I asked this question before - not sure if it was on this forum though... What is a directory, if not just an FFA page? That's what I'm saying - (99% of) directories don't add anything to the internet... Except for industry specific niche directories, all they're used for is increasing link popularity.
Damn right. I've been trying to think how to describe what I think is wrong with having so many pointless directories, and you've nailed it there.
The problem is everyone would say the OTHER directories are not needed. Just keep a few like x, y, and the person who is making the statements directory.
I agree! Niche Directories and "resource" sites will outlast the general directories that keep popping up. Webmasters should focus on being a resource instead of a backlink provider.
Unfortunatley that doesn't appear to be the case for me. The directory that I am referring to is self-generating - of course it's only one directory, but I've been thinking about this for a while now. I've got a point - hence me posting this thread in the first place. Let me explain. Consider you're one of the big 3 in search. From your point of view, the last thing you want to happen when someone types in '[generic product search]', is have the results full of directory listings showing places where you can find the information you actually wanted to find when you initially made the search. First, it's bad for user experience. Second it's lost potential revenue. Especially for Yahoo and MSN (Who's contextual networks aren't live yet). There is an exception to that rule though. When someone adds something like 'list' or 'directory' to their search query, I'd imagine it would be appropriate for a directory listing. Which leads me on to my next point. If someone does a search for the phrase 'web design directory', are you going to show them the home page of a small, generic directory with a web design category, or the home page of a purpose-built 'web design directory'? What does a generic directory, designed with the sole purpose of generating revenue from ppc advertising, that's mostly other webmasters used to increase link popularity for other sites on the net, actually have to offer a search engine results? In my opinion, nothing. And I'd say we're pretty confident that directories can be easily identified. So why does everyone built directories?
Because is fun? At least for me it is. Half of my sites where builded for fun, not for money. And I'm learning a lot building the directory.
I agree. Remember for a while there having a directory or two or three (ad nauseum) was a great way of boosting the rankings and PR values of websites until it was done to death and directories started popping up everywhere, most of which were simply dmoz clones. Building a directory became a hot thing. As with most manipulative techniques the SE's got filtering and began stripping them of their value and mostly out of the indices. I think the reason people still build them is because they are viewed still in some quarters as a hot thing or a way of manipulating results. Like everything else that's hot for a while, it takes time for the facts to filter down to the point that people aren't getting bad advice or reading old articles espousing the 'benefits' of having a directory.
I agree with some points and disagree with some in this thread. First of all, I'd say alot of web directories indeed are build for adsense or pageranks boosts. People don't even take the time to customize the template, they use a few basic categories and not deepen the directory. The directories are submitted to the big free directorylists and voila yet another not meaningful web directory. And when the people who build these directories find out that it's not making money they stop maintaining the directory and it's off to a slow dead. So totally agree with the posts above, those directories are just like FFA pages. Agree with honey, work on the directory keep it alive. Customize the directory template, deepen the categories (niche or general), keep a close eye on the submitted weblinks. I believe directories can be a helpful guideline in finding websites but this really depents of the quality of the directory. At my directory I'm working very hard to create content to every category pages. I've added a small descriptions to every category and full descriptions are comming. See for example: listing page: http://www.dirspace.com/dir/30.php and description page: http://www.dirspace.com/dir/desc/30.php Imo adding this content will increase the value of the directory and the listings. And again, I believe to keep on working on a directory and it eventually will increase it's value, so submitting to those directory is worth the effort.
I don't know, why stop at directories ... At this point does the internet really need a new site about anything ? A new blog .... hmmm ... no A new forum .... hmmm ... no A new directory ... hmmm ... no A new directory with descriptions ... hmmm ... no A new content site made with other authors articles .... hmmm ... no A new site with original content (just like 1000 other sites) ... hmmm ... no I guess maybe I'm a little negative ... time to build some more sites
And how much longer do you expect that to last for if search engines know that it's only search rankings.
This is a good point that I agree with very strongly. It was the same thing a year and a half ago with buying text links on PR8 sites. You could just buy as many as you could afford and rankings would improve accordingly. It was obvious that Google had to do something about this, and they did. The same is now true for directories. If there is something all the SEOs are doing, chances are it won't last long. But one important note is that (IMO) it does work now. Not to change the subject, but I've also been thinking alot about how a search engine would detect article submissions algorithmically. They are much less obvious than directory listings in that their formatting is variable and links can be placed throughout the text. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that Google might be able to recognize that a bunch of links are coming to your sight and that these links are mixed in with the same text. This would be the case in the standard situation where an SEO writes an article, puts in some links w/good anchor text, and then submits to a bunch of free article sites. The solution to this problem is of course one we don't want to hear: only submit a given article to one free article site. This job just keeps getting harder...
kk i dont see a difference between adding an article at 1 article site or many, the concept is the same people use it and you get a link ... problem is its the same text around the link, both the article and the author file I think this is last on the food chain of how to discount the value of the link compared to paid links, link directories, straight link exchanges, a blog that keeps linking to your site etc the guy at linkmetro has the right concept (in my opinion) with his article exchange that highlights an anchor text found within the article problem is it is 1 article exchange at a time i think google is working on a tool that reads the mind of the webmaster placing the link, and can tell if the person thinks it will improve SE postions if so then it discounts the link on the fly
I'm saying that if you write an article with your links in it and then submit it to 50 sites, it shoudln't be hard for google to go "hmmm, all this guys links are coming from pages with similar text" and somehow devalue or filter it.
Or is Google's Algo really that smart?? Hard to say I feel that some of the filters are more of a lie to get people to talk about and cause paranoia
Sebasic .. would you find this directory, or this inner page (for example), just another web directory, that doesn't add nothing usefull to the internet ? It has little extra info's like Alexa rank, PR image, visitor ratings, visitor reviews etc. Would'nt you find this usefull ? Except the IBL gaining part ?
As an SEO I may find that information useful, but as a domestic user, I doubt it. I really don't want to start looking at particular directories and say 'that's useful' or 'that's not useful', because firstly, I really have no idea whether it would be useful from a search engine POV, and secondly if I turn around as say it's not useful - I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I guess my only point is, is that (In my opinion) it's prolly not the best use of your time building directories, becuase honestly - I don't see them being in the index *that* much longer, unless it actually adds something to the net.