VOTE: Stop making new directories?

Directories submitted to other directories wo n't get any benefit

as there are too much directories competiting for same keyword in SE's

Directories are really helpful for non directory sites as it helps those sites to increase in SERPS

 

Ok, here's another take. If Google decides to devalue a directory, then that means they would have to devalue yahoo and their own directory.

Because if they don't devalue those 2 directories, then they should have a way of finding out what is supposed to be a good directory and what's not. And how are they supposed to know what directory will fail after a year and what will blossom into a "youtube/myspace/flickr" kind of directory?

They can't. So even if they did devalue 95% of the directories, there will still be people making directories because they are hoping or are confident that they will be one of the 5%.

 

Google would never devalue any of the "big dogs." Certain directories would be white-listed and maintain value.

Google doesn't care about a particular directory's "future potential." If a directory does happen to succeed and become the next (youtube/myspace/flickr), Google would simply white-list it at that time.

 

Would there be ways to figure out which directories are devalued?

 

www.wordsplurge.com/directory is a general directory which in time will get a special interest category and it will be used to develop skills and generate a small revenue for the library at our local school.

 

I presume that Google would determine it via a combination of domain age, existence of duplicate/similar content, and interlinking with other directories. Of course, nobody knows the exact algo.

 

I prefer to see more niche based directories.

 

We need to get away from stuff thats just wishful thinking and into the real world. I get the serp's I want using low quality links. Thats why I launch low quality directories and why I mentor low quality directory masters. I am only interested in serp's and long term value. Nothing else. Being one track minded there is nothing else to this, in my mind, other than huffing and puffing, smoke and mirrors.

Sure google recognises the value of governmental agencies, educational bodies and other recognised sources that add real value but do you honestly believe that they go to the trouble of micro managing this down to the point where they measure the value of my poxy low quality sites. I dont think so. My bet is that like most of us they know that directories are link farms, that you have got to work hard to make it and that if they pop a few bubbles now and again they will keep us all on our toes and that they will get us to move in the direction they want.

 

Google looks at considerably more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; for example, it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." Using these and other factors, Google provides its views on pages' relative importance.

Wishful thinking? That's the reality of it.

 

Its called Googlespeak and I still believe thats its wishful thinking on their part. Even more so on the part of directory masters with nothing to sell. Yes anchor text is important but to date I have yet to see any hard evidence that they have got past that one.

And the more low quality directories I can find that have long term value the happier I will be.

 

I feel directories should concentrate on a particular niche and then build it up slowly quality wise.

 

And that is why there is so much unmitigated crap on the net. Thanks for contributing.

 

I voted Yes. If everyone had a few directories this would be ok. I hate that a lot of people have dozens of directories.

 

To the contrary the unmitigated crap is the handiwork of PR and MFA artists who spend $$$ flooding the net with their "quality" high PR sites. I think its time that we got some real people behind the steering wheel so that we can start using the internet for the purpose it was intended to be used for.

 

I can't imagine what rule would stop people from creating a directory when they're in the mood.

 

Less rules, more incentives and people that dont shy away from change

 

new directories are fine, but don't just start it and let it go... One great directory is better than 20 of them that you can't take care of as good

 

Huh? I get decent traffic from some of those "quality" sites, and that is precisely what puts them in the category of being "quality" directories — they provide a tangible benefit.

 

It may be best your done on this issue to be honest Dubz, your post stating BigWebLinks.com being "arguably one of the best well know directories out there" made you look a bit silly. A directory with 733 links to its name is arguably the one of the best known? With WHO? You got to get real Dubz bigweblinks is only well known in a very small circle of people who to me are nothing short of PR chasers.

Next your going to tell us it deserves 'authority status' amongst directories?

Give a better example maybe?

 

I have voted for 3rd option.