February 07, 2005
Doorsites? My Theme For Today
The old fad of doorpages has been and gone, well, some even still attempt to use them, but to no evail, new trends are always taking off. I have seen this plenty before, but it seems that the use of "doorsites" is becoming more and more common with the "content is king" syndrome. Basically, people make a site of doorpages, that contain some sort of half useless content, though the main focus is actually the link or ad per page that points to the bigger schemed site. The main focused site tends to be the only one prominently displayed all through the site. Do people think where stupid? Possibly.
I have to say, it really just isn't a smart idea at all if you use or are thinking about using such an idea. Making doorsites is just another way of finding the main offender and for the SE's to take down your whole network of site, including the main core bread winner that you have dedicated so much time and money towards making all these crap sites around. Obviously not much thought goes into these things, and if this is the type of service that an SEO offers you as a possible solution, then you really need to keep on shopping. This is nothing more than an endless solution that will eventually collapse your entire network.
Some food for thought. Besides, it would then make my job so much easier, and plenty of other directory owners, by not having to reject so many of the rubbish doorsites.
Posted by Anthony at 10:28 PM | Comments (0)
February 05, 2005
Honesty Is The Best Policy
How many times do you go to a website and find the same thing, over and over? Nothing unique, but more content that near reflects others you have viewed whilst shopping. Layout changes, the look changes, but the content very much says the same thing, time and time again. Now from that, how many do you really think are being honest? Let's face it, I see directories that barely register on any sort of scale that say they receive hundreds of submissions daily. Absolute crap. I see SEO sites splash so much crap on their sites about who they service, without links pointing to them, and just so happens most of their sites are actually their own. In fact many have never even done SEO on another site... Intersting huh?
People have lost the honest approach in my opinion, which is really poor to view. People are so wound up now in having to liar one better than their competition has to capture the sale. I don't know about you, but I am quite sick to death of bouncing from one site to another and reading such crap. You can look at a site and generally tell alot from your first impression. Your first impression is generally the correct impression. What you see is what you get. If you read a lot of fluff surrounding the real issues, then expect to get a lot of fluff surrounding the real issues of your purchase, whether goods or service.
This is something that has saddened myself for a long time now, but I am just so sick of it, its time to voice it a little. I think people get the idea about me when they read my business site, and submit a site to my directory. Submit crap, get a crap rejection response, lose your money, etc. Its not my problem. I take the honest approach, and quite honestly, I get more from it than all those who are trying to fluff and pretty the facts for people. I think we have become so sceptical about online anything, that we just fail to purchase directly for our scepticism.
I see more sales from my own honest approach and writings, than I see for customers who tell me to change my work, you know, fluff it up and make it sound better than it is. Why? Because people always want something better for nothing. Did people forget the secret recipe for this, "you get what you pay for"! No longer does that phrase apply online with all the corruption and scams so easily accessible to the world.
A little more honesty, and a little less bullshit, might just take you a long way on the net today. Trust me, people are sick of the bullshit and just want someone who is actually going to tell them how it is, give them the facts, without the fiction, and do their best to provide quality for any monies exchanged. Simple?
Posted by Anthony at 09:59 PM | Comments (0)
February 04, 2005
The Big Secret "How To Make Money Online" Scheme
Running a directory, I see so many of these submissions it just isn't funny. You know the one's; they're a one page wonder that you can't understand how you made it this far in life without reading this page of utterly life important information. From time to time I read bits and pieces to have a good laugh. Like really, do you honestly think your going to follow their 500 page e-book and become an online millionaire?
The truth of the matter is, that maybe 0.5% of such schemes actually make enough money per month to live from, let alone make you wealthy, or even rich. The truth is, if you buy that sort of rubbish, you would most likely end up with something that is a hand me down e-book, renamed a 1000 times to remain appealing. You won't become rich from paying the money to access that sort of information people. The truth: YOU WILL NOT BECOME RICH BY READING THAT RUBBISH.
Do you want to know how to succeed online? It's simple. You take a normal business idea, something that is unique, honest and provides a benefit, and guess what? You begin to make money. But you won't make money overnight, nor within a few months, or even a year. To set up credibility online will take a good year or more. People want to know who you are, what you have, why your better and why they should trust you. That is the secret.
I see more and more of these get rich quick non-sense schemes which are all exactly that! Non-sense. These remarkable e-books to get rich quick simply tell you silly things like; setup affiliate domains all over the Internet, write an e-book, sell a one page marketing wonder site, etc etc. People I know have asked me all about this type of stuff, and then they have told me what they purchased and read to come up with the idea. It's not an idea, it's a scam.
What they don't tell you is that most search engines and directories reject / penalize affiliate type sites and such rubbish, thus making it hard for one to advertise. Secondly, they forget to tell you the cost off online advertisement that you WILL require to even get seen.
Let me tell you something from my point of view with online marketing. It takes serious dollars and time to get the return, and even then, your taking a considerable risk to lose your monies. I see some small end business come to me and pull away when I tell them that they have one of the smallest means for advertisement online, and its going to cost them US$4500. Your just not going to get the required exposure for $500 or even a $1000 online.
Anyway, you get the idea. Honestly, those with such a small hope to find a million dollars from just a $70 investment, need to think again. You can become a millionaire from $0, a good idea and just lots of solid and dedicated work. That's what you want to aim at, not these crap one page marketing wonder sites.
Posted by Anthony at 09:03 PM | Comments (0)
January 30, 2005
Are People Just Stupid? Or Ignorant?
Now this is not a first, but from someone I expected a little more commonsense from, I didn't get it. A forum member around the place submitted his site to my directory. Guess what? It was rejected before I even looked, as he used the free submission and didn't link to the partner I had listed, but instead linked to me. For the record, the partner site is currently "Phynder Web Directory" (this makes sense in a minute).
Now this person sends me back an email, and says, "yes, the link is located on the page and that my email must of mistaken the URL". No, I looked at the page, and to my eyes, still the same link back to my directory was residing upon the page. Now is it just me, or are some people just stupid! This person puts himself within the SEO realm, and makes an idiot of himself quite often IMO, and then decides to tell me that a reciprocal link between us is much more beneficial.
Now, the page he was listing me on was a directories page, a list of quality directories or something like that, and the site is an SEO resource site. Great, all themed. The first thing I thought was, so how did all these other directories get onto this page? Did most of them have to reciprocate a link? So is it really a quality resource then? If so, either just list my site or not, dependant on whether he viewed it as a quality directory I guess.
Anyway, if the page is about directories, and he is willing to just list directories for reciprocate link trades, then you would think he would just list Phynder Directory without any problem and be done with it. No, he doesn't want to do that. Me being me, his options emailed back:
#1 Submit in accordance with the submission policy.
#2 Use the express submission for a one way link.
#3 Don't submit and stop pissing me off with worthless emails.
Maybe people are just confused! My directory is shaping up to be quite a quality resource. Whether people submit their site or not, I don't care, as I add sites to it as I find them, quality sites that is. Not many of those IMO that aren't just another affiliate junkie or some want to be talking PageRank. Just so happens that this person talked nothing but PageRank. 'But your link on this page is worth so much, cause I just got 10 x PR7 links, 15 x PR6 links, blah blah blah, to the page. Who gives a flying shit how many PR links you got to the page, it doesn't relate to traffic, nor quality.
I think these so called want to be's need to get out and find themselves something they are good at, instead of annoying an already over annoyed industry.
Posted by Anthony at 01:30 AM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2005
Directory Submission Policies
Now I don't know what you think about this, but I'm going to express my views on directory submission policies. I've had many problems recently with my customers submitting sites to my directory and being rejected, paid or not. Is my submission policy to hard? I think not. Am I to hard by standing by my submission policy? Not at all. Why else does one have a policy if it is only a guide instead of an actual policy? Retorical question I guess!
Now I know from submitting my own sites to directories, that many policies are simply not used, as any old thing gets in, especially if you pay some $$$. People have a hard time rejecting sites when money is concerned. I don't understand why, when you should be standing by your policy. Providing a directory issue's a link to that policy upon the submission page, and the legalities are quite simple with this one, in that you only need to have a simple sentence near the submission button, something along the lines off: "By submitting your site for review, you accept the terms and conditions / policy of this website", or words to that affect. There is no actual legal statement, but it is the mere meaning of the statement that is important.
Are directory owners just too scared to say no? Why do they say, we will not accept sites with pop-ups, when they do; or will not accept affiliate based sites and their directory pages are ridelled with them! I have had some people recently comment to me about my stand on my policy, some good, some bad. Some that have been rejected got offended, especially because they paid money, small and larger amounts; and others just said, "ooppss, I missed that, sorry, my fault". I think I'm pretty fair in most instances, in that I will accept another site in place of the rejected site, or the owner fix the fault and then I will accept it. Mind you, I have done that a couple of times, bookmarked the sites for later review, and they simply changed it back. Submissions deleted immediatly.
Why do I as a directory owner and business man, have to succumb to others ways and ideals? I don't last time I looked, thus the stand I take by my submission policy. People think DMOZ is hard to get into for the wrong reasons. Website owners think that their site is not off good enough quality to be listed, when in actual fact, it is more like most submission to DMOZ simply go by the wayside as they cannot get enough editors to proof the submissions, thus they end up in fairyland. I have no doubt that my current directory, and then the new Palewise one when released, will be known as one of the toughest directories to be listed in. I think this will only make people try harder to be listed, more as a challenge than anything. I know I would want it more then. Go figure, human behaviour and good marketing all rolled into one.
Admiting that when I first started the directory, yes, I let some dubious sites in, but I have removed most of them now and constantly checking listed sites for changes and so forth. I guess its more like a constant 10% check or something like that that I perform. Doug Heil from http://www.ihelpyou.com is currently working on a script that will basically pull a site apart and look for known spam and basically crap sites. If Doug and his programmers are succesful with this script, I have already approached them to incorporate it within my directories, and thus it would then be placed on a rolling basis to continuously monitor and check sites listed to ensure they maintain that compliance. That will make things interesting for people to get their sites listed in my directories just a little more...
I don't personally think I'm being hard, and I don't really care if people think I am, as my policy is quite simple and clear. Lets have a look at the main statement of what I won't accept. The below is what is clearly listed on the submission page, and then further exhausted with all other legalities and what not within the terms and conditions of the site.
The following sites will not be accepted;
# Sites that advocate violence. (Pretty simple I think)
# Sites that are based primarily on pay per click listings or affiliate links. (example - http://www.online-loan-guide.com)
# Adult content, pornography, illicit photographs or sexual nature. (Simple, also meaning sites that link directly to explicit nature sites, such as - http://www.adult-dvd-rentals.net)
# Sites that run pop-up, pop-under or slide in advertising. (example - http://www.lovepoemsandquotes.com)
# Gambling, gaming or any site related to or affiliated with gambling. (Pretty simple and straight forward)
# Pharmaceutical and drug related sites that sell illegal drugs against Australian law. (This covers most of them)
# Mirrored sites or sites that replicate the same content through multiple domains. (A good example is a network of sites that sell the same thing, such as blinds, but each domain talks about a different blind)
# Weapons of an illegal nature. (95% of guns are covered here, acceptable, paintball and BB which do not require licenses)
# Sites that promote illegal activity of any type.
# Sites that contain spam, hidden content or blatant content against the search engines editorial policies. (Yes, this means those page with tiny text full of crap at the bottom of the pages : rejected)
# Any site that is simply considered of poor quality from the editors viewpoint. (A good example was a Real Estate site I rejected, which looked like it was built by a four year old. It didn't suit the business it was selling at all)
# Websites that are not in English or contain an English version.
# Websites that redirect to another site not within the domain listed. (Obvioulsy some people still can't read, cause they submit it, it redirects to another domain, and they are rejected)
# We reserve the right to refuse submission of any site for any reason we deem as necessary. (The legal clatents clause in case anything was missed when writing the policy)
Now come on, I don't think there is actually anything harsh there at all. I am pretty easy to please really. Most directories have the same or similar policies, but simply choose not to stand by them, that's the only difference in my opinion. What do you think?
Posted by Anthony at 10:44 PM | Comments (6)
Google Gmail Invites
Isn't it just amazing that when it all first started they where the hottest property on the net, and now? Well, you can't even give them away. I had seen Rusty Brick have 12 on his blog in which nobody had replied last I'd seen. Normally his are gone like hotcakes. I have six and can't give them away, when normally the day I advertise them, they are gone.
Funny how the hype works ha?
Posted by Anthony at 12:31 AM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2005
SEMPO Sucks Dust Again...
Once again, good old SEMPO is sucking the dust of the newly formed group, SMA. SMA is not about sitting still in a country, but actually doing what SEMPO has been saying for the past two years, getting out and representing the online marketing industry as a whole, and not just a little controlled zone, such as the USA. SMA started in the UK, then moved to Europe and now North America, covering US and Canada. Ouch, SEMPO is not happy.
Read all about it at Ian McAnerins new blog. Funny stuff!
http://mcanerin.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_mcanerin_archive.html#110512341284182355
Posted by Anthony at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)