Some very interesting posts and of course some are spot on correct, and some are so well blah blah The one's who know what they are doing stand out
I think it is important to note that a submitter is paying to have their site reviewed to be in a directory, not for the link itself. If the directory owner deems other authority sites to be worthy of inclusion and makes a choice to review them at no charge, that is fully within their right. Paid directories are "paid to review", not "paid to include". Refunding money if the site doesn't meet guidelines is the choice of the directory. Not doing so would also be fine since the directory reviews the site either way. Most directories will refund, since it encourages more business (people will not be scared to lose their money).
Not really, more a devil's advocate question. It's impossible to get into the mind of a prospective link purchaser so I guess I'll never know for sure.
I am adding links regularly. Basically I add those sites which would serve my visitors and who are leaders in their respective niche.
There is actually some doubt when it comes to deep links and copyright: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/23/texas_court_bans_deep_linking/ So if you are adding your links that aren't submitted, it's best to stick to the root url. I'm not sure where that leaves the owners of deep link directories, but it has to be said this sort of crazy ruling doesn't apply in many territories. I'm a bit gobsmacked by msolution's idea that only sites with "add our link" pages are inviting links. I always thought that having this on your front page looks a bit tacky. But how many other people believe it's wrong to link to a website that doesn't ask for it explicitly? Should we all be rushing out to add such pages to our websites?
Very good point indeed. Here comes my VIEW against Unique Description. I practice adding links to authority sites --so that if some visitor is browsing my directory -he/she finds quality information. Most sites have Linking Policy and they give guidelines on how to link/describe them. I just copy and paste those-- because that is how they want to be linked and not how I want. So if I put a Title and description that goes against their policy --I should be liable like that example. I am a service provider to webmasters --not Master. If I do not like his website/his anchors/his description --I should refund/reject the site --- not alter his/her description myself. That is how it should be --to serve the webmasters.
In this case the site owner linked to the media files and NOT the page holding the streams, or did I miss something. Therefore it's not the same as linking to a page within a site but rather more akin to hot linking images. Are you saying you should not edit the submitted text ever? If you are then you will almost never accept a listing or you are going to end up with the biggest spam fest ever! I don't think I have a single submission I don't have to correct to fit the guidelines. If you are just saying when adding a site manually you should respect their linking then yes if they say in their terms you may not link to this site unless you do the following, then yes it should be followed or you don't link. You also said to serve webmasters, but what about your visitors? Isn't it your job to provide visitors with a useful site with well written descriptions not the keyword stuffed mess most webmasters submit?
The guy was stealing content and making it apear to be his own, Of course that is wrong. The internet is public domain. While you can't take something and call it your own, you can refer to it, giving proper credit. The exception to this is if it is behind a passcode, or protected in some way. If fact Google's entire link building idea is based on this. They expect organic links to be done spontaneously. When you like something, link to it. What they are trying to avoid is sites that only link to others because they get something from it, either a reciprocal link or payment.
No, PR is strictly about incoming links. Although it might help in the serps due to establishing a strong topic for the page. And it does help in making the link more relevant for the persons who buy a link from you.
Answer to highlighted portion: Do you think you have better judgement that other webmasters because you are a directory owner and an editor? Webmasters know which Anchor Words they need to optimize and how better to describe their own website than you. If they Pay you $$$ --to get listed in your directory as they want to optimize some Anchor Words -- and you think those anchor words do not suit their websites --are you going to change it? Then how are you giving them any value? Do you think you are better judge of my website? Or am I better judge of your website? WRONG my friend. I'll be paying you to get listed in your directory--because I have a specific plan. I, being a webmaster myself -- know what Google likes and what it does not. I know how many same description/same anchor words -- I am allowed to before Google FLAGGS -OFF my site. As directory owners -we must serve our clients. If I think --the site is doing excessively -- I just reject it. But --a site which over do it -will I get penalize for listing it??? NO. I. being owner of my own website --formulate my own policies --of how to present my own website. NOT YOU. Answer to second portion And what do you mean by SPAM????????? What do you understand how I want to project my website to surfers? Will you project my website the opposite way --that I want it to project by changing the anchor words/description I submitted? That is not just on-my friend. So --either you reject --or serve your client --how he wants to project his website. Don't become a Moral Guardian/Matt Cutts -- because as an editor of one of thousands directories you or me have not reached that level. Thanks Jhn
You should always add quality resources to your directory. That's what a web directory is about. With pdpLD there is great option to search google and add resources easily. Recommended to do so. Good luck.
Well based on that we'd never list another submitted site, unless you are saying it is acceptable to list sites whose title is along the lines of "Web Design UK Web Development UK SEO UK". If you're wondering why I wouldn't list a site with that title it is because the whole of the UK web design category would be full of listings with all but identical titles. Does that make for a good quality directory? If you're thinking I've made that title up, then no it is very common for submissions to us to look like that. Forget Matt Cutts, this is nothing to do with Google, I'm think about visitors to the directory and how they perceive the content. Anyway each to their own.