This is reference to this post on V7n He seems to miss certain points on it , The site B might not have been penalized for back links in free directories Site A : a)got PR of 4 since the directories like Aviva and others have lot of PR on inner pages also (This is due to the fact if you site get listed on page that has a PR 0f 4 with no outbound link except that of yours you will get PR4 ) In simple words single link from a PR4 page which has only one outbound link to your site A will give you PR4 The same can also be said with free directories: Suppose if there is good free directory of PR7 with inner pages having PR4 if you get your site listed on a particular page which has no outbound link except that of yours,your site A would be also get PR4 without spending anything. Site B: example: Let me imagine that you submitted your site B to a list of free directories at www.addurl.nu There are 700 Directories in it,Out of 700 directories ,Site B would have been approved only in 100 directories which has PR1 or PR2 ,as these directories would have only less no of links to approve generally rather than a PR4 or PR5 directory.The sites like pegasus directory and other sites take a lot of time to approve your directory say 3 months or more so he would have got very less backlinks(Less than 100) On these 100 backlinks to your site B ,most of them would not have been indexed and your site would be on the same page which has more than 10 or 20 backlinks(or even higher )so you would not get any PR and the site B would be indexed less no of times. Repeat this experiment With 5 pay directories and with 10-50 free directories having PR5 or PR6 ( Buy Featured links on it-So you would be approved instantly) Free directories and Paid directories differ these aspects a)Free directories take a lot of time to approve whereas that is not the case with Paid directories b)In Free directories ,there are 20 or more outbound links from a page whereas in paid directories there would be less no of outbound links which seem to influence PR c)Also Paid directories seem to a do a lot of promotion which is nil in the case of free directories which seem to influence SE Referrals and Rankings and indexing of websites listed in directories Free directories here refer to Quality free directories not crap directories which accepts all the links without reviewing it Another aspect is the quality of listings ,a good free directory may have the same quality as that of a paid directory but that is not the case with some crap directories which approve all the links without reviewing it. Most people always misunderstood free directories as crap directories there also some good quality free directories out there.
Whether Free or Paid - it does not really matter much. What matters is the QUALITY. Since - Paid directories accept a review fee - most of them are better maintained, promoted and have better editorial traits. It does not mean that all paid directories are of super quality. On the other-hand most free directories are the opposite. It does not mean that all free directories are of low quality. So it should never be - Paid vs Free. It should be Quality vs Crap.
I regularly get first page results for uncompetitive key words using free directories. But free directories seldom stay free. They start off free and then become "quality" sites The question you need ask is how long will the directory be around. If they are selling high PR stay away from them. You might get tarred with the same brush. If they are selling links, they are link farming and you take your chances. If on the other-hand there are obvious shortcomings and if it looks as if there is a real webmaster trying hard to do his best, go for it. There is a chance that this one will still be around in twenty years time and your investment will have grown exponentially.
interesting experience. wld have been a much better learning if he was able to give more details on the profiles of the free & paid directories.... while we all believe that quality is what matters, but isn't quality also a subjective term? Who defines what is quality? We all guess what Google defines as quality based on various parameters, but no one knows absolutely how it they are used and the relative weights..... thus how much 'quality' is required before you jump out of the 'crap' category to the 'quality' category? Just saying these so give a broader perspective that it is a relative scale and not a binary 1-0 figure of what quality-crap is.
Let's make a new thread for this poll and see who would vote for crappy directories I usually let Google decide which directories are quality or what. We may be able to judge that visually but we can not change PR, not that PR is the most important factor. (though it could be the most influential advertising tool ) Sometimes, I think many tend to think aggressively promoted directories are all quality. But then it's not all about design or how many mods are used either. My old thread: What makes you want to buy a link?
The trouble with PR is that its been bent out of shape. Google recognise this and thats why it has little or no impact when it comes to back links. They are also going out of their way to flush the link pimps and this is impacting negatively on the whole industry. It is useful as long as one keeps things in perspective.
Are there any Free Quality directory except dmoz. If its there - its really really hard to get listed on such directories.
but what about the quality of listings in it........ The Quality of the site should not be judged by PR
Of course PR is not everything. I have to admit, you can probably browse around and find listings that are not high quality. But whose to blame for that? Theres still a lot of upside to DMOZ and more high quality sites than less. I'm sure there were/are still lots of honest volunteers who did have good intentions on making it a quality directory.
Dead wood or not. Dmoz might not be a "quality" directory but its an authority site and its links are useful. Not that useful to make it a must have however. I dont use Dmoz because I havnt got the time to waste spinning the wheel.
Exactly, a lot of webmasters seem to equate PR with quality (not you LeopaldAt1). They seem to forget that you can buy PR and that PR is good mainly for selling links. There's enough good free directories out there that will give you good backlinks but not traffic because they don't have the same SEO budgets. Nonetheless, if you're using for backlinks for PR rather than SERPs, I guess you'd need 1000s for free directory listings rather than 700. Its interesting that the V7n experiment didn't take SERP results into consideration. As a website owner/webmaster, how backlinks improve my SERPs would be my main consideration, not what PR or traffic I get from the directory listing. Traffic from SERPs is my main objective.
Dmoz is quality less but it provides relevant results Google is still dependent on Dmoz to provide some quality results