How Do You Tell The Good Directories From The Bad Ones?

[Getagrip]

I just heard the other day that some directories will actually try to "steal" your ranking - something along those lines.

I recently submitted one of my sites to some directories, and the traffic almost dissappeared over night - my thought is that I must have submitted it to some directories that Google didn't "like".

I just compiled a list of directories that are PR 3 or higher - I verified the PR on each one of the websites. Is there a way to know if any of these are "bad" directories? I want to submit my sites to some more directories, but I don't want it to cost me. Here is the list:

PR 8
http://www.dmoz.org
http://www.lii.org
http://vlib.org


PR7

http://www.femina.com


PR 6
http://www.jayde.com
http://www.selfgrowth.com
http://www.iozoo.com
http://www.commoncontent.org


PR 5

http://www.nzs.com
http://www.webmastercatalog.com
http://www.bloggeries.com
http://all-linksite.com
http://www.chiff.com
http://www.adventuretraveltips.com
http://www.canlinks.net
http://www.spheri.com/d
http://www.info-listings.com
http://searchsight.com
http://www.discusstv.com
http://www.sygol.com


PR 4

http://www.e-topic.com
http://www.4ppl.com
http://www.webmasterdirectory.net
http://www.123kidzarea.com
http://www.busybits.com
http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net
http://www.mixcat.com
http://www.webbieworld.com
http://www.all4seo.net
http://www.socengine.com
http://www.prolinkdirectory.com
http://www.allfreethings.com
http://hoppa.com
http://www.linkspub.com
http://www.complete-directory.com
http://www.the100lists.com


PR3

http://www.urlz.net
http://www.exactseek.com
http://www.splut.com
http://www.clarib.com
http://www.siteranking.com
http://www.somuch.com
http://www.cyber-find.net
http://www.addurl-free.com
http://www.linkforever.net
http://www.submiturlhere.com
http://www.all-blogs.net
http://www.abilogic.com
http://linkcentre.com
http://www.pegasusdirectory.com
http://directory.portalit.net
http://searchwarp.com
http://www.megri.com
http://www.tsection.com

[an0n]

well since ya asked.... I simply just whip out the ol' 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' :D

[popotalk]

Well don't forget Dirsensei Web Directory the future authority with a new surprise owner. :)

[mikey1090]

Whos the new owner popo? You gotta tell, I love gossip;)

[Loco.M]

by the smiley face in the toolbar ;)

[mikey1090]

The crap directories generally look crap. It doesnt need many minutes to discover if a directory has any value.

Your list was a bit pointless. PR is not the be all to end all and is highly manipulated and inaccurate. Your list misses many high PR directories from it.

[popotalk]

Whos the new owner popo? You gotta tell, I love gossip;)
Ahhhh ! Mikey, if I tell you it won't be a surprise anymore. Let's give it a few days to finish everything. Who knows some sitelinks (authority) might appear under it too. :p

It will reside in the good area of the sunshine state. :p

[mikey1090]

I've got it! you gave it to cutts. Hes going to be running it from now on? Thats why the sitelinks are on their way :D

BTW i prefer the design you have up now. Always thought it looked better.

[popotalk]

I've got it! you gave it to cutts. Hes going to be running it from now on? Thats why the sitelinks are on their way :D

BTW i prefer the design you have up now. Always thought it looked better.
I think Cutts have at last will approve that, as it does not receives submission other than listing good sites. New owner will do take good care of it too and I'm leaving the industry as I am very busy on offline biz.

I'll just be on the sidelines watching as the industry grows now.

[Getagrip]

Your list was a bit pointless. PR is not the be all to end all and is highly manipulated and inaccurate. Your list misses many high PR directories from it.

Feel free to add a few to the list...

[JamieG]

The crap directories generally look crap. It doesnt need many minutes to discover if a directory has any value.

Your list was a bit pointless. PR is not the be all to end all and is highly manipulated and inaccurate. Your list misses many high PR directories from it.Thank Christ for that, someone who's finally come out and supported what I think. PR is nonsense as it stands (I wish it wasn't but it is and there's only a few to blame, but that's history now).

I don't believe in this 'Authority' nonsense either, I think that is something Google will cotton onto sooner rather than later as well. Ah well, life must go on so let's work on improving the directory scene and if people like you are recognising this fact it's looking good from where I'm standing.

GREAT POST.

[templates]

how did you compile this list?i think my directory is quality,but its not on your list.

[hyper]

well since ya asked.... I simply just whip out the ol' 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' :D

Jesus !... this is an0n :D

[Getagrip]

how did you compile this list?i think my directory is quality,but its not on your list.

There was someone actually on this forum who had a list of directories - although a lot of his PR rankings were all messed up - so I went through his list and added the ones which were free, and then verified the PR for each one.

[shivam]

Thanks for the list, some of might popular with high PR, but never hear about them. Very nice list.

You are missing one you can submit your site to http://www.a1directorysearch.org fast and free approve.

[malcolm1]

I just compiled a list of directories that are PR 3 or higher - I verified the PR on each one of the websites. Is there a way to know if any of these are "bad" directories? I want to submit my sites to some more directories, but I don't want it to cost me.


Hello...

Well i have to wonder what benefit you would actually get from submitting to a category
thats 22 pages plus deep (http://www.pegasusdirectory.com/Business/Telecommunications/page-22.html)? I dont know whom actually owns it but im sure that with or
without PR it wouldn't offer much to a submitter.

Most free directories unfortunately face this dilemma once they reach a certain age and only adding
more specific categories will stop this from happening.

thx
malcolm

[britishguy]

Most free directories unfortunately face this dilemma once they reach a certain age and only adding
more specific categories will stop this from happening.

thx
malcolm

Many don't bother as, adding categories takes time
But guess what you are right ;)

[swedal]

To answer your specific question in the title you can read this article (http://www.authoritydirectory.com/blog/distinctive-traits-of-a-quality-web-directory/)

With your list of directories there are some nice ones listed there for sure, but I have a top 16 list and the only one on your list is Abilogic - As an example where is JoeAnt?

[JamieG]

To answer your specific question in the title you can read this article (http://www.authoritydirectory.com/blog/distinctive-traits-of-a-quality-web-directory/)
With your list of directories there are some nice ones listed there for sure, but I have a top 16 list and the only one on your list is Abilogic - As an example where is JoeAnt?Who wrote this article? A 'Trait' is something that applies to a biological entity, the author might be better to use a word like 'features'. The blog makes a lot of points which aren't necessarily true so to help to help newcomers I'm going to say why.

1. Design, blog says, duplicate templates will always have footer attributes. Not true, sometime even unique one's will if the buyer get's a discount for doing so or the template maker has this in his terms.

2. Information pages, the blog say's a good directory will have informative detail pages? Wrong, real visitors apart from other directory owners couldn't care less about backlinks, a 'buyer' would want a link and nothing more. Why do you think dmoz and yahoo haven't changed their business models. They have real money, if they thought this was the way to go trust me they would have. These gimmicks are just that and would probably put a visitor off as all that nonsense is confusing.

3. Indexing, The blog goes on to say that a good directory uses good descriptive tags etc to get good indexing but when you do a site:google 90% plus of the 16,300 links you have indexed have the same default description, example being: "The Authority Web Directory is a powerful human edited web directory of quality family-friendly web sites. Submit your link and URL to build search engine ..."This was taken from a link title 'Clifford Chance' who is a Law firm. This isn't good indexing? Perhaps this is a limitation of the software and not an editorial error?

4. Unique Content - Agreed
5. Unique Category structure - Agreed
6. Description - Agreed, the more relevant the better.
7. Categories - Agreed
8. Empty Categories - Not necessarily true that if they are empty they are a sign of a bad directory. If the ain category has a link in it for example it would be frugile to put in sub-categories as a on option for potential visitors to the site. Building 'on the fly' can often lead to a potential submittor to leave the site as they feel they don't have a relevant category to place their listing in.

If what you are suggesting is true then directory's of high status like avivadirectory, alivedirectory, directorydump and so on would all be viewed as 'inferior' by your guidelines.

9. Family Freindly - If a directory contains anything remotely related to pornographic material or other subject matter not viewed as safe for family viewing then it shouldn't use the term. Did you know that Gambling is one of the biggest family pastimes in the World? Take the Gand National in the Unjited Kingdom, almost evert household puts a bet on it. That's gambling, but so is it family unsafe? Be specific on this, it's not as cut and shut as you make it.

10. Yahoo site index - Bad example to give. Their cache is as old as the hills, they clearly don't update regularly. Do site:yourdomainatgoogle This is far more up-to-date.

11. Check the Search Engine Rankings - Not sure on this one so help me out. Checking is okay if you sell backlinks for the sole purpose of doing so, if you do a no-follow rule as per Google's guide would it get listed?

12. Alexa - Absolutely meaningless.

13. Banned site? Why not check with Google itself?

14. What You Will Not See On a Quality Directory - Wrong, what's the matter with adsense? I don't like it personally but it has absolutely no impact on a sites quality, in fact to the contrary, if you have a blank category at least adsense will pick up keywords and offer a relevant result leading to potential earning.

15. Sponsored links - What's wrong with them? If your going to comment on them at least qualify your comments perhaps?

Conclusion - The guide is pretty flawed for the reasons above. This reply isn't intended to put your post down swedal, great contribution and no doubt with excellent intentions, the article is well presented but perhaps addressing the points above might make it an even better analysis.

[swedal]

JamieG - are you sure your name is not Jabish?

Referring to your question to "who wrote the article" - who do you think wrote it? The owner of that blog (me) and as every article everywhere on the internet and in print it is opinion.

I really don't have the time that you seem to and can't sit here and go over every single issue that you seem to have but I will touch on a couple

In point #1 - read the article it says in most cases - and if your taking discounts to put footer links in a site I just made my point.

#3 You should probably actually check your facts before you make comments like this - I can't imagine you actually went through my 16,300 google indexed pages. I can't even find the example you quoted on the page you quoted. I can say that the software makes changes to the meta titles to make them unique on every page.

#8 - directories are resources and should provide some value to visitors. If the directory does not even have the links one would expect to find in a directory for visitors how is that providing them with a resource?

The family friendly point was used to make a point on editorial standards - do they say they are family friendly and have gambling and porn listed? I was not saying gambling was bad just that the directory should follow their own guidelines.

Googles link list is a sampling and they say so themselves and Yahoo is more complete.

The shortcomings with alexa were mentioned in the post.

#13 good example of what your doing here - you want to debate about where to check and see if a site is banned??? Really - check it wherever you want.

sitewide point - the simple answer is maybe that is one you should check with Google and ask them what the problem is because they seem to be the ones that don't like them.

Man when you start out by wanting to debate the definition of a single word in an article you know where the rest of the post is going. ;)

Words can often be used in many contexts - look up the word trait - it can be easily used in as sentence like - A sermon with a trait of humor. here is a link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trait) for you

Have a very nice day - I am through with this thread and not coming back to it.

[JamieG]

My name is Jamie, or at least that's what it say's on my birth certificate. :)

I wasn't commenting to pick a fight swedal, I was pointing out on some areas where you or whoever's site this is was going wrong, or at least to my view, we're all entitled to one.

Actually I did go through pretty much every link on site: yourdomain, I didn't want to comment on something without checking, most of your indexed links have the same description I commented on, google's fault more than yours, if they indexed better they would pick up keyword content within your site instead of the bog standard one they have. Yahoo's is years out of date swedal, that was the only reason I commented on that. Google aren't.

hope that helps. :)

[YMC]

At the risk of shocking Jamie, I happen to agree with him/her when it comes to empty categories. My directories are strong niche sites. When a great site submits and there's simply not a place they fit, I create a new category; even if that site might end up being the only site to be ever listed in it.

Fast forward 6 months or a year. That great site is no longer online. I delete the listing. The category page has been fully indexed and may or may not have any measurable page rank. Why would I delete it? Leaving it in hopes that someone finds it and submits is a much better option then deleting it.

When you make a blanket statement like "empty categories" are a mark of a bad directory, you are making a generalization that simply does not stand up to logic and common sense.

Is a brand new directory bad simply because it doesn't have listings in every category?

Is the inverse true, directories that have no empty categories are good directories?

Overall, you make good points, but consider that broad generalizations can and will be questioned by others.

[malcolm1]

When you make a blanket statement like "empty categories" are a mark of a bad directory,
you are making a generalization that simply does not stand up to logic and common sense.

Is a brand new directory bad simply because it doesn't have listings in every category?
Overall, you make good points, but consider that broad generalizations can and will be questioned by others.

I agree with that and many times we will get submits in one or a few directories where a category
had to be made for their sites and they either die out 1 year later or never submitted to the others.
Many times im thankful that RSS feeds or articles are their to support those categories that have yet
to be submitted too and allow visiters to have something to view.. ;)

thx
malcolm

[YMC]

I think I might need to clarify my statement a bit.

There's a big difference when an established directory has a few empty categories here and there, but when a directory has been online for a number of years and has a large number of both parent and interior categories that have never had a listing - that could indeed be the sign of a poorly run directory or at minimum one that could use a tad more advertising.

[malcolm1]

I think I might need to clarify my statement a bit.

There's a big difference when an established directory has a few empty categories here and there, but when a directory has been online for a number of years and has a large number of both parent and interior categories that have never had a listing - that could indeed be the sign of a poorly run directory or at minimum one that could use a tad more advertising.

Well if you are "free at the beginning" then it will blend itself out a bit i suppose :)

thx
malcolm

[Getagrip]

Wow - didn't know this post would cause so much strife!

[JamieG]

Wow - didn't know this post would cause so much strife!It's a good topic Getagrip, good topics with good discussion go for a good forum, makes a refreshing change to see this happening here.

[Obelia]

I just heard the other day that some directories will actually try to "steal" your ranking

This has more to do with the way any directory links to you, than it does to issues of PR and directory quality. This page explains more about the issue of redirects:

http://info.vilesilencer.com/main.php?rock=redirects.php

Basically, you don't need to worry about a directory hijacking your ranking so long as it provides you with a simple link, and that's one of the criteria for inclusion on the SEO-friendly lists.

[eclipsenetworkz]

usually a directory with a higher pr will help your site more. Just make sure that it doesn't have too many links per page.

[JamieG]

usually a directory with a higher pr will help your site more. Just make sure that it doesn't have too many links per page.I don't know about PR juice but I remember reading somewhere in my early days that 100 links per page was just about the max.

[tankard]

I don't know about PR juice but I remember reading somewhere in my early days that 100 links per page was just about the max.

Right on. I can even tell you where you have read it. The magic number of 100 appears on the GG Webmaster guidelines.

Speaking about which Dirs are good and which are bad, you can only tell it by your own experience or by a tip-off. If you have captured programming basics, you can tell the value of the dir by looking at the way it was built. For example, searchsight. Although it has PR5 (PR6 a year ago, if you know what I mean) it is a waste of time unless you pay for featured links. I submitted 2 sites a while ago just to test it. Oh my, these backlinks doesn't appear in neither Siteexplorer nor Webmaster Tools. And traffic-wise it is a 0, zero, nada!