Matt Cutts Speaks on Directories ... Again

Question put to Matt Cutts: What is Google's position on the value of generic web directories that market to webmasters as a way to boost link strength, PageRank and relevance? Would you largely agree or disagree with my assertions about the value of generic web directories on the subject?

A) While Google certainly feels that many directories are valuable, those that are built with SEO purposes in mind are generally viewed as somewhat manipulative and we make an effort to see that their value is limited. We're generally in agreement with your post.

B) Google doesn't treat SEO directory sites any differently than any other sites – if their PageRank is high and their content is relevant, we pass just as much link value and anchor text weight as any other similar link. So, we differ a bit in opinion with your post.

Answer by Matt Cutts:
C) Mostly A with a little B

We tend to look more at the quality of a directory than whether it is SEO-related. Of course, plenty of directories that are targeted only for SEO don't add that much value in my experience. I talked about some of the factors that we use to assess the quality of a directory in an earlier post at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-to-report-paid-links/
_
"Q: Hey, as long as we're talking about directories, can you talk about the role of directories, some of whom charge for a reviewer to evaluate them?
A: I'll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I'd ask questions like:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn't speak well to the quality of
the directory.
- If there is a fee, what's the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site.
_
Those are a few factors I'd consider. If you put on your user hat and ask "Does this seem like a high-quality directory to me?" you can usually get a pretty good sense as well, or ask a few friends for their take on a particular directory."

Source: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/questions-answers-with-googles-spam-guru

 

Great article! Hopefully this article will "quite" those so concerned that Google is out to get them.

Kinda strange that it came from Rand though. I didn't expect anything positive regarding a web directory coming from him

 

wow... thanks for that post. so good directories definitely has value for seo.

 

can we have a link to the original transcript please

 

This should decrease some new threads with "directories have no value"

Thanks for the heads up.
directory industry is going to last forever.

 

Thanks for that article. good news for directories owners

 

How about matt cuts doing the review work! parttime!
most directories refund more than they earn!! dose it even matters to matt

 

Hello....

what exactly is a Generic Directory? ...

I think ill just wait for "matt" to speak up for himself

Thanks
malcolm

 

as for me i try to think from a user's perspective of what a good quality and useful directory could be .. imo google tries to provide the best resources to the end user and if u somehow try the same or at least get close to that, then u are safe and ur directory is in the same road as google.

 

Is there anything new here? Most of it is common sense. And bottom line is that its daft to try and talk up the value of links where none exists.

I did just that with a couple of directories on the authority sites list. I wanted to use them as an example of the content we should be looking for in a directory and gave up after stubbing my toe on MFA and mediocre content. The answer was no these are not high quality directories. What am I missing? This post says to me that we have a problem if we dont make radical changes to the way we structure these lists and the way we do things in general. Am I the odd one out? Have I read it wrong?

 

Bulls Eye, i tell this to everyone who is in my im contacts... that build it for users.

 

Does this get the Refund thread back into focus?

ill vouch for that Anytime!
to be viewed as NOT akin to link farms,
we have to move away from "selling links"

M.

 

Nice to see in that thread that Anthony CEA has now become the GURU of directories and link building WTF!!

(laughing WITH you Anthony..not at you )
James.

 

I am glad to see that I was right after all. I have written an article about the future of directories, back at the beginning of this summer, and back then a lot of people judged me in a hard way for this. I got a lot of answers like "Directories are supposed to be link farms", when I talked about moving (or going back) to a user friendly directory with traffic, etc......
Anyway. I am happy to see that almost 3 months later, many people are sharing my point of view.

Bottom line is that directories should change. And webmasters way of working also. We should evolve into something new, or be lost just like dinosaurs...

 

I also tried to find the original article on it. Is there any?

 

thanks for the link.

 

he is like the only spokesperson for google?

 

Quality directories are not only useful for SEO, but for search engine bots, users, and webmasters as well. nothing new from Matt.

 

Its not going to happen. Have you noted a change of attitude over the last three or four months? There is not quite as much jabber and I doubt that PR is selling as well as it used to. But all you have to do is to cut over to the threads promoting the bidding directories if anyone is in any doubt. Other than that they talk about reviews and are not quite as cock-a-hoop as they used to be but everything is still in place. Its all going to be fine and Matt really supports "quality directories" that pass, what are they calling it, link strength.