact you to request additional marketing materials if they need them. Hope that helps.

Ha! I hadn't spotted that!

Hmm, I think you just managed to explain better in a few sentences what took me about five paragraphs! I'd add; not only do we learn to use the stove safely, we learn not to put our hands in fires, pour boiling water over them, or spend too long on the beach . . . We extrapolate and build up knowledge around a concept called 'heat'. The burner on the stove incident was a small drop in the ocean indeed.

My experience has been that pages that have more content and better content tend to receive a higher initial temporary ranking in those first few days. I have a new site with zero backlinks on which I've got a number of very long pages (4-5k words). When I submit them to index they'll spend the first few days bouncing around page one; shorter pages will start out on page four or five. This enhanced starting point could theoretically provide a longer term advantage. For any new page Google will immediately start to gather additional data to determine the long term page rank. If it starts out higher in the serps then there's more opportunity for it garner the other positive signals that Google will later rely on. For instance, if you go in at 3rd position on the basis of the length and quality of a page, then you're much more likely to attract organic backlinks to that page than if you're on page 20. And those backlinks are going to help you retain that position. I have a few pages on another site that rank in the top 3 following a company name-change. I reacted to the name-change weeks before my competitors, and gained an initial high rank because there was no competition. By the time they had reacted I had already cemented my position for these keywords, and have retained it. For loads of similar terms, those competitors beat me hands down. So I'm suggesting that the "long webpage" (assuming we're talking about something high quality) provides an initial boost in temporary rankings, and that in a "butterfly flaps its wings . . ." sort of way this can also have positive ramifications for long term rankings.

This has been fluctuating between 8th and 11th position over the last few days, but remains indexed . . . I wonder what happened that first time when it dropped straight out of the index?