I replied to your post as I understood it. I'm not one to try and twist what others say - it's doesn't lead to a very productive discussion. If I misunderstood you - my apology, please elaborate. I guess the bottom line is I'm trying to determine what others think of as a quality directory and if they apply the same standards when reviewing a directory as they do with other sites? Do we apply different standards when reviewing a directory submission?
No. But I wouldnt have any qualms about dumping a directory that hasnt added any new content within a reasonable period of time. Once again however it would depend on the circumstances. It was Aviva's list of Authority Sites. I found a lot off flaky content on the one site I looked at. What about cost of submitting a site to a directory? Should this be open ended or should a directory be expected to be seen to be cost effective before it earns a "quality" label.
I dont know how to say it in words to make you understand i suppose.. I can run down the list off mods and templates, adding unique descriptions and everything that makes a web directory (catagorized list of websites/blogs) what it is... But it wont change the fact that its the directory owners "heart and soul" and him trying to be different that give it that special touch uniqueness or in my view what is referred to by others as "quality". I tried my best to answer the question... Have i ever rejected a site for lack of content? Off course ... but i took 1 look and already knew it wouldnt make the cutt Would i reject another directory owners directory because it lacks content? Not if its brand new... but i look at many aspects before i come to any conclusions and the largest factor is whom the directory belongs too.. ( will he do somthing with it and try to make it quality?) Let me now ask you a question.... Do you think google is a quality site? Compared to Yahoo or MSN or any other engine... thx malcolm
So if I submitted a site that had little if any content, but it was rather attractive it's likely you'd accept it? I agree about removing a general topic web directory that hasn't added any new content. You're referring to Aviva Directory's Strongest Directory list? It's a list of directories ranked in order by Page Strength. They also reference a quote from SEOmoz: According to Seomoz, the page strength tool is “a better metric to quickly assess a site / page’s relative importance and visibility.†I interpret that to mean popularity rather than quality. I'd guess it's possible for a high quality site to have a low Page Strength score as well as a poor quality site having an above average Page Strength score. I'm sure we can probably find flaky content in most of the directories today, including dmoz, Yahoo and other commercial directories. Interesting - so the submission fee should be a factor as to whether or not a directory is a quality directory? @malcolm - I'm just trying to determine if we may have been applying differing standards when reviewing a directory submission compared to a web site submission. I think you're trying to tell me that you'd gladly accept a new directory submission from someone who has demonstrated their ability to promote a site as you're pretty comfortable with the probability that the site will be a quality resource over time. Yes, I think all 3 are quality sites. If you don't I'm interested in hearing your reasons why.
I think they also provide a list Authority sites and imply this sits head and shouldlers above the list of Strongest Sites but the experience I had was anything but. There were a lot of categories, with a bit of content in each and it became patently obvious that the owner has no problem accepting MFA sites if they pay the "review fee". And I think that he point I would like to make is that directories should be looking for new sites and encouraging new webmasters rather than trying to create artifical bariers to enter. Its tough getting started in any industry and this one is no different. However to anwser your question, no I dont think we should treat directories any differently to other sites No it would make me extremly suspicious. Who in their right mind spends good money on something which as little or no prospect of making anything more than petty cash for the owner?
Setting standards for inclusion that are applied uniformly to all submissions will only help to improve the quality of the index. I don't think that having and applying basic guidelines creates an artificial barrier. Many reject sites based solely on AdSense placement regardless if they are within the AdSense program guidelines. Some reject sites that have a single pop up, but I think they do so uniformly. It seems that many have no problem rejecting a web site for lack of content or duplicate content but turn a blind eye when it's a directory. As long as the script doesn't return any errors and there's a category structure in place and the submission form is functional, it's accepted regardless of content. Directories that utilize a common DB are easily listed but try submitting a few web sites that use the same content and see how far it gets you. I think it has more to do with it being the popular thing to do rather than anything else. Does lowering the standards encourage the creation of more crap? - dropped domains, directories with the sole intent of making money during the initial launch and then neglected or sold. I don't think we should treat directories differently when reviewing a site for inclusion.
We use directories because they are link farms. We set up directories because we think we can turn a few bucks by running a link farm. There is a lot of posturing that comes with all the huffing and puffing from owners that would have you believe differently but at the end of the day a link farm is a link farm no matter who is running it or why. What we need to do is to get away from the eye candy and all the bullshit that goes with it and to start focusing on the real stuff. Ideally content on a directory should be constantly reviewed but you cant use that to decide who gets in and who doesnt. You could however use it to decide who stays in.
I do not deny the fact that one of my objectives for setting up my directory is to monetize it, so you could see the proliferation of ads. However, I make sure that I do not get in the way of the reader when reading an article so I avoid putting any ads within the body, though I see a lot of publishers doing it. Now I'm wary of submitting my own directory (which is about a week old) because of these criteria you have exposed, guys.
Before anything else, as directory owners we need to get to grips with the fundamentals in our industry before we can start any long term planning. Anything else is just hot air. Stay away from anyone who tells you different. They are fibbing, cant be trusted and consequently wont last. You are looking for directories that are smart enough to anticipate all the humps and bumps. Everyone has different ideas. Do what you think is right. There is plenty of space on the net and plenty of reputable directories which will cut you slack and help you to get started.