Is it worth submitting to directories with such radical updates and algorithms trenching constantly? Even Google seems to be against it and most directories still have the "good old" linkfarm looks? I concentrated on the big ones, but now they all seems to have lost their big weight... let it be Yahoo or BOTW...
Submitting to directories with an strong editorial policy has always helped with rankings including now. Submitting to a service that will provide 1000 links for $10 has always been a really bad idea.
Post penguin, those editorial links are more important than ever. Where is the evidence that the big boys have "lost their weight"? What's a stronger link? One that went through a set of human eyes and was edited and approved and then listed OR one that you put on a blog yourself? --- People tout these blog links, but they are easy to get, you don't even have to write a decent post. A simple "Yeah I agree Andrew spam is bad nowadays" will get you a dofollow link. That's weak to me. Really weak. Directories that reject (i.e. those that have a strong editorial policy) are one of the most useful links for that very reason. You aren't guaranteed of getting the link, and in the cases of many of the stronger directories, it's almost certain that you won't get a link. However, your point is well noted in regards to the weaker end of the spectrum. Weaker directories that have that "link farm" look as you call it, you should avoid. Also be very wary of the titles you are submitting to the middle-end of the spectrum. You should steer away from generic keywording, and pin down your brand or official title instead. Any non-varied link anchor "patterns" (which is lazy link building 101 from a billion years ago) are going to trigger the algorithm. It's designed to pick up the lazy link build. 100s of the same sorts of links with exactly the same anchor pointing at the site. Remember that this same rule applies to "any type" of links, whether that be forum signature anchors, or blog post links, or directory links or something else. It's not directories that penguin targets, it's the link anchor pattern of any link. Lots of people forget they've been building dodgy blog links by posting in blogs with spammy titles. They also forget their 10,000 post signature that is a spammy generic title on the one forum they frequent --- those hurt too.
Yes it is still make good to submit in paid directories rather than free ones. I used to submit my sites and got better search visibility and traffic.
I've seen PR drops in many directories, including Yahoo and BOTW. By the way, the smaller directories (won't come up with a list now... would be too long) have also lost. So, overall I've noticed: -PR drops -less backlinks shown in Google -less new listings appearing on them And in the SEO community we are starting to worry about this issue. I have clients who aren't satisfied with the directory-submission issue. I've always been a fan of directories, buy in 2011 already some of my clients went through rough penalties, then in 2012 with Panda I noticed some hits (probably because) of our directory listings...
A bit to easy don't you think? If those high pr directories will accept every link then they won't be high quality anymore and there value for Google will drop as well.
So how many of your submissions were to crappy directories using the same anchor/title text? Haven't you noticed that PR has been made harder to obtain than just a few years ago and most sites went down? What directories are being updated less frequently? The crappy ones that you should never have submitted to in the first place? 'We in the SEO community'? Would that be the same group of folks who bash directories publicly and then promptly submit their client sites for listings? Would that be the same folks who are now charging their clients to undo the damage they, the SEO pros, have done by over-optimization of their client's sites? Or would that be the same group of folks that continually proclaim the sky is falling as a way to promote their own services?
Interesting what you are saying about editorial links. They do seem to have a lot more importance, but they are usually "no follow". I used to like "Starting Point" directory, but Google reduced its PRs and Yahoo Directory, BOTW also got their PRs reduced, you can see this by going 2-3 clicks deep only. Because I manage many niche sites, I am wondering if it is still worth, considering the high price. I did submit to cheaper directories, but since Penguin I am unsure if I should. If there are any good tips, ideas on where/how to get editorial "embedded" and "do follow" links, then that would be great! I'd like to hear your opinions...
Just want to express what I have noticed on many forums.... I think people get too caught up in all the hype that these updates cause because if SEO is done correctly then it should not be a big concern in most cases. All these updates are targeted at cutting spam and promoting quality. Meaning people most often tend to take the wrong approach in the first place. Instead of trying to manipulate Google, a person should be using their SEO knowledge in an attempt to figure out what equals quality. It is pretty clear and obvious only after a short time. Once that is done, they should center their work around providing the quality that search engines are after. If this is done then you don't have to panic or suffer much when they roll out the next update. Submitting to directories should always be a part of a link building strategy, because if you don't then your link profile won't be as diverse. But of course submitting a lot of spam to a lot of spam directories is going to hurt you. No matter what type of site your link is on, if it is a quality site, then it is worth the time it takes to submit.
...Google does explicitly state that they dislike links obtained from sites that sell links. I think the do know which are the sites selling links. It's obvious: there are some few good directories still worth trying, but it's hard to see which are the ones that Google doesn't like. It's also evident that any link you obtain from such sources will count a lot less than back in 2004, let's say...
yeah even for submitting to articles also google is not giving any more importance like directories .
I think all good SEO link strategies is a good variety of links a few quality dir links are easy to get and fairly affordable so I usually still throw them in. I do agree they have seemed to lost a a lot of weight so the value is down also, personally I wouldn't pay more then $10-$15lifetime for a quality dir link these days. Usually good dirs IMO also have other content that is subject relevant like articles and such so that they have some decent organic traffic flowing though them. A straight link farm is worthless IMO I don't care what the green bar says. i think the days of $300 dir links are coming to an end.
Thank you for all the insight, everyone here is a wealth of information sometime this all can be over whelming. I am new to affiliate marketing and just starting up a website and trying to flow traffic to the website is well to tell the truth quite challenging. Thank you all for your knowledge and experience, I will try your suggestions.
I was going to ask about the PR drops, because in terms of homepage, some of them are actually stronger (they've gone up). All the one's we have listed as trusted have been in a steady PR6 state for years... Nofollow is deceiving because there is talk that it isn't always "ignored" in the way in which people think it is. There is a conspiracy theory that nofollow on certain authoritative sites is actually counted. But who knows? It's just speculation. Starting Point changed hands quite a few times, they have a much smaller collection these days than previously if I'm not mistaken. As an indicator of worth PR is pretty weak, it's virtually useless (but we all still turn to it)... However, what you are seeing may be Google saying, look we need to discount these to lessen their impact. So in effect, those listings are good, but you can't solely rely on them to do the work for you, because they've been discounted. But all links that can have an impact, get discounted. Why did Google force Twitter and Wikipedia to nofollow their links? If those links aren't nofollowed (and again we don't know which ones count and which don't) then people can spam those places. It's not hard to spam Twitter, it's dead easy. It's not hard to spam Wikipedia, its simple, anyone can do it, and fly under the radar. If anything Google needs to devalue those places because they are subject to a greater degree of spam. Directories, at least in the editorial sense, have someone who says whether you get listed or not. You don't decide, so in some small way, that makes the link infinitely more useful to the web at large, than say some buffoon on twitter, tweeting websites... Make sense? If they lack editorial standards (should be simple to identify this by searching their content) then avoid them. Also be careful about the anchor you submit, if it's spammy, keyword stuffed or even generic and repetitive, then you are the one causing your own problems. Hahaha well this is the catch-22. All the big SEOs say you need quality, authoritative links. Those sorts of links, by their very nature, aren't links that you can build. You have to bait them. It's like fishing, find the right kind of bait and you will catch the right kind of fish. Any link that you can technically build, with ease, is a poor link because anyone else can do the same. If everyone has something, then isn't its value diminished? It's why I absolutely love the whinge section for DMOZ on Digitalpoint. All those peeps getting rejected and whingeing about why they didn't get listed, is the reason it still has credibility, cos 99/100 sites get thrown in the rubbish.