The Biggest Problem with Directories?

I think the problem is the business model. Most of the directories promoted in DP are oriented towards the webmaster NOT real users looking for resources. Take a quick peek at this directory site - simply amazing. Its authorative, its free, its well done.

front page:
http://www.freeindex.co.uk/

detail page:
http://www.freeindex.co.uk/profile(The-Silk-Road-Turkish-Mediterranean-Restaurant)_1763.htm

 

To All--

everybody has their own views to share --isn't?
@banless-
Yup mate- you are right- our industry is different from other niches --

@ popotalk/ mikey/CReed

I am not saying that I am against adding sites personally. What I am saying is that -too much too soon might not go down too well with G bots (banless-sorry mate- I've to disagree with you here- our industry is too much dependent on Google - whether people accept it or not-).

One can always add sites they come across while browsing the net. It would be natual that one would want to share a good sites with others.

What my point is- one should think twice before filling up all categories with many sites that would look to increase the quality artificially. Gradual and natural development should be the way.

We must hold patience-- a lot of that.

CReed- I won't dispute your point that -many many sites on botw/yahoo have been editorial additions. But they are online more than 10 years.

I don't want to catch them/compete with them in 10 months. - Thats my point-
Just my .02 paisa

 

In my coming directory I have taken three steps to stop this problem.
1. Not have a directory category, or at least severely limit it
2. No featured links anywhere on the directory
3. Admin (me) picks the deep links, submitter can't enter deep links.

 

So are you willing to be just as lenient with other web sites? If a site has 8 out of 10 pages under construction/no content are you willing to list it based on the potential of the site as opposed to what it offers here and now?

I do support many directory owners in a variety of ways, some publicly, more so privately. It makes me feel good when I see others succeed and I hate to see someone fail. I doubt you'll find me kicking you if you're down - we could all do better by offering a hand instead of constantly kicking someone. If anyone really has a problem with someone, act like a professional and take it up with them.

Yes, it's time others got out of the swimming pool.

Yes, and from reviewing their indexes, it appears that they primarily target other directory owners.

 

Im for letting categories fill naturally too, i just prefer it that way.

 

A. because you make more money
B. because it is easier

Both are terrible reasons

 

A. I wish i currently did make more money.
B. I dont find it easier, but for me i just want my directories to gradually populate from submissions.

I see nothing wrong with people using a mixture of submissions and their own chosen additions, its just not my choice though.

 

We made a decision a short while back to eliminate the deeplinks option from the submission form and have removed the Featured Listing option and the meta description/keywords tags options as well.

Editorial additions of Interesting Pages will continue as in the past.

It just doesn't fit well and was causing both myself and submitters problems that have been easily eliminated.

I've no problems with someone else's business model; it just doesn't work for me as I do not see the majority of categories becoming a useful resource without a proactive editor.

 

I totally respect your approach and opinion.

 

I have decided to follow the same path here due to what I have been researching during last couple of weeks.

But hey- everybody has his/her own mind. So I have no problem with those respected directory owners who think they have different approach.

Infact, I might also add a site or two now and then when I come accross a god site. But I won't just add them for the sake of filling up my categories.

 

Absolutely, the choice is there, the different approaches are there and that can add to variety accross the board, with different owners doing different things with theirs it keeps the directories unique.

 

If the comment in seomoz made you think that it is not good to add quality websites than you didn't get his point. He meant that directories add few authority websites here and there to hide the fact that they are selling links.
The best content you can add to a directory is relevent and useful listings.

 

There are a lot of things wrong with this directory industry. I doubt the reason you stated is the "Biggest" problem. But again, what you say are just views and opinions.

1. Low quality directories
2. Too many general directories springing up
3. People claiming to only own 1 directory but have other alias's and henchman to build 20+ directories
4. Bidding directories clearly violating selling paid links
5. To little custom directories. All seem to be running a CMS system.

 

Are you sure? May be I don't understand English properly!

Here I go again-

What I understood is- to add links in order to impress the submitters is what he is talking about. -- though I don't think Jude, CReed and others are doing it for that. They are doing it to provide greater value to normal visitors/surfers --not to impress webmasters for more submissions.

 

And how can one tell one from the other?

 

I'm sure there are better ways to try and impress a submitter, and from reading around here, filling up a category with useful sites is not the way to go as it seems some would rather be the only listing in a category.

I like adding listings to categories that I have an interest in or a topic that I have some passion for and many of these categories aren't really of interest to other webmasters so I just don't see how I would have a useful category there otherwise.

 

Correct but few people work well together. Its impractical and seldom successful. Why can a directory master not specialise in a niche and offer to review sites in the "other" categories? There is nothing wrong with that as long as they exercise "editorial integrity". In fact they are doing Google a favour. What is the difference?

Normal visitors/surfers using ninety nine percent of directories will be webmasters looking for back links. Recognise it and accept it. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of honesty. Whereas there is an awful lot of wrong with trying to pretend otherwise and that's what gets up Google's nose. Secondly and its been said many times before, they have no problem with you charging for the time it takes you to review a site

Directories will always be work in progress. A site is complete after install, zero links and with every category empty. Why not approve it and leave judgement until you review the listings. That is if you do review your listings.

 

I'd think they are better off sticking with their niche. Why spread out to encompass other categories more general in nature unless they're just selling links?

If it's not a stand alone directory and is attached to a niche site, I'll guess it's probably best off covering the related niche instead of spreading itself too thin. Kinda dilutes the whole effort, wouldn't you say?

 

No it makes no difference. Why dilute? Google's spider is non-judgemental. Its also not practical to work for nothing. This is the mistake Dmoz made. Not everyone has an independent source of income. Some would also like to fire their boss. Why should they not sell the services they are offering to help them cover the cost of the time it takes to build the resource they are working on? There is a difference between selling links and selling the time it takes to review a site. Google recognises this. Why cant we?

 

Functional at best, but complete?

Sure it does. Relevancy.

If you want to be a general directory, be one. On your own domain. If you're going to insist on making a directory in a sub-folder of a niche site, I'd definitely stick to the niche. Unless you're just selling links, which seems to be the motivation here?