Categories: Crawling, indexing & ranking :

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong?

Showing 1-69 of 69 messages
DavidAUS80 4/3/13 2:57 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 3:01 PM
You've got to be kidding....

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 5:57:57 PM UTC-4, DavidAUS80 wrote:
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center. 
My URL is: caller-id.co

Received the following warning, and we were fully de-indexed:


Dear site owner or webmaster of http://caller-id.co/,

We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

Specifically, we detected the following text on your site at http://432302.caller-id.co/:

4323022001 .caller-id-co 4323022002 .caller-id-co 4323022003 .caller-id-co4323022004 .caller-id-co 4323022005 .caller-id-co 4323022006 .caller-id-co4323022007 .caller-id-co 4323022008 .caller-id-co 4323022009 .caller-id-co4323022010 .caller-id-co 4323022011 .caller-id-co 4323022012 .caller-id-co 


Upon reconsideration request, we were told we need to make "major overhauls" to be reindexed, as they believe we are making webspam with our list of phone numbers.

THis is where our question is.

Most sites listing phone numbers ARE pure webspam - they don't have any useful information for the visitor, just advertisements for expensive (and illegal) reverse lookup based on credit report records.
On the other hand, we provide a LIVE caller ID database, which our visitors tell us 80% of the time is EXACTLY what they were searching for. We provide it free. It's certainly not unethical or "Spam" to provide 80% of users exactly what they are looking for, correct?

How do we resolve this situation? If we remove all the keywords (ie phone numbers) from our site, then google search users will never find us. They are unlikely to search for "free caller ID" to find us. We feel we are offering a great service to the web by having free caller ID and indexing all the numbers in our database. Why is google penalizing us?

One other point about our site - we are an obvious target of scrapers, who would love to steal our caller ID database. We implemented captcha and other techniques to prevent scrapers. As such, google cannot index the actual caller ID info. There is nothing we can do about this, and it is not an attempt to hide information from google. We are required by the TOS of our database not to distribute the phone information without a  captcha and other anti-scraper techniques.

If we use the Webmaster tools "parameters" setting, and get rid of the phone keyword pages, would google show us in search results for phone numbers? It if we remove our 200,000 pages of index, and just have a homepage with query "?getcallerid=number", is there a way for the google search engine to hook us into search results? Obviously we don't want to list 200,000 pages of phone numbers if there's a better way for users. Unfortunately, in our opinion, google doesn't offer enough parameter/API hooks (to our knowledge), so we are left with no choice but to list pages that , on the surface might appear as webspam, but in fact, are greatly useful to at least 80% of our visitors.

Thank you for any ideas or assistance anyone may provide.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 3:12 PM
Lysis-

Care to elaborate on your answer? If you search for a random phone number on google, it is clear our result (before it was deindexed) was far, far better than other results.

Again, webspam is defined as unethical materials meant to influence search rankings. Again, by providing 80% of users exactly what they are searching for, we do not believe we are unethical. In contrast, we believe it is unethical to block our site, which we developed at considerable expense to provide a useful free service for people.

The fact that Google doesn't have API hooks yet and requires keyword listings on pages is not our fault. We have a team of computer scientists trained at good institutions, who feel this is a limitation of google's indexing. Care to provide your credentials before blasting our question? 

Thank you.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 3:19 PM
Along the lines of sites with nothing but phone numbers, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0z7XOOmoM4 

And I often google a phone number to see whocalledme and get useful information.

And many of the numbers  I can look up for free in online telephone directory.



Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 3:25 PM
Travler--

We had seen Matt Cutts' video well before we began developing our site. This misses the point. He was referring to the spam sites that list phone numbers but have absolutely no useful information. These were sites that listed every prime number, every harshad number, etc etc in order to get traffic of people searching for numbers.

We have studies the search results for phone numbers closely, and don't believe this to be such a simple matter.

You stated you often find useful results -- our estimates are that abuot 15-25% of phone numbers currently have "useful results" on google.
We were providing useful results for about 80% of all US phone numbers. Again, to reiterate, we STUDIED the phone search market/results on google and feel we made a substantial, honest, and ethical improvement to the results. Nonetheless, we are being flagged as spam. This was my initial question. Hope this clarified any confusion. 

Basically, we feel we made a substantially better directory, and shouldn't be flagged as spam.


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 3:29 PM
You can argue with us, but this isn't going to work. No one would want these pages in their results.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 3:33 PM
Lysis - 
we ran a survey last month on our site. 80% of the users (survey number was 3000 unique IPs) were satisfied with the post-Captcha result pages of our  free caller id. So, you haven't convinced me with a compelling argument that 3000 visitors who actually used our site are wrong. 




Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 3:40 PM
alright well good luck with that....
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Been wrong before! 4/3/13 3:46 PM
You got 3000 to give you their email address for something already available on 411 . There is one born every minute.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 3:51 PM
Been wrong before -
I don't believe 411 has caller ID reverse lookup, but I could be wrong.
In any event, perhaps they wanted to use the web to get this information, rather than dial 411? Is that not useful?

Furthermore, the email address is optional. If they don't provide it , we still provide the results to them. Our goal was not to build an email list, but more to verify a user is actually human.

Is this forum all bashers? I think I posted a fair question. 

Take a look at the other search results, and show me one that is better than ours (that covers 80% of phone numbers)

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:00 PM
Is this forum all bashers? I think I posted a fair question. 

You got several answers, it's just that you don't like them.

It's Google you have to convince, if you want free search traffic. And a business model based on factors outside your control is a bit dicey, as you are finding out.

Even Bing only has a few pages of results for the domain, and they all read the same, except the phone numbers.

Since the site is deindexed, it's not as urgent that you also comply with Adsense TOS Privacy Policy, and Adsense Content policy (rich text content pages, etc) but going forward, you may want to address those.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 4:02 PM
>Is this forum all bashers? I think I posted a fair question. 


We provide answers.  The answers are not always what you want to hear.


I tried using your service.  it took me 2minutes 37 seconds to find and retrieve my own telephone number from your home page.... and then I had to enter a captcha to go past the voluntary paywall to see the data.

On the other side of the paywall the only information you provided was the listed name to the telephone number but failed to include the registered payor, physical address and alternative (cross referenced) telephone numbers.


Do you think my experience was a good user experience?


I DON"T.






Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:06 PM
Stevie -
I'm sorry it took you more than 2 minutes. Our experience is it takes about a minute.

You got the caller ID information for free. That's what we advertise. You can't find that anywhere else on the web for free.
Got a problem with that? 

To provide you with the payor name as you suggest is illegal - sites that do that have basically stolen credit report records and made them into a phone database, in breach of contract of the credit report companies.

You evidence my point this forum has a lot of bashers.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:10 PM
Travler - appreciate your points. We just submitted the sitemaps to bing yesterday, and they are busy crawling today. Will be interesting to see what happens on bing.

As far as the Adsense TOS, again, I thought we were in compliance with that? No violent material, prescription drugs, adult material, etc on our site.
I guess you could make the webspam argument for adsense , but that's what this forum thread is about. I firmly believe offering a free, improved phone directory isn't spam. But you're right, I need to convince google of that.

Any ideas on possible ways to convince google, if an initial reconsideration request is denied?
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:17 PM
Hi 



Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:21 PM
Fair enough re Adsense. I think we'll reword the page to make sure it's clear we are supported by ads, but not to encourage clicks.
As for valuable content, the callerID database was rather expensive, so I don't believe its "cookie-cutter" or nonvaluable content. Since when does SPAM content cost hundreds of thousands?
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Ashley 4/3/13 4:24 PM
Hey - did you guys ever check out this awesome link?

What's cool is if you scroll down you see, in real time, spam being removed.

It caught my eye because I've seen sites JUST LIKE THIS ONE in there as spam examples. 




As a user - the site is dated, tough to navigate, and useless. I can't even get to actual info. Plus - why on earth is every single page it's own subdomain? Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting where someone decided that was a good idea. 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:28 PM

Fair enough re Adsense. I think we'll reword the page to make sure it's clear we are supported by ads, but not to encourage clicks.
As for valuable content, the callerID database was rather expensive, so I don't believe its "cookie-cutter" or nonvaluable content. Since when does SPAM content cost hundreds of thousands?

no that is not what a Privacy Policy must contain, get a proper one posted on every page.

For now the fact that your sites violate Webmaster Guidelines is in itself against Adsense TOS.

I'd remove all ads immediately before it gets noticed or reported, or remove your site from the Allowed sites list.

Once you lose your Adsense account, it;s lost for life.

 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:31 PM
Ashley--
Appreciate you elaborating on why you dislike our site:)

The interface is has been completely redone, but is not online yet. There's no reason to put it online, as I don't believe a new interface will change google's view as the spam. So, I think it's safe to say this thread isn't about the interface.

As far as " sites JUST LIKE THIS ONE in there as spam examples", again, you are missing the point.

"Empty" phone number sites have existed on google for about a decade. We set out to purchase a caller-id system that was upwards of half a million dollars, and give this away free. So you didn't see a site JUST LIKE THIS ONE! You saw an empty site. Our site is backed by real, verified caller ID. And the fact is, people search all day long for caller ID info on google, and all they get are the empty phone sites. Google still hasn't removed many of them. But they removed our site, which , ironically to us, actually has the real info.

DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:32 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:34 PM
will do, pending this matter being (hopefully) resolved. thanks
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Ashley 4/3/13 4:34 PM
Oh look - here's another live example of spam! (from http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/fighting-spam.html

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another


Looks like Google & users think this kind of stuff is spam!
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Ashley 4/3/13 4:36 PM
It's not usable. I just tried 4 numbers and it's just asking me for a captcha AND my email address. No way dude. Not letting you harvest my contact information for what is likely empty info. 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:37 PM
regarding the subdomains,

our thinking was it was an easy "API" for users to remember. if they want to lookup 8005551212, it's easier to type in 8005551212.caller-id.co  rather than typing caller-id.co?thequery=8005551212.

Not a big deal on the subdomains. Again, we could change that rather easily, but it misses the point. the point seems to be google doesnt want to index real phone number information, and my question is should that be the case, when it provides useful information to people looking for info.


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Ashley 4/3/13 4:41 PM
I don't see any indexable real content on the site. I just see you trying to harvest my info. 

To me, Google got this right. This is not a site I'd want returned if I did Google a phone number (which I do, often - so I'm quite familiar with the potential value a site like this could have if done right). 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:41 PM
Ashley

You really are missing the point of our issue. We saw all these spam phone directories months ago. They're not news to us. As you said, you'd like to have been a fly on the wall in our meeting. Here's how it went: "Why don't we make a REAL phone directory, and get rid of all these spam directories once and for all"?

So we purchased a caller ID system that cost a lot of money, and made a real one. 

That we're giving away for free. The ones you listed are empty sites. Our's isnt.

As far as the email forms, we were testing that, but it isnt required. We figuered we'd probably get rid of the email form at the end of the day. That's not why google deindexed us , but you are probably right it's not the best experience to have an email form. 
The captcha is required, for legal reasons - you cant publish caller ID information unless you verify it's a real user .


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:43 PM
again, the email address is optional. and we'll remove that in our next interface. but that doesnt solve the deindexing problem :)
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:45 PM
You cannot legally index the full phone information . That is a problem. We don't know any way around it, other than to have a captcha.

Caller ID is private information, so a user must read our Terms & Conditions, verify that they indeed received a phone call from the number, then enter the captcha as a legal acceptance of the T&C

Also, if we listed every caller ID number without a captcha, a scraper site would steal it in minutes :)

Trust me, we had a lot of people think about how to make this site work. There isn't a perfect way. But as you said, if done right, it would create value.

We'd be happy to accept ideas on how to get this right, and get it reindexed. But we need a captcha, as far as we can tell.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:47 PM
David, the sites are what is called MFA - made for ads. No unique content, no text content, no nothing but a data base that may or may not show who has which phone number.

At that meeting, someone had to say something about how to monetize the sites. Not a public service, and the info is available from other sources, the fastest of which is to simply call the number and ask Who's This?

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 4:49 PM
"so simply call the number and ask Who's This?"

Come on, that's not reasonable. It's reasonable and legal (we checked with our lawyers) to offer a free , advertising supported caller ID site.

By your argument, every advertiser supported service is MFA. I mean, CNN isn't public broadcasting supported by donations, it's supported by ads..

We offer valuable content in exchange for ad revenue. That is not MFA. 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:57 PM
The people you checked with were not Google people, though, and therein lies the difference.
You do NOT offer content, you serve up a database. 

But have it your way. With all the input from those who have no stake in whether or not your site or your Adsense account succeeds, do as you want. But we are not 'bashing' just trying to point out the obvious.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 4:58 PM
PS CNN is  a brand and don't need google as much - people just type in CNN.

Plus CNN is a rich content site. Do not compare CNN with MFAs.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 5:06 PM
Sorry, you've all compared the site to the Empty spam sites. This site is obviously not. 

And since when is serving up a database necessarily MFA? I see lots of good, useful, database driven sites on the web. 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 5:13 PM
I'm moving this to a different thread - clearly nobody here has even tried the site (i can see from our site statistics), you're all just bashers and whiners . So yes, I trust the opinion of our lawyers more than the comments thus far.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 5:15 PM
No you're not. Don't spam the forum with the same question. You got answers and you don't like them. ONE thread. Thanks.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 5:21 PM
I have several number-looking up sites I use and they give me more info. I get the address, the postalcode etc on one, and on the other I get user  comments as to who it was, when they called, what the spiel was etc etc 

And no captcha needed.

And I was on your site, so if among at least 3 of us used the site, and you cannot see in stats, then get better stats.

And no databases don't do well and they post in here when things go awry.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 5:27 PM
traveler- these sites,  such as user comments on who it was,  have no coverage. They cover maybe 1% of all phone numbers. We have callerid on 80%. You won't find anything close to that on the web for free. If you do, let me know, but i'm pretty sure you wont.

Getting a zip code is easy, and isn't nearly as helpful as providing the caller id. zip code sites have been around for at least 5 years and don't provide too much value/

The fact is my fundamental question is being ignored. We offer better coverage than anything else out there, so its unclear how we are webspam. And we need a captcha to prevent scrapers. Nothing we can do about that.


Our stats work. There were definitely people commenting on our site that hadnt done a search. Perhaps you did, I obviously can't tell exactly.


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 5:30 PM


Jeffrey Isaacs 4/3/13 5:36 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 5:44 PM
Hey you can delete your post but we saw it anyhow

I'd be ticked too if I'd spent all that investor money based on a flawed business plan.


Should have run it by Google first, but hey, that ship sailed.

Best of luck,


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 5:55 PM
Is there a way to run websites by google before trying them? We wanted to, but didn't think it was possible. I dont think google grants conditional approvals.

We are still optimistic there is a way to get our content onto the web. In fact, this is why I created this thread - was hoping someone had a bright suggestion. We never claimed to have the best interface in the world, but we do think our content is valuable . Like I said, show me webspam that costs $500,000 and I'll be impressed.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 6:01 PM
I hear that Alanis Morrisette song "Ironic" in my head every time I read your posts.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Been wrong before! 4/3/13 6:03 PM
http://www.canada411.ca/search/reverse.html
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 6:04 PM
You hush with your sense and logic. No one wants that here.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? travler. 4/3/13 6:10 PM

Is there a way to run websites by google before trying them? We wanted to, but didn't think it was possible. I dont think google grants conditional approvals.


Due diligence - read the google webmaster /Adsense guidelines, read the forum, google blogs, google webmaster youtube channel - so much documented  already.

 Google has dozens of forums, support pages, blogs etc 

Ah well.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 6:18 PM


>I'm sorry it took you more than 2 minutes. Our experience is it takes about a minute.

your experience is not relevant.  You are familiar with the product.  That in itself is a huge benefit called "learning curve" whereas I was a first time visitor.  You also can run the site via an intranet whereas I must wait for the pixels to cross through the vast interweb

(I was hand timing pages at 4 seconds.... pretty darn slow in my book)



>You got the caller ID information for free. That's what we advertise. You can't find that anywhere else on the web for free.





>To provide you with the payor name as you suggest is illegal - sites that do that have basically stolen credit report records and made them into a phone database, in breach of contract of the credit report companies.

YP receives the direct feed from the BabyBell.  The feed is regulated by the State Public Service Commissioners and the release of physical address and payor information is not illegal.


>You evidence my point this forum has a lot of bashers.

No, my evidence shows that I visited your site with an open mind and the site was cumbersome to operate/navigate to the end result which was incomplete.

Personally I have an intense dislike for the YP and their business practices, so I was willing to give your site a chance.  You failed.


Your response to me indicates the that you can't see the forest through the trees because this product is your baby/livelihood and as such you are biased.  In the same manner you are defensive when others on this forum point out additional issues with the site.





Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:19 PM
There is no such service in the United States as canada411.

So here's for reason and logic, for a small nation called the United States, with its population of 300 million, we offer a novel and free service, superior to exisitng web-based products.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:20 PM
traveler - we did this due diligence and read these terms.As you know, there is a subjective element to all these definitions.
Bottom line - we believe a database covering 80% of north america, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, is by definition not cookie cutter/useless/redundant content.

we'll probably take this to court as we aren't the first company to feel that google unfairly deindexed us. So Lysis, you've got the final word for today. We'll let the federal courts take the ultimate final word.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 6:22 PM
Please add me to the glorious litsigation lits.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:24 PM
Lysis
Apart from your alanis morisette lyrics quotes, and SEO memes, i'm not really sure what we'd sue you for. YOu havent made one valid, substantiated point that harmed us in any material way...
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? Lysis 4/3/13 6:26 PM
Your rage pleases the me.

Pleece ad me to the glorious lits.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 6:31 PM
>we offer a novel and free service, superior to exisitng web-based products.

No, you don't.

I have provided a direct link to an existing AND superior web-based product that is also free.

I would be the first to endorse your product if it was even a marginally acceptable product (as I really dislike the YP) but alas I can not because your product failed.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:41 PM
Are you canadian?
Your logic baffles me. I clearly specified our service is unique in the United States. In canada, it appears (from your link) that Bell offers a similar service.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 6:45 PM
>Are you canadian?

USA.

and the link I provided was the same.


> I clearly specified our service is unique in the United States.

and NO, it is not unique.  
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:49 PM
Stevie,

Yellowpages.com does not show any information about mobile phone callers. It's just old fashioned white pages from Baby bells, you're right.
So  , without going into all the technical details, I can promise you we have better coverage for mobile phone, VOIP, etc
that's not to say in some cases you cant get payor addresses legally. But many times, you can't 

Our interface will improve. If it took you 2 minutes, our new interface will take you 30 seconds. Thats not the problem. The problem is, we need to index pre-captcha phone numbers. And google wont let us.


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 6:51 PM
we're talking about two different things, because you provided 2 links

canada411 doesn't work in the USA.
And fwiw, i just tried a canadaian friends mobile phone Canada411 didnt return any info, but caller-id.co did.

Yes, i'm familiar with our product, and yes, it has the best coverage.

the other link, YP.com, i just replied in another post--it doesnt cover mobile, voip, etc. 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? KORPG Kevin 4/3/13 7:05 PM
So, taking a step back from everything and just analyzing the content, here's why I would say Google is having issues with your site:

Homepage has content A and a host of links to subdomains.
Each subdomain then has the same content (A) and a new spate of links to sub-subdomains.
Then each sub-subdomain contains a subset of the content (call it a) and a longer list of links to sub-sub-subdomains.

After finally getting to the sub-sub-subdomain, googlebot finds virtually the same content (other than the phone number change) on each other sub-sub-subdomain and can't get past the captcha to the actual content.

Result, a host of doorway pages with links to what probably looks like a subdomain farm and no actual content.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 7:09 PM
I only provided a single link (to the YP)

one of our Canadian friends provided the Canuk link.


as to your cell phone coverage.  Your site said my phone number was  WIRELESS CALLER 

That is it.  Not even the name of the carrier.




informed me that I was a registered wireless number, the name of my carrier and city of registration.


Bottom line, there are others who do the same as you, often better and most definitely faster than you and none of them have to hide behind a captcha for the results.




Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 7:12 PM
Stevie--the carrier city and name, imo, is spam. Those sites have existed for years and people cant stand them. Even google knows that, which is why they banned phone directories from the first place.
If you're stating that caller id is less useful than carrier name/city, i'm pretty sure you'd lose on a vote on that.
We can easily add in carrier name & city, and plan to do so soon, but that is an old feature people are tired of.
Many wireless phones on our site are listed with the actual name. That's what you wont find - for free- anywhere else on the web.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? StevieD_Web 4/3/13 7:12 PM
Oh, and as Kevin just pointed out, none of your competition has a > host of doorway pages with links to what probably looks like a subdomain farm and no actual content.


Bottom line, you got a major uphill battle.  You got to solve your ease of accessibility or nobody is going to want to use the product AND you got to fix the structure or Google is never going to show the site in the search results.


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 7:14 PM
Thank you for this analysis Kevin.
We could easily get rid of the subdomains and just have a single domain. Do you think that would be helpful? We'd still have to have a sitemap linking different pages for different area codes, etc. So in your opinion is it the large number of  subdomains causing the problem, or the listing of 10,000 phone numbers per page? or both? would we be better if we only listed a hundred phone numbers per page? 
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 7:16 PM
So that is our primary question - is there a structure that can index 800 million US phone numbers that are behind captcha? one that won't be confused with webspam.

give us a working idea and we'll give you a share of profits. seriously
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? KORPG Kevin 4/3/13 7:23 PM
I'd say the subdomains are the issue yes, but not for the reasons most would probably think.
Your real issue lies in your lack of actual content for the bots to sink their digital teeth into.

You need to do more than the bare minimum. You need to provide more than just a directory of numbers with any real corresponding data hiding behind a capcha wall.

Honestly I think you need to rethink what you're doing and how to provide end-users with what they want while still not sending the wrong signals to Google.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 7:38 PM
We will get rid of the subdomains and improve the interface and see if that helps.

The problem is we are just a simple service offering callerid. I'm not sure how we could restructure it to work. There isnt any more content other than phone numbers and the caller id. But i do know people liked getting this for free. we are still getting return users. 
The captcha is necessary to prevent scrapers. It seems it just may not be possible with the way google works. Perhaps a new search engine will come along one day that directly links into databases, so you dont need to worry about indexing individual pages


Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? KORPG Kevin 4/3/13 7:46 PM
Here are a few thoughts:

Make your homepage and the initial area code pages as compelling and unique as possible.
Change your model so the user enters in the phone number which then queries the DB for the result.
Focus on becoming the source for users, not on appearing in every Google search for a number.

Harness that usability and focus to get backlinks from users and social mentions - so many that you'll be the #1 choice for reverse phone number queries regardless of whether those queries contain a phone number.

That's what I'd try to do.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 8:05 PM
Thank you for the helpful suggestions. We will look into developing content pages as you said and social media.
The reality is, lots of people just type in the phone number and aren't going to go try to research caller ID, reverse lookup, etc. So we focused on trying to build a site around this. However, it seems from what I'm reading today that listing phone numbers has become taboo on google, whether or not it's warranted.

Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/3/13 8:17 PM
Also, for low volume traffic we can recover our investment by selling this service for $5 on clickbank, etc.
Giving it away free only works for high volume.

So all the people bashing this, the reality is it's just another loss of a free service due to google's increasingly prohibitive indexing. I'm not the first to complain about that.
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? JohnMu 4/3/13 11:48 PM
Hi David
I think Kevin has a good idea - I'd consider looking at it like that. 

In general, it's important to us that a site is not just autogenerated thin content, but rather that it provides unique and compelling value of its own. Looking through a few of the pages on your site, I'm a bit worried that - at least what's indexable - is just a collection of links and numbers. Assuming this were a service for a different kind of lookup (say error-codes), then it would be a collection of pages listing all possible error codes, without actually providing insights on that error code. Clicking through, after completing a captcha, you might see the bare-bone error-text, but even past that there wouldn't be any more insight there. 

Instead of focusing on what you think Google needs for indexing, I'd recommend taking a step back and focusing on the user instead. Kevin mentioned a reasonable approach -- work on becoming the absolute best website like this, such that users go to it directly for this information, not that you need over a billion pages indexed that only vary by a handful of digits and a tiny snippet of text. I can see that you're passionate about providing a useful & compelling service, but you really need to think past trying to map all of those database entries 1:1 (or rather 1:many -- considering the "category" pages) to pages that need to be indexed in search with minimal unique & compelling content individually. That's not impossible, but it's not trivial either :) - and that's where you can make your passion & knowledge shine.

Cheers
John
Re: Quality warning about useful directory site - is google wrong? DavidAUS80 4/4/13 11:25 AM
Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to explain what may have triggered the concern at Google for caller-id.co . We will work to re-strategize how we approach the content. Our expertise - no surprise - is in databases, so admittedly the site is relatively "thin" content compared to a social media site or blog, for example. We still believe we offered an improvement on the status quo of phone search directories and don't believe our site is webspam, but will try to see what we can do to bolster the content and attract users in different ways than number indexing. Hopefully we can still offer the service for free after doing this.

Regards
David
More topics »