How has Google benefited from directories?

I have to agree. I saw it happening, but there wasn't much I could do. People were paying to be accepted in directories that would ultimately be low quality, lose their pagerank, or go offline in due course. It was not maintainable. BUT... Google has an exploit where sites could rank well, and many unsuspecting customers trusted SEO people who helped them both rank well and profit. So first Google benefited by spidering the early directories, and then allowed for an exploit in their algorithm that in effect gave them blanket permission to turn around crush the industry. Had Google acted earlier to make sure low quality directories did not get pagerank or otherwise help a site rank, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

 

Understood. I do not guarantee acceptance and have rejected paid sites. What I do different however is, if you are rejected you're not paying the fee. It does not take $299 worth of "reviewing" to figure out when a website does not meet the criteria to be included in a directory. I could certainly understand a nominal charge for wasting someone's time. But I think most people that pay the $300 fee expect to get included, not reviewed.

 

I'm an old school guy. I combine use of quality directories with social engagements such as reviews or likes. Listing on these directories such as Yelp, Yellow Pages and local directories can be quite time consuming as I have to submit the listing manually. However the result pays off. My clients also appreciate the work as they can see their business listing and receive some real sales inquiries.

To support the business listings created, I build backlinks. Business listing should be part of the strategy, IMHO.

 

Expect improved SERP from high PR directories and also the Title & Description for the site being submitted be written by Pro Writer.

 

Within a good directory, someone has to...

• pay the associated costs, such as the cost of a directory script, hosting, promotion, etc.
• in either time or money, there is a cost associated with any modifications to the script.
• set up an intuitive taxonomy that isn't just copied from DMOZ or elsewhere.
• spend time or pay someone to seed the directory with enough useful sites for it to be a worthwhile resource.
• review submitted sites, which means actually viewing the site being submitted, deciding whether or not to add it, and then often modifying the site title, description, and placement.
• maintain the integrity of the directory by removing bad links and those that are no longer useful.
• correct, or pay to have corrected, any problems that might come up, including updates to the script, modifications, etc.
• in many cases, add peripheral content, such as category descriptions or other genuine textual content.

While someone might be able to maintain a niche directory by himself, larger directories generally have to either hire people to assist them in maintaining and building their directory, or devote the time necessary to manage a volunteer staff, if such can still be found. On top of this, most of us are annoyed to find a bunch of advertising on a directory, and would consider the result to be unprofessional.

In what world then, is it unreasonable to request payment for a submission?

 

We need to start using directories for in depth search i would say. Other than searching a fully packed search engine, search the exact niche directories for better results.... But unfortunately all those directories are either dead or committed suicide due to penalization !!

 

What we need is someone to create a "Dogpile" type Directory search engine that would deliver search results from a select set of general and niche' directories. That would be cool!

 

When Google Custom search came out, I thought AHAH!!! this could be so cool with a directory. How much more powerful could a directory be if it included both static listings and the ability to search the actual sites involved. In my case someone looking for knitting patterns could actually search sites already vetted for quality for a doggy sweater, teddy bear or whatever pattern they wanted. Oh, it makes my mind spin.

The logistics would be nasty for individual directory owners to actually run their own search engine, particularly those of us who are working alone. But, oh the possibilities.

Sadly GCS just didn't offer what I envisioned, even the paid version. Somehow, I suspect they realized that GCS could create truly viable alternatives to their own site and the irony would be that those alternatives would be using G's own data.

 

Directories were nice in the beginning of the Internet. I can't imagine what I would have done without Yahoo! those days.

Now, sometimes I wish directories were back as they were those days. Search engines really give so bad results at times... A directory would really save a lot of time.

From the SEO viewpoint, directories are not very useful when used in mass. But if you limit your submission to just a few that would be very useful for you, like those around your topic or geographical location, then you can still find them useful.

I agree that maintaining a directory is a very large task.

 

For one thing, there's too many poor quality sites. Nowadays if someone creates something original, the minute it starts doing well - everyone looks to replicate it. Smart programmers release a clone script - and newbies & greedy webmasters buy it to try and get a piece of the action.

Directories were a perfect example of this greed - people would create a directory and try to get it to have some PR so that they could sell submissions for ludicrous prices like $100+ a year.

 

Some did exactly as you describe. Other's that had higher fees did so in an attempt to discourage the listing of "poor quality sites". Sometimes less is more works.

 

So who is there up to start a directory?

 

Could you provide a more detailed explanation for your question?
(and the grammar is not easy to understand)