I have been thinking and wondering this question, but not just directories but link building in general. So, If I decide to create a website full of unique content with thousands of pages of useful information, but with zero sites linking to my site, Would I get traffic from search engines or is link building is MUST for traffic?
I have this blog based on blogspot which now ranks high in Google for the exact keyword I have been promoting through free directories only. The keyword is not competitive at all, so I think directory submissions work well. If your keyword is competitive, I tend to think free directory submissions give you little result. On the other hand, I have many sites that I have been promoting via same free directories, and they don't seem to get much benefit. I did notice the ranks of them got higher though, but it's way slower.
It's always interesting when some self proclaimed 'guru' comes along stating that directories offer no worth whatsoever, invariably their text is the same if not semantically manipulated to read slightly differently. I was almost agreeing with the post, (I still do with many of the points), until the author started mentioning PR and paying attention to Alexa to 'gauge' where the directory may stand. You should never reference the web's two most fundamentally flawed gauges to support your theory of a directory and where it stands, surely any good SEO 'expert' would know this by now? Is this hostility toward directories because a PR chasing campaign failed? It certainly has this undertone to it? I didn't like the promotion of the tools either, one to a limited demo that offers just enough of the eye candy to tempt you into buying the full version (I almost was!). And the firefox tool which the Author omitted to tell you is still under development and still has some issues it needs to deal with. (Judging by his site he relies heavily on advertising just about anything he can!) Perhaps this was an elaborate and well thought out link bait for the software? Or perhaps it's just the cynic in me that saw this? I'm going to err on the 'benefit of the doubt' and go with the failed PR chase which has lowered the Authors faith in directories for the time being. In a nutshell, Mr. Wallace certainly hits the nail on the head with many good points and facts but letting itself down with the above mentioned, but if you read it carefully it does sound as if a whole lot of PR chasing was going on here as there was so much emphasis on 'link juice'. Remembering of course this is one man's experience, (a bad one by the sound of it), I'm going to play down the doom and gloom portrayed, and urge people to stand up to the challenge of proving this kind of theory wrong. Directories CAN be of value, it is down to the owners to make sure of this.
I think directories are still very important part of SEO. I submit my sites to (paid) directories regularly but before submitting I look for certain things -- 1. Was directory homepage cached in last One month. 2. Does directory has over 1000 indexed pages in google and yahoo. 3. Directory has no site-wide links. 4. Do they rank for their domain name in google. If directory meets above mentioned points, I usually submit.
I have to agree with JamieG on this one. I too thought there was some good points in the article - and I would have been more inclined to go with the author's appraisal if PR wasn't mentioned as a critical value to him. As soon as I saw that, I could see the actual intended audience of the article. I also noticed that what he was trying to get out of directories, and what directories (specifically the ones he refers to) actually offer, can be totally different. I don't think that anyone would disagree that the SEO value that directories offer has diminished from what it used to be, because in the past they were far too influential on rankings. They are still useful, they just aren't as influential on rankings as they used to be. I still have sites who rank for nothing more than directory submissions. The author's points about mass submitting should be heeded though... Engaging in that sort of behaviour is always going to be hit and miss. Everything in moderation It's the same as mass-keywording a site, or engaging in any other SEO activity to an extreme. It will do more harm than good. So the key point he was making in the article, IMO, was to pick a good selection of directories and submit to those, rather than just submitting to every single one you come across without doing a bit of research first. I believe the directories he is questioning the value of in the article are at the high end of town. He references business.com, and the price you pay for that listing probably is exorbitant unless you are getting something else besides "just a link/listing". You can submit to free directories to gain a listing, so what is it about that business.com listing that offers greater value for that large price outlay (obviously the review fee counts as part of it). You could easily spend ~$500 on about 5-10 paid directory listings, but unless they are giving you something more than just a link/listing why would you bother?
I agree that if the author is chasing page rank juice he should not bother with directories. I don't think they ever passed on that much anyways....if this author is only (or mostly) chasing page rank he is none too bright anyways. I completely agree with that statement, it is all about value. Say i get a link cached by gooogle/yahoo/msn and 20 traffic a year from a one-time review fee of $5 - great deal in my books
I have to disagree with number 3 even with nofollow attribute it still counts as a backlink and therefore link popularity it simply does`nt pass on any pr
Without a doubt, link building with directories is a good thing. But then again, if you do this for 90% of your links which i can imagine some people doing, it isn´t going to get you anywhere fast.
BTW: Who is this David Wallace? ohhh, he's talking about certain directories. Yeah, I agree that certain directories are not valuable at all, but generally - 1. No Traffic? Directories still send traffic. 2. No Substance? If you are looking for thousands of articles in directories then you are....&*&&^. What substance do you expect in directories? Articles? Go to article directories. News, Events? Go to online newspapers. Generally directories are human edited categorically arranged list of websites. 3. Not indexed? Still most of the directories are well indexed, except a few certain ones. 4. Low PageRank? Who cares? You are getting a dofollow backlink & traffic, isn't that enough?
That was a well written article, thanks for sharing. He's right. Most general directories don't offer much value at all. A niche directory with lots of listings and excellent additional quality would provide good value for submitters and browsers, providing the quality of sites listed was high.
Position on the page is very important. PR is not divided up equally between all links on a page in my experience.
I'll have to agree with most of you about his article. Is not it because of those kind of SEOs, who only know flow of link juice - and thus manipulate search engine results - have been abusing directories to get more name and clients? Its for so-called, self proclaimed SEO experts ( or link -juice chaser) that Google is devaluing not only directory links, but also blog links, donation page links and sooooo oooon. Its true, most directory owners (including myself) - marketed our directories on the basis of PR. But that day is well and truly over. Nowadays, a quality directory should be the one -which is one year old with good amount of listings which is naturally its content- whose homepage gets indexed frequently (ideally my cut-off time is 7 days), category that you are submitting to is indexed irrespective of its PR. Just few mins back I found a PR0 quality/old directory with inner-pages PR0 too. I was trying to submit a featured link as I want to optimize a keyword with PR0 directories only. But unfortunately, the directory didn't let me use the keyword and so I didn't submit. As - I can see it, I like some of his points - but I reckon he is doing some viral act to promote those 2 products at the expense of others.
Nobody said it wasn't a well written article Mikey, I thought it was fine, the problem was it was doomed to be put down as 'just another repeat of a discontented seo guy who never got what he thought he would out of the PR game' and then decided to slate the entire directory industry. He lost any credibility when mentioning PR and Alexa as gauges for a directories merits. Any self respecting SEO expert would not dream of using PR and definitely not Alexa as examples, they're about as flawed as the voting system in Uganda!
ok maybe is well writen but we all know that reasons that add value to the directories and most of the directories that we promote here in DP have those basics requirements so he should start with what add value to a directory and not with certains directories (i believe he is talking about those free spammy directories that promise with 15$ get 1000 inclusions)so if he thought from the begining that this method would ever have some value is not a seo guru but just a GURU
Oh, really? I would say that most of the directories promoted at DP are utter crap. And he was not talking about adding value to a directory but adding value to sites listed in a directory.
yes sorry for my bad english i mean to add value to the sites that are listed as far for ur opinion about the directories promoting in DP i allready know your opinion before and i respect it,but from my point of view directories are one if not say the best way to improve ur serps, but you have to admit that most of them have the requirements he have mention in bold letters
I agree on both points minstrel, most directories promoted here are 'crap' and yes the author was talking about adding 'value to listings' but where the author fell short was the type of 'value' he was referring to.
Who is David Wallace to afirm such stupid things i say his article is BS Links count aand dirs are a great way to get links