A wasteland of dead links

"A wasteland of dead links". Those are not my words, but that's the impression my brother has of directories in general. He's not a SEO or directory owner, but does build websites. Specifically, he's fed up of finding tons of links pages through Google that point to defunct websites, on directories that may not have been updated in over 5 years.

If this is the impression that most people have of directories, then it spells trouble. Perhaps we need a new metric: how fresh are your results, and how often are they checked for 404s, parked pages, and other signs of disuse? If most directories go unmaintained, then it's no wonder that people aren't using them for search. It reflects badly on the industry as a whole.

What I would like to see is the development of more tools to automatically check pages for 404s, parked pages, spam and other problems. It would also be an improvement if directory owners spent less time obsessing over PR, and paid more attention to the relevance and freshness of the websites they are listing.

 

Would not everybody like to see all directories either updated or closed down that have not been updated for 5 years 100% correct

paid more attention to the relevance and freshness of the websites they are listing.

Exactly and many directories are doing just that

 

It seems your brother has problems understanding the basic role a directory plays.

The main role of a directory IMO is to help other sites to get the required amount of backlinks -so that they can improve SERPs of their sites.

Of course, there are differences between Paid and Free directories. Everyday, lots of directories com-up --but only few are taken care of properly by owners. Paid directories servs more to the clients because they accept some $$ to review their sites.

I can thingk of some high quality and well maintained Free directories too like Worldsiteindex, Canlinks, CanadienE etc. But they are few in numbers. Most free directories are just taking up web-space as their owners hardly maintain them properly.

And who says directories are not browsed by surfers?
Few weeks back I created a new category on my directory and to feed the bots I listed a site. That site has received 27 hits so far from my listing and it is also bringing me good organic traffic from Search Engines.( Can show screenshot of my cpanel if required)

Please CHEK HERE

Also why only directory owners --I reckon 75% webmasters are fond of PRs. And --basically PR is the main selling points for a directory. My --directory which had no paid submission till 27th April --has received 25 submissions till today --(after the PR update) even though I increased the rates by 10 folds.
So --I think your brother must re-consider his conception. He has to choose from among seemingly thousands of directories and go for quality than quantity.

 

A little script that checks each link for http responses is dead simple to make. Alternatively, use Xenu Link Sleuth to check your own directory. There's really no excuse to have dead links in your directory.

 

No, he gets the theory. But what he was really talking about was the perspective of a searcher, not a potential link buyer.

Yes, but is your directory badly maintained? If you've checked all your links within the last year then you're really not part of the problem. What I'm saying is that if you are keeping on top of link rot, it's something you should be highlighting in your promotions. Because as far as searchers are concerned, it's one of the most important signs of a useful resource.

 

We check the 27,000+ sites listed in our directories for 404s every other day or so and knock out a handful. We check for the 501's less often and are trying to develope a better scheme for checking these as many are arbitrary errors. The parked page check is done every couple weeks and we're developing semi automated checks for other pages that were decent when they were accepted and have since turned noxious.

 

Please tell me frankly --have you read my post properly? Also have you ever searched a directory for useful resource? DOMZ and Yahoo are too big to find sites --they give me headache. Same with Yahoo directory.

On the other hand --please check Aviva and Alive --they will give you quality resources --which are very easy to find.

One must be frank --not not talk the goodies while the fact is different. Web directories are primarily meant for gaining backlinks. --Secondary role is to provide resources to surfers.

With people finding their targetted resources in a second by Googling --who would waste their time by browsing a directory?

So lets remove our masks and admit frankly--directories are mainly for helping our clients to improve SERPs --by way of providing them quality/strong backlinks.

Regarding --broken links --just few hrs back I went through my directories for maintenance and set all broken links into active again. I do this few times per week.

 

Yes, but you seem to be going off on a tangent about my remark on PR. I'm saying we should build directories for searchers, not just webmasters.

Also, I do occasionally use directories for search, usually either Dmoz or specific niche ones.

A secondary point is, people aren't finding things through Google very well any more. What they are finding in the SERPs are these defunct old directories, and links to websites that have been dead for ages. This is true for local low-competition searches, but these "long-tail" kind of searches do make up a lot of people's experience.

 

What a shortsighted view to say that directories are only for SEO. I suppose that may indeed be the case with many of the general directories, but certainly not for niche sites.

I know for a fact that not only do people come to visit my directory looking for sites, they come back!

Why? Easy - there's too much crap in the SERPs. My favorites are the fake directories that put a couple of words on the page and use RSS feeds to create a piece of MFA crap. G and the others appear to love these useless sites as they often rank above the authority sites listed from the feeds they use.

Then there's the old fashioned MFA sites, the old style link farm sites with more dead links than good ones, About, and a myriad of sites that have no apparent connection to the phrase actually being searched for.

Here and there in between are useful sites, but they are often like finding a needle in a haystack.

Directories can offer the searcher a list of sites that do actually cover the topic they are looking for without having to wade through the garbage of the web - of course that assumes the directory owner actually ensures they only list quality sites in the appropriate categories. My directory has received quite a few supportive blog and forums posts, not for PR or backlinks, but as a resource for finding great sites (what I had intended from day 1).

I agree with Obelia's original assertion that unless directory owners start and continue focussing on quality over PR the industry as a whole is going to suffer greatly. We all complain about the negative reputation directories are getting yet we continue to support the poorly designed and quickly thrown together sites by submitting for listings - even paying for the privilege.

If a directory looks thrown together and poorly managed - I DO NOT SUBMIT MY SITES OR OTHERWISE SUPPORT THAT SITE period! If everyone started doing that, the overall quality and usefullness of all directories would increase.

To those of you that think directories are only about PR - good luck sustaining that model. To those of you who think quality matters - stand tall, we will be rewarded in the long run.

 

Mere shouting does not help --does it? Have you read the whole thread and all posts?

I never mentioned --surfers do not find quality directories useful. I cited that --surfers do really benefit visiting quality directories like Alive and Aviva.
Have you tried to understand the metric how directory owners who invest thousands of $$$ -try to recover their investments?

And reagrding the ROLE of directories --my same theories go. I am some one who does not believe in even God if there is no proof. You have to show me otherwise ---for me to accept your theory that most surfers have started to use directories than Google to visit sites.

I have checked the Crafts directory in your signature --but I must say --after browsing through it --I could not find how many surfers visited a particular site listed there.

Please let me mention again about the ROLE of directories ( IMO of course)

#1 - Help other sites to improve SERPs. (Primary)

#2. Provide quality contents/resources to visitors . (Secondary)

Please read completely before making comments or expressing judgements.

 

i don't think there is anything to argue abt here.

obelia's brother is free to have his opinions on directories, which i believe is not uncommon for others to feel the same way as he does. the question is what can we, as directory owners do to change this impression? We can argue until the cows come home abt whose opinions are right and wrong, but it does not change the fact that many out there are carrying wrong opinions.

And like obelia also suggested, one way we can start to change this opinion is to make sure that our directories are well-maintained and do not bring down the good name of the directory industry

 

Agreed. What's the best way to check your directory for dead links? I know Pete (britishguy) has recommended a software for this but I'm looking for something simple to use but accurate

 

The online business or for that matter directory business could have been much easier if tools worked to their full potentials all the time. The ODD is that --majority of times they malfunction

 

I did read the entire thread. Upon rereading your (jhnrang) and Obelia's posts it would seem that you have totally veered away from the original point - how to make directories more useful to site visitors by ensuring the links are functional and go to where they claim to.

You seem to suggest that while both are important - only one truly matters in the long run. My intention from the beginning was to create a resource for BOTH submittors and site visitors, yours would appear to be to SEO your clients' sites.

My point in mentioning my site was that I get far more visitors who use my site as a reference tool than looking for backlinks and PR. Believe me or not, that's up to you. I have no reason to lie.

I was simply using my personal experience with my niche site to suggest that not everyone who visits a directory only does so to chase backlinks and PR. I have seen other niche directory owners with similar results. My visitor to submissions/clickthroughs ratio would be completely opposite yours or any other general directory for that matter.

Perhaps what you say is true for general directories. But, on topics other than webmastering and directory submissions, niche sites like mine will always appear higher in the SERPs for the topics they cover than the highly touted Aviva or Alive and therefore get more non-submitting traffic.

Instead of staying on the topic of how to ensure directories provide a quality resource for whatever site visitors they may have, you side-tracked the conversation into the role of directories and for some reason I let you take me with you.

I find it interesting when folks here or on VileSilencer start talking about quality so many get their dander up. The reason DMOZ is no longer a useful resource is that it was not maintained properly.

Obelia's brother made the observation that many directories have bad information. Perhaps instead of questioning his understanding of the role directories have, you should be listening to an honest and useful suggestion and thinking about how you could improve your directory.

 

Ack !! Phew !! Too many intelligent people some of you should have been in Harvard Forum or Yale not in Webmasters.

I signed one for intelligence. RED

 

Use Xenu Link Sleuth to check your sites to if you have a big site. Xenu Link Sleuth is a fantastic tool.

 

Thanks YMC for clearing it out and understanding the difference between Niche Directories and General Directories. There is no denying the fact that you would definitely rank higher than Aviva or Alive for your niche because you have a single field --where as General directories have lots of fields to optimize( although --I'll try to Google after this post and verify). The hottest General Directory that is improving its SERPs in every niche is GII.IN ( Please VERIFY HERE )


And NO --I have not veered from the original TOPIC. It says A Wasteland of Dead links. -- Does he/she has any idea of how well PAID directories and some of the free directories are maintained by their owners and how hard they work? I was just protecting QUALITY directories whether PAID or FREE. One should not Generalize the industry due to some bad elements. Every society has bad elements in it --isn't? Does that society become and illicit society because of some bad elements --NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Thats what I was trying to put it across. Surely Obelia's brother has no idea of quality directories. ATM --I can think of 100 Quality Free Directories and many more paid directories that are as well maintained as any other professional website.

Tnx.

 

Joke?I can see this link doesn't get any hits since 2006

http://www.pagerankluck.com/detail/link-10.html

M only using dirs for SERPS not pr.%98 dirs which have sitewide links pass shit pr(they are only link farm) and %95 of dir owners sell sitewide links.

 

Okay, now I see why you're upset. I should qualify my remarks, but I'm reluctant to name and shame. The fact is that there are one or two particularly bad examples of "link wastelands" that dominate the SERPs in a certain niche. I'm guessing the only reason they do is because of old links, because they certainly aren't actively maintained directories.

There surely are lots of good, well-maintained directories out there. But are they the majority, and more importantly, does the general public think that most directories are full of dead links?

This is an issue that affects you, even if your main selling angle is to present your directory as a way to gain Google juice. Because nobody is going to want to buy links on a page that is diluted with irrelevant dead links, for one. It's better to be listed on a page that's a resource that could be used by searchers, even if the directory is effectively being used by proxy, through search engines.

As for tools to check links, I really think there is a lot of room for improvement here. Xenu is okay as far as it goes, but there's more to dead links than http responses. George55 is working on a spider that also checks for certain words on the page, and it's this direction that really could yield progress. It would also be good to see this sort of functionality integrated into more popular scripts.

Another possibility that springs to mind is a mod for displaying a "last checked" date. For example, "this category last checked", or "this website last checked". I don't know whether or not that would inspire confidence, it's just an idea I'm throwing out in terms of improving the reputation of directories in general, a way to assure users that links do get checked.