How does Directory Rate work?

I think the current order of the Arts category is based on facts. Those facts are based on quantitative and reproduce-able numbers. The problem with those numbers is that they do not effectively represent the quality of a directory; they represent the number of indexed pages, listings, and other measurable factors.

I think wayner has built a useful resource even if I think his rating system is a bit short-sighted when it comes to evaluating smaller, niche sites up against massive general directories. The information/statistics that truly represent the value of a directory are tightly held secrets by directory owners and without those numbers any numerical based evaluation is going to be inaccurate. The conversion rate (click throughs to listings vs submitters) for my arts directory could easily compete and probably surpasses many of the 'higher rated' directories on his list. But again, that is information wayner, or anyone else for that matter, could not consistently and reliably get for their calculations.

A formulaic approach to measuring the quality of websites will always be flawed but as long as that approach is applied fairly one is really no better or worse than another.

I can't speak for anyone else here but the conversation of what makes a quality and useful directory is one that always will have merit. I don't know Jamie's intentions with this particular focus on Directory Rate but I think that any site that ranks others should provide at least some information regarding their ranking process.

 

how often is DR updated ?

 

My intentions are to establish what accuracy 'If any' can be given to the so called algorithm claimed to be used.

Motive? People are naive, they think sites like this are genuine representations of a directories capabilities when clearly they are not. If I'm proved wrong I'll make a point of letting you all know, at this moment in time the evidence is overwhelming that no real algorithm is used and the allotted numbers (DR status) is nothing short of farcical and misleading to people who might visit this site and get misled into wasting money submitting to directories with an overinflated rating.

As for it being a useful resource YMC, if its accurate its useful, I genuinely want it to be but fear it isn't.

 

I think some of the usefulness of sites like Directory Rate and Directory Critic is as a feedback mechanism. Some people might be happier leaving comments anonymously on these sites, rather than emailing directory owners directly, especially if they have negative feedback to leave.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Jamie: I also think it has to be accurate. At the moment I make space on some of my confirmation emails to mention these directory resources, but if another comes along that I believe is fairer then I won't take long in switching.

 

Good points Oblelia, the only concerns I have with sites like this, (and it isn't a selfish concern) is that many naive people would or might get misled into paying good money to submit to a directory with this so called 'Rating' when in reality the rating has little or no basis.

I've not posted my findings deliberately as yet because this isn't a personal vendetta or anything like that against wayner, whoever he/she is, this is about the ethic of misleading people with fake or poorly formulated algorithms.

I've established beyond a doubt they don't take many things into account and am convinced what they are basing their ratings on, a little more testing and I'll be in the position to post my findings either publicly or perhaps via p.m to those interested.

 

JamieG: If it's a fake algorithm I would say you have a point and I would like to learn about it too.. But it's difficult to define 'poorly formulated algorithm'. Untill google came along everyone (almost) thought yahoo and altavista are doing a good job and have 'cool' algorithms to provide search results. They didn't change their algos much even after HITS and similar 'backlink reputation' related algorithms were published in research.

It's possible that they don't take many things in account but if they are missing out on basic factors like 'rejection' rate etc. then we should be concerned I would like to get your findings in PM

 

Excellent points, and the reason why I put in the word fake, was because we haven't definitively proven the exact 'algos' this site is using. I can prove what they DON'T take into account which is why I made sure of adding 'or poorly formulated' which is very easy to support.

I've already mentioned that DR doesn't take any SEO factors into account, or if they do they are not through the board with them. I'm not doing calculations using my fingers and toes to get to a conclusion, I'm using some of the industry's leading SEO software to help with this.

What I can say at the moment is that the results should not be viewed as fake, they should be viewed as flawed and unreliable. I think that would be the fairest comment one could make.

 

i think that if you are willing to do that will should do this and for other similar sites too.In that way wont be like you are have something against anyone.And of course you have to anounce your results public why to pm them?

 

There is some definate formula of calculating pr. But we need good mathematecian.
Simple method i can say, more higher the pr website linking you, the higher the pr you will get.

 

I don't' have anything against them or their owner except for their worth, validity and accuracy. I probably will announce the findings as the owner doesn't seem too bothered.

 

Hello....

Well whether his formula "algo" works or not the site manages to send us over 2000+ visitors monthly
which im sure some turn into sales so all i can say is .... Keep up the good work

thx
malcolm

 

Well said, what i would like to see is rather than those people who criticize, unknown in part or in full factors, is that instead develop their own system but do it better.

It is very easy to complain of another and not to do it yourself.

I also find any report on what or might not be fruitless ( but if people have the time thats their choice ). The reason why it is fruitless is you are commenting on an ever changing system.

For those that have build rating systems they would know and understand basic rules when doing so and that is that when you make changes ( if done right ) that you only make one change at a time and even then it is very small on purpose, this change must then be studied to see if the outcome from it was correct / or enhanced the result, if so you then can make another small change if not that one small change is then reverted back and another small change is made. this process alone for one thing / or element can take several months for a true picture to emerge.

With that any top level ratings system can take years of tweaking and is why I say any report only could hope to try and look at where this is at and probably with no understanding of where the changes currently and or whats going to change moving forward in effect making the report null and void.

I say this with full experience in that for over 4 years i developed a horse racing system, slightly adjusting it each few weeks one point at a time, for the first 4 years i had every know it all telling me i knew nothing, was wrong and i had no idea.

The system has now been sold ( for undisclosed $ of which i still have an interest ) it was bought out by a national company, the system / tips are being placed into most hotels and clubs across the country and now smacks everything in its path consistently giving higher payouts more often. And if only i had listened to every one telling me i was wrong.

also i think as suggested as mentioned the site offers great service and has continued to show a well presented site for a long while and this whole rating thing is being overplayed rather than just enjoying it for what it is.

 

I do have the time, and yes the choice is mine. Up until now I've not had interest at creating a system that is better but its an idea and wouldn't be hard to do, it would also be transparent so people could see honest accuracy, and at least it would start off based on lessons learned from mistakes made by others which is how evolution works.

@Malcolm; Good on you if your getting that level of visitor from there, I can tell you with certainty that 5 sites we've slipped in there haven't had any more than a dozen between them. No complaints though as its a free resource so visitors would have been seen as a bonus to me not an essential.

If I'd paid to be rated, then.....

 

Hello...

No i ment that the "Banner Ad" i have at his site sends me that traffic

And to be honest i had made a mistake as i didnt take the inner pages into consideration
that send referrals also.... so Bump that up to 3000 monthly visitors

thx
malcolm

 

As I said, great for you and I don't question you when you say.

I did notice that you weren't given a rating? Whys that? Don't you have a 'DR'?

 

Nope i opted out

Actually i dont know what makes his algo work but as long as they are listed in the proper category and send us traffic then could care less

Im not arguing with ya jamie as i know your on a mission but just saying that its much like "PR" ....

A metric that neither helps nor hurts our company

I think we both know what quality is and whats NOT and dont rely on "third party tools" to make our submission decisions

thx
malcolm

 

I agree with lots of what you say but not this point which is exactly why I am doing this. People are actually naive enough, (I won't ever call people stupid for the sake of it) to submit to something they THINK is good simply because they don't know any better. Its this fact alone that will keep me on this mission if you want to use that word.

I'm wondering though Malcolm, what your view might have been if you actually got a bog standard so called rating and was thrown into the thousands of sites there that actually DON'T get traffic. I'm confident you wouldn't be so happy then.

Also the fact for all the hard work you've clearly put into a site whether it be the SEO side of it or design alone, for this to go unrecognised is nothing short of an insult.

People just can't see the wood for the trees in my reasoning's, hopefully at the end of this they will.

 

I have created my own rating site (The Bid Rater) specifically for Bidding Directories, you can view the thread here. My ratings systems is designed to help people make an informed decision about what bidding directories to buy a link on. Some provide good value for money, others do not. I have included Google PageRank in my algorithm as it does play an important part, but inbound link count also plays an important part (again this is partly what Google tries to do with PR). I have only listed my sites for the moment and believe the ratings represent a fair assesment of each site. Unlike most other ratings sytems however, mine has no limit (i.e. 1 to 10 or 1 to 100) and just for kicks I did a rating for www.google.com and got a rating of 18,697,328.

Comments/Submissions welcome.

Matt.

 

I won't go into my opinion in bidding directories as its your thread and I have no plans to destroy it but must ask a question or two. Which bidding directories do you really think offer any value to the customer and why?