Lol---minstrel -- mate - I have nothing to say against this post as what you said is true to every words. Personally -- I don't want any PR from an authority site ( I have been studying about this aspect for some time now -- and I think PR1 link from an authority site is more than equivalent to a PR5 link from a non-descript site). I also agree --lots of directories are there which looks like link farms. But I would been Glad if you had some faith in the editorial integrity of a directory that has achieved AUTHORITY STATUS from Google. Thats what I have been trying to put accross. There are perhaps over 100 thousand web directories on the INTERNET-- but how many of them got AUTHORITY status? I hope--now you understand my reasoning. Alive Web Directory is an authority directory now --because of its quality and editorial integrity. You just can not put an authority site into same wave-length of a normal site. Isn't? Matt Cutts says --directories that refuse low quality sites are good for Google. Doesn't he? So Alive is where it is today --because it has fulfilled all those quality testing/algo testing by G. I am expecting one more authority directory within 2007 --that of Aviva Directory. Hopefully --Google algo will wake up soon and award the most desired award to Aviva. Onlinedude ( Jeff of Avivadirectory) has opened a thread against all those directory owners practicing un-ethical practices. So I think our industry has matured enough --to take care of itself.
I understand your point the first time around. However, I think you have mistaken what an authority site means. It certainly doesn not mean that they become exempt from paid links filters. Algorithms don't come to a screeching halt just because they come upon a link from Alive or Yahoo or anyone else. Nonsense. That is the tip of the iceberg. All he is doing there is trying to list directories that have ripped off others financially. It doesn't include all the scammers and misleading claims directories that are taking money daily. The majority of the directories hawked in DP forums should also be on that list but we both know they never will be. They sell links. They list sites. And they have a legal right to do that. That doesn't alter the fact that people buying those links should be fully aware that they are buying a link that will probably never be seen by a human visitor and that will give them nothing in terms of PR value.
I think directories which list sites in the inner-pages do not sell links. They sell advertising space and charge a fee for review And YES I know-- the bots won't differentiate between a footer link on LINUX and that of my PR3 directory. Because G has devalued passing of PR juice from both sites for that particular place. Matt Cutts clearly mentions that it won't hurt the parent site --it will also not hurt the listed site. Just that PR juice won't follow. But if I have a listing on innerpages of dir.yahoo, DMOZ, business.com, Alive & Aviva Directory, botw.com, site-sift -- I'll get both PR juice and SERPs effect --because they are highly valued and have attained that status after stringent test by BOTS. And definitely there is huge difference between normal sites and AUTHORITY SITES. Please refer HERE-- So -- there is something wrong in your logic. So Google BOTs are now little bit smarter than before and can differentiate between a BLUNT paid link from that of a reviewed listing for advertisement. So it will COUNT directory listings Lol-- you should give some CREDIT to that guy--at least he has started something against unethical directories and in the right direction. We have a beginning now and gradually we could take it forward. Nothing changes over-night--does it?
Just to clarify the questions people had about the new Alive Directory options, there will still be the yearly options, but there will be permanent options in addition. NOTE: if you reply here and want a response, you will need to send me an email since I do not receive email on replies to subscribed threads or PMs anymore.