Duty-bound, I have often had to submit the sites I created to web directories. To do this, I used the addurl.nu base of directories. But it became out-of-date. Many of its directories had lost their PRs, and others are just down. A month ago I placed emphasis on this subject and developed my own directory of directories site - Great Directories (www.GreatDirectories.org) This site stores the best (to my and my colleagues' opinion) web directories in the Internet. All the directories there have PR 5 or higher. Guess, this recourse will be very usefull for each of You. P.S. You may also add Your directories there (on condition that they have PR starting from 5).
Looks nice but I am not a fan of limiting via PR, these days there are plenty of good directories with lower than PR5. Since gooogle is using PR penalties at their whim to punish webmasters I see a site like this strengthening that position.
Pipes, I agree with You. I don't intend to collect as many directories as possible. Quality (not quantity) is of prior importance. GreatDirectories.org is aimed to introduce only the high-quality directories with high PR. This directory implies that visitors will manually register their sites in the directories, introduced on GreatDirectories.org. I don't think that some people will want to submit their sites manually, in thousands of directories with low PR. Though, I judge by myself, and, maybe there are people who admit registration in PR0 directories.
Well, IMO, your perception of 'great' directories is completely wrong. A major example if Mikey's highly promoted, well respected Zorg Links directory, which is PR0 (evidently manually edited to PR0, nonetheless). Yes, it's a bid directory and not a standard link directory, but it sure does have much more to offer to visitors (and link submitters) than both the Jayde and Google directories. I would of thought in your research you would of noticed that the Google directory is a clone of the Dmoz directory. Where's the greatness in that? Constructive criticism - always works
Good going for quality over quantity, its your freedom to gather them and rate as you wish, i respect that. I submit my sites, manually, in thousands of directories, also i receive submissions to my PR0 directory. Its completely up to you MGwebmaster, some people still seek pr and if you can supply a list for them thats cool.
Such self-confident people like You have always been amazing me... Spider-Man, please answer me, why zorg-directory.com is better than Jaygle, or even more so - Google? I agree that Zorg is done perfectly, being quite usable. But who will regard this site as a dase of useful resources? Do the visitors search sites on its pages? - I am affraid, no. And now think of how many people use Google Directory or DMOZ.org as a "storehouse" of high-quality resources? - a lot of them. Google directory has its own domain and location. Yes, they contain the same base of websites, but the directories are different, that's why Google is an individual directory. The fact that its content isn't unique is being taken into account and that's why it comes 6 in the rating and is inferior to Yahoo and business.com. Before we made this list of the best directories, we had analysed a number of factors that determine utility of directories. You may look through them on our website. Nevertheless, I agree that many good web directories have PR lower than 5. Dear friends, let's think, why do visitors (not directory owners) need thousands of directories in the Internet.? Firstly, they need carefully collected, high-quality sites; secondly, they need links to their sites from the directories to increase PR of their sites. In the first case the directories must be very popular and frequently visited. They are often free directories. In the second case the directories must have high PR of home page and inner ones. In addition to that, the more pages are indexed by search engines, the better. The number of links on every page must be stricktly limited (up to 10) that's why many of this directories are paid. Paid listings are natural "stops" of links in the directories. GreatDirectories.org will always introduce free listing for high-quality directories with high PR. Maybe we will introduce paid submission of directories with lower PR (because not all of Great directories have PR5 or higher, for example, like jayde). But it will happen only when the PR of GreatDirectories increases.
HaHaHa. I was going to make that point, but decided, if my original point never quite reached home, there was no point continuing
I applaud your efforts for trying to identify those directories that are indeed quality sites. If you limit your sole criteria to PR; I suspect you will in time spend more time tracking who has and has not received a manual penalty and removing the listings of new directories that tried to capitalize on the PR of whatever site previously was hosted on that domain. I am disappointed that your efforts will only serve to further promote a lot of what's wrong with directories by making them all about one company's grading of sites rather than what truly makes any site, be it directory or not, truly worthy of being classified as "quality".
PR isn't a sole criteria for great directories. Except SEO, it is also judged by: -public opinion, authority and popularity of directory -moderation quality, correspondence of registered sites with choosen categories - directory age and history - domain name and a whole site evaluation Most (though not all) of great directories naturally have high PR - it goes without saying. And, again, You should keep in mind that it will be very hard to explain to a site' owner who's gonna submit his site to Your directory, that Your directory is qualitative (it just has low PR and is badly visited - the visitors are mostly those who want to submit their sites here). First of all, the visitors are interested either in high frequency of Your directory, or its PR. I know that sounds too candidly, but it's true.
- Glad to hear it - The majority of webmasters no longer think the Dmoz is great. - According to whom? - There are many old directories which are terrible, on the other hand, there are many newer directories that have high editorial standards and an overall aurora. - Dmoz? dir.Yahoo? Where's the rhetoric in that? Still, I feel there are a few more ethics you need to assess for your 'great directories' list, however, I do believe you're on the right road. Or there abouts.
I agree, but if these new directories will have high frequency index and contain useful links, classified into categories - people will notice and appreciate them sooner or later. Their PR will increase naturally. And time gives the best verification. By the way, see what the people who want submit their sites are looking for: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=790651 This proves what I have mentioned before.
Good discussion. Anyways, hi MGwebmaster, I have submitted one PR6 Directory under your approval. http://www.dirfly.com Thanks a lot. Cheers
i don't want to get listed in a directory thats based on pagerank. It will only send me visitors for buying pagerank... i will get a lott of spamsites etc... no thanks, i'm working on content
read #16 opinion in this post. PR is not always an evidence of "artificial" SEO of sites ( including directories). PR also serves as popularity and quality index of a resource. It is of grate importance in case of web directories. Spam sites are being submitted not only to the directories with high PR. Most of the directories with automatic site sibmission (AllSubmitter) - have low PR.
yes, i have read it There are better ways to find quality directories... Make strong rules, not only based on PR something like : -your directory needs to be at least one year old -no gambling and adult links -unique content -etc etc etc using only PR as resourse is fun - nobody beleaves in pr anymore sorry for broken english