its a wonder these people even know what a blog is I am willing to bet most have advertising (adsense) etc on thier site,( making money) a blogroll,( sponsor list or advertising other sites) etc they just don't know how to monopolize it to make money like a directory does
the way alot of the people percieved what a directory is or or does,like not knowing that the number means subcategories, and say its misreprentation I get traffic from search engines as well as other businesses, to me a directory helps to gain pr traffic or whatever but not always is it the main focus of a business but an extention of it for instance say you have a health site so you make a directory to list other health sites both are giving people what they want which is health info and if you got a general site with all kinds of info then yes you should have a general directory
Does the guy writing the article even know anything about directories? The fact being that the "13" implies 13 sub-categories not links. Only quality sites will pay for submissions and the garbage site will use free directories and turn them into huge resource sucking pigs with zero value. Directories that retain quality sites and good descriptions will grow and flourish. Seems more like the guy was venting versus making any worth while statement.
You're pointing out the reasons most people on DP run directories. They see someone is making money with them and they want a piece of the action. Many here run directories for other reasons. Sure, a profit is always nice, but there are many good directories put together by people who have knowledge in certain areas and decide to put a niche directory together where they can actually do a better job than Google when it comes to providing endusers with quality results.
This post more than any of the others exemplifies what is wrong with directories and perhaps why some of the big ones are getting some sort of something from Google right now. A directory, as you describe, is nothing more than a link farm. You make no mention of value other than perhaps that the owner is able to make some money. IMO, a "good directory" is one that provides value for the sites listed in being able to attract visitors other than submitters. Otherwise the directory only exists for getting backlinks and the folly of chasing PR. So many of the sites that are touted around here as being 'good directories' have a significantly higher percentage of submitters and prospective submitters than they do visitors using the site as a resource. 99+% of my daily traffic is non-submitters - how many of the highly touted 'good directories' here can say that? PR and the ability to garner high prices for links does not make a quality directory. It only reflects a willingness of the directory owner to spend money to get links from other high PR sites or to buy out so many signature links as to get tens of thousands of backlinks. Isn't it past time to drop the charade of charging for 'reviews' when it is obvious it has always been about links and PR for many of the paid directory owners. Did those of you who did this think it would actually fool anyone, least of all Google? It would appear that Google is seriously considering on dropping PR completely. How many of these "good directories" can survive that? Those of us who did not join the PR race and instead created a directory that actually does provide traffic to the listed sites and could easily survive without PR are now going to have to overcome all the bad press that the PR chasers have brought down on us all.
Well i have to agree with popo's theory to an extent that an empty directory shares "no value" as without the content its really nothing more then a shell and some categories. In the end it takes "time and effort" on the owners part as to build that directories content with help from those choosing your directory. thx M1
Thanks Malcolm for understanding. Also a point to this is when someone submits a site for a review or inclusion in your directories it is nice to see that even if its a new site with enough quality content it mixes with quality sites. Example: You go to a party in the white house knowing that even though you are not that rich they have accepted you to that party because of whatever quality you have. Example of a Listing Mix with Quality Sites . See it is good that a site is mixed with some good ones. Just an example don't carry it beyond please.
To the question, submitting to free directories is fine. I do it routinely, but I have have to ask just how much this helps with Serps and traffic. If these directories aren't expending some resources themselves, how well are they placing in the Serps and how much traffic are they receiving that could be passed on. If Google does eventually drop PR or at least the TBPR that's fine. The problem I see up to this point is Google created the monster and told us how to tame it explaining the importance of back links, submitting to directories, content etc for PR and Serp. Now the same people that simply followed that advice are being criticised. It seems to me that people learned how to take advantage of Google's own rules and now they( Google) decided to change those rules. The thing that isn't so apperant is the ripple effect this is having. It's not only the directory industry but many others being affected like SEO companies that routinely submitted client websites to directories (per Google's advice) , companies that provide PR and serp feedback for web masters and on and on. If and it's a big if, Google is taking a different view now it's just a matter of adjusting to the new rules until they are changed again. In the mean time don't worry just: Eat Well, Drink Premium and Dance Like You're Naked
A lot of web marketers don't seem to have an eye for value and use PR or PS alone to determine that. When you look at your own directory, put yourself into the shoes of potential enduser and search for something and find useful sites, that's when you know your directory is more than a linkfarm. Empty categories can happen if we're talking about subcategories like "woodcarvers in Belize". Generally speaking I would avoid having any. Mistake number 1: Directory owners downloading someone else's free category file in order to make their work even easier. So much for unique content ... I disagree, Google stated "relevant directories" and I'm sure had they forseen the "Directory Gold Rush" (hmm, sounds like a good name for a domain), they may have phrased the statement on their webmasters page a little different. I do agree with that though .... Mike
True, but what's relevant to a directory? By the very nature of most directory category structures can't they be considered relevant to lots of things? If I have a link let's say to a PHP script site, isn't that relevant since I have a category for scripts, computers, programming, software ect. Now if I have the same link pointing to my ecommerce site (gift shop) I wouldn't consider that to be relevant. It's like you said, Google's description of relevant leave lots of room for interpretation.
I've tried to find the original webmaster guidelines and couldn't. This seems to be new: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769 This sounds to me like an encouragement to create linkbait rather than buy them. Very vaguely put of course.
I'm not going to comment on a lot that has been said here. I will just say this. The blog directory is a very new addition. Over time, it will get listings and the plan is for it to become a very good resource for blogs.
A 'quality' directory should have sitewide PR that is almost that of the homepage (signifies age). The good directories are the ones that show up top in google search for web directories Oh and the ones google counts as links