I still see lots of people producing directories on the belt, like they were sardine cans... I don't think directories are looking forward to a bright future and here below are some of the reasons: -Google's Panda and Penguin algorithms and updates are reasons solid enough... study how they work and you'll understand why Google downgrades directories and sites getting excessively linked from them -very few real visitors ever use directories today... there is Google.. even amateurs know it... so the referral traffic is almost inexistent (while 10 years ago we could still receive a decent amount of it from major directories) -there are tons of directories, most of them link farms... indeed, Google and other search engines strongly dislike the "link farm"-type sites containing almost nothing else but ads, links... so they downgrade them -there's an overall trend reflecting reduction of popularity (of directories)... fewer people but directory links -usually it costs... and advertisers tend to spend that money on something else, rather... for instance: Facebook marketing -there are plenty of other methods (PPC, Facebook ads, YouTube) for driving people faster to your site than directory-submissions-based SEO-ing... -directory marketing is based on keyword SEO - Google is hunting for "over SEO-ed" sites... Penguin is going to grab you whenever you spread keyword-targeted links on pages with keywords -context, content also counts... not just submitting to link-containing keyword-optimized pages (such as directory pages)... you'd better have links on better quality, content pages -there are ways to buy in-context, embedded links, featured ads (like via TextLinkAds, etc.) So, fewer and fewer people will bother submitting to directories...
Do you honestly think that you are the first peddler of social media advertising that has come on DP and tried this approach? Putting a link to your site in your signature and visiting your site provides all the information anyone would need to see you have an agenda here. But, just to save everyone the time, I'll address the things you have mentioned here... Directories have not been downgraded more than any other type of site. You have been reading too much crap from Barry Swartz if you believe that. The excessive linking issue has to do with the overuse of the same keywords in the anchor text...not where the links are originating from. This is a very generalized statement that does not apply to all directories, particularly niche ones. There are directories that send listed sites quite a bit of referral traffic. While it's true that Google does not like link farms, not all directories are link farms. Again, there's no evidence that Google has downgraded directories as a group. They have downgraded all sites practicing in link building activities they frown upon. I can't speak for anyone else but I have not seen anything that would support this statement. All I've seen is a ratcheting up of the nonsensical rhetoric from the SEO folks trying to do a bit of CYA after putting their customers into this mess. Not all directories are paid and from everything I've read Facebook advertising is ineffective for most sites. So? There have always been multiple ways to advertise a site. Building a diverse backlink profile has never been seen as a short-term fix. PPC, Facebook ads and YouTube ads all have one thing in common - you pay to play. If you stop paying, your traffic from them immediately goes to zero. They also do absolutely nothing to help your site rank in the SERPs. There is some truth to this, however you are overlooking the concept of "over SEO". Google has never said that you can't obtain backlinks with keyword phrases, just that you should not get too many with the same phrases. The folks receiving the over-optimization notices are seeing all sorts of backlinks in those lists, not just ones from directories. The problem here isn't directories but the SEO companies who submitted their client's sites to hundreds of directories using the same keyword phrases as anchor text. Again, so? That's always been true. The irony in your statement is that phrase "link-containing keyword-optimized pages". Most of the over SEO'ed pages I've seen have been "content pages" and not directory pages. Buying links like these have been on Google's no-no list for years.
I don't quite get your first sentence... I do believe it's interesting to discuss this topic. I'm open to all suggestions, even if you don't agree with all the points.
What's not to get? In your signature you link to a site that does social media marketing and link building. It seems a standard marketing effort by people in your business to come here and portray directories as dead, dying or a waste of time. The premise is that you offer something better than what you are bashing. Don't mind having an honest conversation. But, you've been preceded by more than a few folks who assumed that the people who frequent this forum are not going to spot someone with an obvious agenda. It would be like someone who grows peaches going to an apple growers convention and spouting a bunch of nonsense about how apples suck. He doesn't have to tout peaches at all, just proclaim that apples are evil while handing out his business card. The problem with this sort of guerrilla marketing is that not only have people gotten wise to it but it destroys the opportunity to work together to promote complimentary products.
I don't think that directories are the future but they still add some value to SEO if you do it right. Website (and also SEO) are getting more and more into social media (web 2.0) and in the current standards, directories aren't made for that. Directories could die within a few years if they don't make the move to web 2.0 and if search engines continue to make social media more and more important in there algorithm.
No, you got it very wrong. I'm always glad to exchange experience/opinion. This is my opinion. Then again, nobody's perfect, so I'm open to others' opinions... If we don't discuss our opinions, where will SEO be next year? And no, I didn't say anything negative about directories, since I'm also managing some (undisclosed). And no, I have no "agenda". I didn't ask for your favors either... There's nothing "so bad" about my opinion. I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings! Really! Believe me: 99 % from members here ACTUALLY work in online marketing/SEO. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thanks for the post from the other two members here
directories are not a thing of past... free directory are realy helpful in the carrer of a blogger for hs website... directory marketing is based on keyword SEO - Google is hunting for "over SEO-ed" sites. Dmoz directory smartwebby.com alltheweb.com homerweb.com addurltodirectories.com lycos.com scrubtheweb.com are some popular directories...happy blogging...
Directories can indeed help your rankings, but for some of the big directories it's hard to get your site included. My advice is to submit your site to some of the big high PR directories, don't go over the top on submitting to directories. The most valuable links are natural links created because you (your pages) earned them!
Directory Submission are not quickly approved. It take 15 days to 1 year for approving there. So I don't work on directory site more.
I am still new to participating on DP, but I already notice that this seems like a topic that just keeps on popping up again and again on this forum. I have learned about SEO while participating at other forums and the thing that I continue to see is that there are various reasons why directories may not be what they started out to be but still they do add some value when you do your link building just for the fact that they are yet another type of link and therefore adds to the diversity of your link profile. So, as far as I can see, there is still and probably always will be some value in a site owner to use a list of HIGH QUALITY directories to help advertise their website.
Mate, AllTheWeb.com doesn't work, certainly because it ceased to exist... Otherwise Dmoz is rather rusty obsolete with tons of ancient closed down site URLs in it.
@Mr.Dog: It's difficult to challenge your reasoning because you provide a compelling argument. However, you make the same mistake that just about everyone "downgrading directories" does. You lump them all together. I will absolutely agree with you that "there are tons of directories, most of them link farms...", and you know what just about every new one created is a link farm. We've managed to add literally a couple dozen directories this year across all niches. When you consider that 100s get created on daily/weekly basis, that isn't a lot of real directories. But on the flip side, there are tons of blogs, most of them link farms... - in fact I'd wager there'd be a lot more blogs than directories, because they are easier to set up, they are easier to provide links from, and they masquerade as being real, far better than a directory model can. Do we denounce all blogs as a result? Or do we simply state, look 90% of blogs out there are spam junk, but that doesn't make the 10% worthless, in fact it makes that 10% more important than ever. In another thread you were saying editorial links are the best links to get. Correct. So how do you get them? Well, getting listed in a very hard to get listed in directory is pretty much the definition of an "editorial" link. Another would be gaining a listing on a prominent blog in your industry, where they have an influential voice in the industry, and where they "dont sell" the link (i.e. if they do promotional posts, and don't state that their post is promotional, that's a bought link). Given that most people don't even read the blogs that are thrown in their face day in and day out, couldn't we just change the title of this thread to "why I think blogs are a thing of the past...", or "why I think forums are a thing of the past..." and rattle of a dozen reasons why, and be correct as well? The thing about social media, and again this is just the negative side of the coin, is that it's all hype, froth and bubble and very little (if any) substance. People buy 50,000 like on social media, does that mean they are influential? You'd look at it and think so. Google would look at it and think so. But if you do any sort of analysis on it, you'd see it's a comlpete fabrication. When you denounce directories by lumping them in a basket, it makes me smile. Not because I am happy, it is a grin to acknowledge ignorance, because it shows that you have no idea what people like I do day-in day-out analysing directories and separating the real from the fake. It is a never ending job, it is a thankless task, and funnily enough there's literally only one other directory list owner that does the same thing. All the other lists, just list all the junk directories by generalising them, the same way that you do, which is probably how you've formed your opinion. All due respect because you did make some very valid points, but the fact still remains that editorial links are the best kind to have, and seriously the strongest directories in the industry still offer legitimate editorial links because you have to pass scrutiny, an editors eyes, and be considered a good website before you gain the listing. If you think directories are dead because people don't visit them, then you have probably missed the boat in how Google scrapes content. Type and actor's name into Google, and check out the right hand side pane that pops up (it happens on firefox for me). What is generated is a brief summary of the actor's working profile, generated largely from wikipedia it would seem - including images, other actors etc. That content is scraped. Directory content, from vetted directories, would also be scraped (Google uses DMOZ descriptions in place of meta tags sometimes for the snippet on the SERPs page). I may not read your blog, or even know you are an influential person in your industry, but does that mean your blog is worthless? What about if Google scrapes your content for its knowledge base or if it counts your outbound recommendation links highly because you vet and are that influential person, and as a result I visit someone's site in your industry based on your recommendation (amongst other things) without ever having visited your site. Does that make your site worthless? Think about it... On your last point. Text Link Broking (inline text link ads) was busted years ago. It's paying for a link. That stuff is a no-no. It would be naive of me to suggest it doesn't happen. It does in large magnitude in a black market kind of way. But advocating it as an alternative to vetted directory submission is wrong. It's a technique that leads to penalty if caught.