The natural thing to do is always the best. If Eweb and Aviva finds that I am not worthy of a listing because there is NO CONTENT of at least 3 listings PLEASE delete my directory and I will just wait until I am qualified. NO FRIENDSHIP.
I doubt anyone else besides those who receive their refunds will ever be aware of the fact that you bother to take the time to prune your listings.
I have rejected many web directories that are of low quality. I have seen many that are using standard templates, and have few or no listings. There is no point marketing a website until it is ready and offers value.
It's something that's bothered me as well; I think we all benefit from by cleaning up our db's. I'm feeling I may not have applied the same standards to some of the directories I've accepted and I need to remedy this and avoid repeating it in the future. By applying uniform standards to all submissions, quality increases overall. I don't expect that we'll all agree on how to review a site or share the same standards, but we should at least try to adhere to the guidelines we've established. While it's not popular to refuse to list an empty directory, I feel it's more important to be sure that the directories you do list add to the overall quality of your index and not degrade it. How much value does it add to your index by listing another web directory which has little more than a handful of listings for directories you've already included?
If you are looking for back links empty directories are what you want. If you can accept this then there is a good chance that the visitors to your directory, who are bound to be industry types, might just find lists of empty directories useful. I cant for the life of me fathom out why directory masters have to clog up their sites with, more often than not, free content. Is it just for appearances?
Quality = Unique and Premium and more. Unique makes your directory look different with others and a premium directory would do everything they could to help the site get PR, PS, SEPRs and more.
Well, this is funny, because it's taken me 6 months to get around to submitting my 3 main directories as featured to Aviva and all were accepted in July. Now they are all removed and refunded. I accept and even admire Jeff's decision to do this and it got me to look at this thread and realise I need to work harder adding content and editing more rigorously. It would have been nice to have a note explaining why the directories were being removed though, rather than just finding out from PayPal.
Because reviewing websites within a directory is an ongoing process. It's not just a matter of approving or rejecting a submission once. Once a website is listed, it must be re-checked periodically to make sure it's still in the most suitable category, that the link is still live, and that the owner hasn't changed it into something dodgy.
Hello... I just found this as another DP member suggested a site for directories list and i came across this http://www.quantawebdesign.com/tips/directory-quality.html I thought it might be helpful so i shared thx malcolm
So would you use the same criteria as a submitter would to judge the quality of a web directory when reviewing one that was submitted to any of your directories?
I have my own method to my madness i suppose when i submit or pay for a review.. Quality is in the eye off the beholder... Most of what was mentioned thier are things i take into consideration before even thinking about submitting or adding my sites to directories. The most important i think (to me) is the actual owner of the directory and what his plans are for it as once you get a feel for him/her then you know what to expect in the future... thx malcolm
I didn't think we were discussing how to judge the quality of a web directory from a submitters point of view, but rather what constitutes a quality directory from an editor or directory owners point of view.
That distinction has to depend on why your visitors might be browsing the directory categories. In practice, many will be looking there in order to find places to submit, rather than to find an even more detailed resource for researching a topic.
Why should they be different? A directory is an archive. It is a resource. When its launched it is empty. Month by month it grows and the only factor that it can realistically be judged on is the owner. You cant judge it on content if there is no content. And you cant trash it before its had a chance to get started. So what else is there to judge a "quality" directory by?
The owners track record. What else can any directory be judged on? Quality of content? Sure but it takes more time than its worth to sift though the listings and no one has that time to waste. I can point you to an Authority site that accepts paid submissions for MFA sites. Does that discredit the owner and make a mockery of the list of Strongest Sites?
Who said it had to be this instant in time? It takes Time, Money, and someone devoted to what his/her Web Directory Resource will achieve on the web... Whos to say that tomorrow i or someone wont be showing "videos" or the "breaking news" or something thats totally Kool (yet relavant ) and of the wall threw out those designated categories? Why must a directory have boundries and time limits? I guess for me a Quality Web Directory has to be judged for how unique it is, as well as the creators motive for creating it. thx malcolm
If you're referring to Page Strength I'm not sure that a high score equates to quality, nor was it meant to. Spam some .gov and .edu blogs, trade some social bookmarks, add your link to wikipedia and up goes the score. I'd rather judge a directory (or any site) by what it is rather than what it could be. Having potential and realizing that potential are not the same. Have you ever rejected a site because it lacked content?