There is always going to be !a temptation for directories to bring fresh content to its readers in the hope it attracts visitors. It can also be used to hoodwink search engines into thinking that there is fresh content for their hungry bots. This is where the downfall of the directory comes. The problem with twitter is that by its very nature, and the reason it’s so popular is that it is completely unsafe. Users can post what they like under just about any pseudonym they like. You never know who it is that posts the tweets, and, more importantly why, which is what was brought to our concern over the past year or so that has seen twitter become a global phenomenon.
We won’t name the directories that use twitter feeds to turn itself from mutton to lamb just to deceive the reader with unnecessary eye-candy because that would be giving them free advertising, and the last thing we plan to do is advertise bad practice. What we’ll do though is explain our concerns.
The directories we tested, one of them one of the so called ‘better ones’ ironically promotes itself as providing the ‘best of the web!’ With an offer like that you’d be chomping at the bit to look at the results with the misguided belief that you’re not going to get Pandora’s’ box of spurious results many search engines and directories offer, just ‘the best of the web’. But how can you call unmonitored twitter feeds the best the web can provide? And, what relevance do they have to your search query? We typed in random words just to test a theory. The theory being that twitter is a portal to some of the most obscene material available barring none. (Doubters can request our evidence by mailing us).
We won’t repeat what we typed. Just take our word for it that the words we chose are what any curious child might chance their arm with after a day in school listening to their peers. We were lucky in one sense that the twitter feed one of the better directories used was often broken. The problem wasn’t with always with direct twitter links though. The problem was also with the poster and content of the feeds which highlight themselves as hyper-links. These links led to hard core material that even Google would have a hard time showing openly. Certainly not with a moderate or safe search on with your Google settings. So why do these directories use such material? Is it that in the desperation to get content they have overlooked the inherent problem of unsafe, up to the minute content? It does seem to be the case.
We don’t think there is a need to bloat your site with feeds that risk your integrity. If you don’t have a billion links then so what, at least the links you do provide have quality to them, and it’s this quality that they should be concentrating on.
Best of the Web? Hardly, more like worst of the web made with the best intentions because we really do believe that the users of these feeds really haven’t cottoned on to the negativity twitter and others bring with them. Keep it safe, keep it simple. That way you don’t risk being reviewed in a negative fashion with a big fat warning to readers to avoid twitter content unless you really want to read a load of trash.
