I think it is time for directory owners, particularly multiple directory owners, to really take a good look at the submission information that they are allowing into their directories. One of the main reasons a directory would be devalued (particularly in human eyes) is that they do not have a strong quality control when reviewing the submitted information into their directory. I provide a clear example of poor editing control. I believe that a directory owner that allows that much garbage through the net isn't interested in providing a quality resource for the community. The problem with the sites that are listed in that example, might not be the sites themselves, but may be the information that the directory owner has allowed to be supplied. That is the second site on that page. If you visit the site listed it looks like a legitimate shop, so there's no problems there, but the information they provided in their submission is a mess. It needs editing. Is it really necessary to allow 8 instances of the term Credit Card in a description? I think that is obvious keyword spam and any editor worth their salt should either be rejecting the submission outright or altering it heavily to improve it. There are far more sinister spam submissions on that page, but they are entirely obvious and I believe most directory owners would stop those bad sites from entering their system. The reason I wanted to talk about this is that I know there are some serious directory owners out there who want to take their directory to the next level, but simply don't know how to. I think if directory owners take the time to edit themselves internally, i.e. to go through and spring clean their entire listings, and ensure there are no editorial mishaps, they will improve their directories drastically. To try and encourage this to take place, I have begun a manual sweep through every directory that is listed on the General Free list on Info Vilesilencer. The results are listed here. I will be flagging for removal from the Info Vilesilencer lists any directories listed in that thread. I am doing this to give the directory owners who are currently exercising a strong editorial control reward for effort (by keeping them in the lists) and to also encourage those who are not currently editing strongly to take it up as the primary mechanism for keeping their directory strong. Forget that PR bulls--t and buying links - those days are done - your best weapon is your content. If the content is crap, all the PR and links in the world won't change that fact. Also, I want those directory owners listed in that thread to know that this is not a personal attack, and that I am not suggesting you have bad directories. I am providing an opinion based on experience and a lot of time spent reviewing directories on a day-to-day basis. Let's all address a clear problem that is rotting this industry and encourage each other to take steps to fix it. Any directories who clean up their listings will be quickly re-added to the lists along with a lot of praise from me
Good post, I enjoyed reading it and 99% of it made sense, although not sure how many will listen. I wouldn't worry about people taking it as a personal affront, those who do would probably guilty of neglecting their content in the first place. p.m'd you on my other thoughts.
You're right maybe many won't but those that do will improve their chances of longevity. People have asked me why I won't add their 100 directories to the list. They take it personally. What I've tried to impress upon them is that they could pool all their resources into 1 or 2 directories and make them absolutely brilliant, instead of having 100 mediocre directories. I also wanted to add that if anyone doesn't understand what I'm highlighting or wants assistance in identifying problems I will gladly help. This is not a negative process it's a positive step.
Sady Dan there are sadly very few OP of this quality anymore in DP in the Directory Category Great post and moreover your points are valid
A great post. I read a similar thread on your forum. Editorial integrity is a vital part of a directory, get it right and you'll at least have some good content for people to see.
I think the easiest way to do this is write your own descriptions from the start. You describe what you see on the site and not a keyword stuffed description. Some of the descriptions I get are poor to say the least and these are paid. One of the reasons so many directories have lost a lot of their power is because there are so many of these descriptions duplicated in googles index.
Actually even though that would be the best way its the hardest way. What I would suggest is to simply tidy up submitted descriptions and if they don't like it just refer them to my terms. We also make a point of following the good English practice which makes for easier reading.
if you think its too much work to write unique descriptions for your directory then dont expect google to do you any favours in its index Id expect that to tidy up descriptions would be as much hassle as rewriting based on what I have seen submitted I think anyone would follow the best English they could
I applaud your efforts on this Dan. You have been talking about doing something like this for quite a while and anyone paying the least bit of attention should have known it was coming sooner or later.
huh? no it isn't. Tidying up means that you at least give the submittor some level of input on their submission, after all it is their site. Your opinion as the directory owner may be far different from that of what the owner wants. You get paid for hassle, it's called a fee for review.
its a review of the site not a review of their description imo the description submitted is a guide to the sites content or focus and only that you give the submitter some level of input thats up to you I will make my own mind up about their site based on the review why would there be anything special in the description you couldnt find for yourself doing the site review? I think a stronger directory is one with unique descriptions not spun submitted descriptions
Silencer, (Dan?) is doing an excellent job, but remember people like Kev from the Cantufind Network advocated quality in directories from the get go, many years before silencer came along. It will take a concerted effort by more than one party to clean up the nonsense that is out there at the moment, putting the onus on one shoulder is asking a little too much.
I've been debating a few people recently on what actually constitutes a review. I disagree that it is just on the site itself. Which is why I also believe that a simple rejection of a clearly inappropriate site, also gives the directory editor/owner the option of a refund (partial or full) without opening them up to being labelled a paid link farm. I like to think of a review as being that of: - the submitted site itself - the submitted site's information - the category to which the site was submitted If you are creating new categories to better identify the topic of the site, or if you are moving the submitted site into a more appropriate category, I also call that part of the review. All that stuff takes time, and therefore part of the review-fee also needs to be apportioned to that time spent. It would take someone literally 10 seconds to use a search & remove filter, and then select all and remove the obvious inappropriate sites. Surely that isn't all that constitutes a review (when rejecting). So too, with accepting a site, I believe the site itself and you having a good long look at that site only represents part of the reviewing process. That's just my take on it. Yeah it's Dan. I have spoken to Kev on a number of occasions in the past and whilst we didn't see eye to eye a lot, I do respect the fact that he has been in the directory industry game for a long time (certainly longer than I have) and that he does have both unique insights into how things were back then, and how they should move forward now.
I think the important thing is that like-minded individuals should work together to better the directory industry as a whole as it's gone down the sewers over the past year or so. I have a feeling things are soon to change though, hopefully for the better.
Simply brilliant Dan. It has been more than one year that I have become a directory owner. And over time, I have gained some experience in the field. I have also studied lots of other highly reputed and old directories like - JoeAnt/botw/Business.com and tried to learn about editorial from them. Its true that not many directory owners won't like to follow the strict rules - for fear of loosing on submission review from webmasters and SEO firms. In reality, my experience says that SEO firms are very good submitter as they know what they are doing-- what is good and what is best. Its those who have no clear idea on how to optimize the anchor words that submit sites stuffed with keyword SPAMa like you mentioned and I agree with you that, its the duty of the directory owners/editors to correct that.
To put this all in perspective. The initial sweep of the "A", "B" and "C" alphabetical categories has yielded 25 obvious "badly edited" directories (either the submitted site information or lack of categorisation) out of the 87 directories listed. That's about 28%. I believe that once a second sweep is made with much closer scrutiny, that percentage will rise to around 50%. When I refer to lack of categorisation, what I am talking about is this example That directory has been around for a fair few years now, and has racked up 6700-odd listings in their recreation category. Because they have no subcategory structure, they are left with 673 pages of recreation listings, which are mixed with accommodation, automotive, travel, places of interest, pets and kids entertainment (just to name a few - I only looked at 2 pages). If someone were to close that directory for submissions, and then spend the time to rework the category structure and move the sites into their relevant locations, it would obviously increase the value.
Agreed that categories need to be added if not submitter are just wasting time submitting to that directory... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6519548&postcount=17 51. When You have categories that are 100 pages deep that not even christ will ever find let alone SE spiders thx malcolm