Is this an 'Authority Directory'

According to http://www.avivadirectory.com/downloadblog/?p=298 any directory with site links in google search results is an authority directory as Google only lists inner pages in top search result for authority sites.

My question is, I came across www.vikingdirectory.com and while searching on google for 'viking directory' gave me site links in their search results. Is this an authority directory? Should I submit my website there?

If this is not a good way of finding authority directories then what is?

Any help will be highly appreciated.

 

Translating Google's definition of an "authority site" to mean an "authority directory", at least in my mind, is unreliable.

From what I understand becoming an authority site on Google has to do with backlinks.

A really crummy directory could still get/buy/trade/steal tons of great backlinks.

The truth is, there is no shortcut to determining a directory you should be submitting to. You really need to review each directory to ensure they are at a minimum maintaining categorization and not accepting anything and everything.

 

Site links have nothing to do with an authority directory, a term rather outdated and never confirmable.

 

Don't worry about 'authority directories' and 'strong directories' they're just advertising labels which can't be measured. Look closely for editorial integrity, cached pages and a directory which belongs to it's owner and not the submitters.

 

Is it worth it to spend $299 to join the yahoo directory?

 

dont waste time for yahoo directory , its worth 299$ , i think Dmoz is best option it give value to your site , yet its hard to get in Dmoz but it worth your time , people saying directory submission is risky after update but according it still helpfull to increase your DA and PA

 

Directory submission is as healthy as it was before and the concern should not only be of the authority site but there are so many other things to see.

 

First off. The thread you point to is 6 years old. What was true then, or even suggested, certainly isn't today.

No - site links are not an indicator of authority. Back then it was rare for a site to have them, so if a site did have them it was considered "more special" than a site that didn't, and a "hint" that the site was authoritative.

Viking isn't what I would call an authoritative directory. Generally if you need to ask if a directory is authoritative then it isn't. A directory is an authority when it becomes "household name". It shouldn't need to tell you that it is, because everyone already knows it is.

Several factors would generally contribute to this "authority". YMC has mentioned "backlinks". Naturally if a directory is well thought of then it will boast a high number of links. This in turn would also give it a high or solid PR. The reason both of these are crummy to use as indicators is because they can both be faked.

Age is another factor to consider. Age of the directory NOT the domain. If something has been around a long time, again it is generally known and therefore has some authority on what it represents.

e.g. Sir Alex Ferguson would be considered an authority on soccer (football). He was the manager of Man U for 27 years. The coach of your son's under 8's team ISN'T an authority on soccer. He may have coached for 10-20 years, he may be highly regarded by the local community, and have a great knowlege of soccer, but he still isn't an authority.

That's the difference.