There seems to be so many directories around, with hundreds more popping up every day. Most of them have under a hundred links and are just there for adsense revenue (which i imagine would be quite small for most?) and for SEO purposes. So i guess that these directories are no different to link farms. Since most directories have low traffic, poor promotion, and no clear goals.. Is there really any benefit from submitting to them?
The web directories can be an excellent resource for visitors to find information quick and easily but that all can turn out into disappointment when the page is cramped with non-relevant links and no proper structure of the directory. But just because of some directories, which do not stand out to be important we cant miss the others. As far as directory have a clear cut categorisation, visitors can easily find relevant websites, we should continue our submission to directories. We just need to select a hand-picked of directories and use them to promote our web site Regarding the traffic from directory - it might be less but that is very important and when directories get popular our web site also gets credited to have more traffic
It really depends on the editor of the directory.They must make sure to only accept that all links are relevant and a quality site.
Yes there is way to many direc out there. Some even tell you "if you come only for the link back piss off" heheh I guess there is comming new ways soon to get more link backs. Guestbooks, Direc, Articles, Bloogs, whats next?
Honestly, I wish there were more directories. Quality ones that is. I mean, they do make link building easier, when they are quality directories. Right now, you got Yahoo, DMOZ and twenty or so quality second tier directories. I wish there were 50 or 100. Easier to build links.
would it not be reasonable to say that the more directories there are, the lower the quality will be.
Yes, there is such big number of directories, but only small number of them are quality and worth to submit.
I think these directory links are going to be discounted in the future by google for se placement. Most of the directories owned by people on this forum have little to know traffic. Just another example of people building links and trying to profit of some worthless PR.
90% of everything is crap, according to Theodore Sturgeon. It must hold for directories as well. The fact that there are many, many low quality directories doesn't make the good quality ones any less useful.
Honestly though, I bet 98% of DMOZ traffic is webmasters looking for their site, or for a category to try and get in to. No normal web surfers say "gee, im looking for beauty advice, i'd better get over to DMOZ and check out the beauty category for a list of sites related to that" Thats right, they certainly don't...but what they probably do is go to google and search beauty tips. Note that DMOZ is not likely gonna be anywhere near the top of the results either. To summarize, don't waste your time on any directories. Why not take that time and build content that google can snack on, or perhaps a tasty sitemap account? Those things will help you far more that submitting to some crap directories. I mean, if there are two things you can do to achieve a desired result, but each would achieve a different degree of that result, which would you choose? you'd choose the one that got you the BEST degree of result. I hold out a $20 bill in one hand (directory) and a 50$ bill in another (content, sitemaps, etc) and ask you to choose one and you can keep it, you damn sure take the $50. I dont know why people dont follow the same philosophy with everything. I guess that it takes 80% less brain power to mindlessly submit to directories, than it does to create new quality content. okay, thats my rant for the day.
There are some of us who like to grab both bills. It's true that most directories don't have much traffic, but in many cases their links are used by the search engines to help calculate PR. So a good directory presence will help boost a website to the top of the search results.
Yeah, honestly I have never used or understood the point of directories (other than link building). I know that I never use them when I'm looking for anything (Google is way easier).
Apparently not; I've been reading 'the Motivated Mind' and the author thinks that hardwired into our sytems is the shorter term goal. Supposing you give people a choice: take this $20 now, or you can have this $50 next month. Most people will take the $20. It's something to do with our caveman ancestry or suchlike. Maybe most people aren't webmasters, or as Obelia quotes Theodore Sturgeon, maybe 90% of everything is crap, even us.
Good point - BUT - isnt it best to put resources in to taking the $50, and then instead of investing more resournces in to taking the $20, invest them in to finding and taking anohter $50? what im saying is there are far more valuable uses of a webmaster's (or SEO guru's) time than building links in directories just because they exist. Google will weigh a relevant link from a related site way heavier than a stinking directory link, one that google KNOWS is not a "natural" link, and that exists solely for SEO purposes.
well, if your url is accepted, then a link is a link is a link... let's put it this way, you've got nothing to lose.
They aren't exclusive of each other...You can pay someone $15 to hand submit to hundreds of directories while using your own time to build more time consuming quality links.
I think the more there are the less effective they'll be in the future but for now they are ok and don't bring much traffic to the other websites. Its up to you it should egnore them.
I have no use for directories. I've never used one in my life, and like others here the search engines beat any directory. No contest. Now if the SEs would stop listing directories in the SERPS I'd never have to see one again. Example - I search for a term in an SE. I click the link in the result. And it takes me to a directory which looks exactly like an SE. Where I then have to scan the page and click another link taking me to the same result. What kind of sense does that make? It's redundant.