Often we discuss about Paid directory vs Free directory, now let us discuss about Cheap Paid directories. Is it worth investing in Cheap Paid directories? Is a Free directory better than a Cheap Paid directory?
Who uses directories anymore and expects results? In fact, Matt Cutts devalued directory links , something like 3 years ago... Since I have been working on the web ( 1999 ) - These were always considered "link farms" Now we call them directories.....same thing SPAM !
Quality web directory is always worth...like www.usadirectory.biz , Matt Cutts never said anything against directory.
Wrong http://www.searchenginejournal.com/...-google-handles-paid-directories-video/40511/ Google knows whats up
You shouldn't take everything Matt Cutt says as gospel, as he said in the video it depends on the amount of editorial effort the directory puts in.
Matt emphasis on editorial control on Directory like Yahoo, Dmoz etc, after-all directories with good editorial effort are going to survive
The video actually by-and-large refutes your point, so your comment "wrong with a smiley" is kinda lame. Whilst you may have considered "directories" link farms since 1999 (as I've been stating for 10 years most SEOs/webmasters treat directories like link farms because they have no idea how to submit correctly), those of us actually in the know, treat them as anything but that. Matt's video makes very good points in distinguishing fly-by-night directories from real directories. The charactertistics of Fly-by-night directories are: - built on dropped domains (not always but it's an easy to spot FBN when they are) - advertise their PR as their main feature (e.g. "I'm a PR5 directory") - guarantee inclusion (or fast approvals etc) - let the submitter pick all the features (anchor text etc) - have no editorial discretion (they don't edit submitted information or reject sites) - no value-add (their primary function is a collection of badly categorised links) There are more characteristics than that, those are just the ones Matt identified in his video. Where he makes a huge mistake is in suggesting that Google takes action against fly-by-nighters by dropping their toolbar PR. That is the biggest load of horse dung I've ever heard. I could point him to more than 100 PR6+ directories that are the exact definition of fly-by-night JUNK. Their toolbar PR hasn't been actioned at all. It's still there and they trade on it. Where people need to be careful is in what the directory is offering them. If all the directory offers is PR, and links. Avoid it. The best directories offer true editorial discretion. You cannot just say you do it. You cannot just say you are human edited and quality. You have to demonstrate it, and those of us with a keen eye will let the community know if we believe you. If we don't, then you need to try harder. It all comes back to that same old thing. Content. You can easily tell a good directory by looking at its content. Takes me less than a minute to work out whether a directory is abysmal, bad, mediocre, good, great or awesome. Paid vs Free shouldn't even come into it. Paid directories are generally far cleaner in content because paying stops a lot of spammers from utilising the free submission. Free directory owners also aren't paid so spending time editing review queues for no reward makes it a lot of work. However, that doesn't mean that paid directories are automatically better. You still need to be very discerning when reviewing paid directories. Actually you need to be more discerning because of the notion of "paid links". If you submit to a free directory (with no editorial standard) and gain a listing, who cares. You didn't pay for it. If you submit to a paid directory (with no editorial standard) and gain a listing, you clearly paid for it, and it constitutes a paid link. Which, if found, will count against your site at some point in time. You need to be exceptionally careful when submitting to paid directories and review their content prior to submitting.
Well I don't understand such ppeople who pay for submitting url to paid directories! I think there are enough free directories which brings the same results!
Some people don't like one entity dictating their online experience to them. Especially when that entity is now a multi-billion-dollar corporation, who prefers to promote ads then deliver real results. So, rather than rely on one entity, they reference multiple sources to find things. Including directories.
You had me till you mentioned "Cutts"... Taken out of context but completely relevant as well as funny. Of Matt Cutts and Penguin
We run a directory at www.projectword.co.uk and as we put so much time and effort into making the data of the highest quality and offering the best facilities this post is interesting. I watched the video that was posted as many other may have. He does not say do not sign up to paid directories, he said paid directories of low quality are going to be damaging, directories that do not care about providing a service to the users that visit the site, i.e. passing quality, up to date business details in well thought out categories and easy to use search facilities. Also, in response to a comment above, "Well I don't understand such ppeople who pay for submitting url to paid directories! I think there are enough free directories which brings the same results!". This is quite untrue, a directory needs to promote themselves to users and to new businesses, to do this effectively it needs money and in a quality directories case, that is where your money goes. There are some Free directories out there that offer paid options but in most cases paying really does help you benefit. Completely Free directories must make money on advertising to continue their promotion.
Hi, If you provide quality content in high PR sites,then free web directories also brings the same traffic to your website as that of paid one.
I've submitted sites to free directories on mass scale, and all it did was hurt me. I don't really trust any directory besides dmoz.
You and many others got what you asked for. Did you honestly think Google would continue to allow the link manipulation?