When manually combing through a search result list, one begins to pick up on a variety of themes implemented into the various sites citing a match-up with a person's search criteria. First, let's take this particular snapshot:
Now, one of the primary features to note on the site is implementation of the Google AdSense program. This particular inclusion creates a monetized condition surrounding the content contained in the rest of the page. If there was no ability to trigger a financial transaction, the publication of this content would be held to different standards, primarily due to a non-commercial application of data currently classified as public.
The next theme of this particular result was the percentage of relatively unique data coming from anywhere other than the content embedded in the site, such as through the attachment of Google Maps as part of a matter of convenience attraction factor - why not include the code if it helps visitors quick-connect. However, despite the insertion of the following paragraph:
"About: A B A Hail Restoration Inc expert , located in Crofton, MD 21114, enjoys an excellent reputation through years of business experience and has built stable business relationships with a great number of customers, our company address is 2411 Crofton Ln Crofton, MD 21114."
...much of the content appears to be regurgitated in a very unoriginal manner.
So at this point, the page comes across as a site flying the Online Directory Flag, but just how reliable and timely is the data for someone looking for credible data associated with the string?
For the purpose of this particular site analysis, one should take into immediate consideration the "Related Searches" section. Although publishing this type of list of links brings out the best and worst in web developers, fundamentally a publisher is permitted to provide its intended audience an interface it believes will attract the attention it is seeking.
For example, it's "Related Searches" are not semantic match-ups, nor are they even keyword driven. It is an alpha-driven list of links in the site. Whoop-de-doo! Yippee! Yuck! Whatever and that's a whatever in favor of the publisher deciding for themselves as to whether or not they even care if its list of links are going to be classified as no-no's or you-betchas when it comes to a search engine index.
However, with a copyright date of 2011 being present at the bottom of the page, I return you back to the paragraph above and specifically "...enjoys an excellent reputation through years of business experience..."
If one is to rely on the copyright stamp at the bottom of the page this content was drawn from, then this directory may not even be a year old. With a WhoIs Lookup, it appears this site comes out of China with a promise of USA Local Company Reviews.
Domain ID:
Domain Name: businesszz.com
Created On: 27-Mar-2010 00:00:00
Expiration Date: 27-Mar-2013 00:00:00
Sponsoring Registrar: HANG ZHOU E-BUSINESS SERVICES CO.LTD. (HANG ZHOU E-BUSINESS SERVICES CO.LTD.)
Status: ok
Name Server: mns01.domaincontrol.com
Name Server: mns02.domaincontrol.com
This is not an uncommon feature of ownership of a website of any size or kind, but in this example it is one person in one country publishing content about another country with a promise of a broad-scale review system for Local Companies.
Here were the questions that helped me determine this was probably the best to drop this particular path discovery.
1. There are no means or methods to leave behind a review, therefore the proposed reviews of the companies are not open to the public for contribution, including the owner of said data (if there is one on formal record). The Guestbook is claimed to be the place to leave behind comments, however the 49 records currently contained did not hold any reassurance that anyone has ability to add or subtract content (click here to visit a feature of their Guestbook in The 3rd V Decision Tree - The Comment Factor Observatory.) in a relatively simple, straightforward manner - and with inclusion of whether or not the issue was resolved and/or concluded.
2. The review claim had to come from a source and yet there is no source citation for the data. Many directories display at least minimal links to original sources of the data they are presenting and because a visitor can quick-validate data offered by the directory provider through such an offering, the directory is more likely to enjoy return visitors simply because the directory was the fastest way to perform such a task, such as a link to a Secretary of State page.
3. The only other unique block of data comes in the suggestion of domains based on a derivative of the company. Adviced domains versus Advised. That's a semantics argument.
Lastly, when you click on the "more" link offered next to the "Fax" suggestion, or even the Website or Email suggestion, the following results appear:
This page result offers no suggestion of intent to provide a fax number of any sort in connection with the data being presented and instead is a link list with a clickable advertisement to the right. Therefore, the promise of more data was certainly fulfilled, but if one was looking for a 10-digit number, think again.
It ain't there. At least not in any visible sense or rational...
Welcome to yet another quick demo on how pages filled with links can become inflated based on criteria other than the common expectations that create the clicks in the first place. Think of it this way. If I had said nothing about my disappointment in what I perceived to be a clear disconnect between promised theme and actual content, no one would know that at least a few clicks on their score-sheet do not represent a "satisfied" visitor. This is a part of the relevance and semantics theoretical battlegrounds.
Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't matter what I think when it comes to someone converting my clicks to cash. Since my clicks are absorbed into the larger statistics they use in their marketing and without visitor counts being isolated as to who walked away feeling duped and who felt they got their time and effort's worth, the site will more than likely continue to climb upward in the search engine indexes...
but not because its reliable as a USA Local Company Review site people such as myself can trust as a content source of data attached to corporate identities and the such.
It will happen because there will be far more people such as myself hoping to find a fax number, an email address or even a website for a company here in the US and the site has a lot of mathematical backing...
Until next time.
