Like most, there was a stage when I believed that PR was a measure of a sites value. However after two years maybe more of concentrated link building I dont believe that, with the exception of sites like Yahoo and Dmoz, a link from one directory is anymore important than a link from another. Many will disagree but I havent finished here. Its been a hectic couple of weeks and I am taking the family to a bush camp hoping to get in a spot of whale watching. They too were an endangered species at one time. Will pick this up when I get back if anyone is interested.
Are you saying that links from all the various different directories, except for DMOZ and Yahoo, have about the same value? If so, why do you think that? What is your evidence? Thank you
Put it this way, I use the free directories which those of you who know about these things write off as crap directories. But I dont have any problems getting the results I am looking for. Secondly the directories I have set up as part of our workshop are bare bones stuff and as soon as the pages get indexed they start shifting my clients sites through the rankings. I dont need thousands of back links and a neat haircut to make things happen. What this says to me is that we need to make a lot of adjustments to the way we measure and value sites now that PR is a non-event. Its a debate I have had with many other buyers and industry insiders and most will agree albeit off the record. Those that dont invariably point to Dmoz but I dont argue that one. Dmoz comes as a value added link. Isnt that why Aviva and Alive try to pass themselves off as one of the family members? What does concern me however is the life expectancy of the directories I use. How many are going to see it through the year? This is where the value lies for me as a link builder.
My problem with directories is the time it takes to get posted, IF you get posted at all. Most suck you in with "free listings" but when the dust settles there is always a catch. Maybe I just haven't found the more reputable directories.
There are a lot of members here with good directories at an affordable review rate. You just have to look for them.
I think the original poster is saying that listings in ordinary free directories have just as much value in boosting SERPs as listings in high-fee pay direcories. He seems to base this on his experience in submitting to free directories.
Too many here seem to think that PR equates to quality. PR by Google's own definition truly equates to noise - how many people are talking about a site. Noise has never equaled quality online or off. Does that fact that Hunt's sells more ketchup than the lady at my farmer's market mean that Hunt's tastes better or is of better quality? Somewhere along the line, many of the PR chasers around here started bashing free directories since their limited budgets tend to limit their PR - again basing quality on noise not on usefulness. I'm not saying that there are many free directories that are crap, but there are also many paid directories that are crap. High PR should have never been the sole arbiter of what makes a good directory. That homemade ketchup which sells for $7.50 a bottle may be worth every penny or it might taste like pickled rotten tomatoes with a dash of salt. It's what's in the bottle that counts, not the price or the noise the seller can make about it. Same should go for directories. Assuming Google is playing for keeps in delisting/whacking/punishing/whatever some of the big players around here, I see many paid and free directories not surviving out the year. The real challenge will be to learn from those mistakes and once again focus on quality and value.
What I am saying is that its not just the goal postS that have been moved. Someone has actually nicked them and its hurting all the wrong people. Isnt this reason enough to go back to basics and re-evaluate the very principals on which we base our systems of value. We know that we were lied to. We know we were deliberately lied to and we know why. So the question I ask is why do thousand upon thousands of links make my site a better directory if webmasters are only looking for a back link and are not particularly interested in the traffic I wont pass them for a few years yet? How do we measure the real value a directory offers buyers?
I have been asking the same question as I work my way through these posts. It does not appear if anyone knows the answers either. Why do people submit their sites to these directories?
We post to free directories because there is over 5000 of them. Some of these directories will never be maintained or their script breaks down but hopefully we got a link in before then. Some of them will grow, expand get PR and receive good traffic. If your in them all you get all the benefits, if your in none, well you get none. More links the merrier, sure $300 FOR Yahoo is fine but $300 for 5000 directory links is better. Anchor text and description with keywords in as many IPs as possible. Paid directories are being sold to us and I bought in but received no traffic from them - the big players. But no traffic so what did I pay for? PR? Anchor text and description with keywords in as many IPs as possible. Thats the experiment I am running, sure there are blog networks but can they easily be seen as a network? If so I think they will loose value fast.
saturation saturation saturation... thats what happening with directories whether fixed or bidding ones...everyone is trying to get in the rush... due to which the value of these in link bulding obviously decreases...
And I would also pay to secure the long term value of the links I am building. But the question I am asking is whether a link from a site with thousands of back links counts more than a link from one that has only recently been indexed. My limited experince tells me no.
Workshop, can i ask a stupid question, if PR is a non event and you do not believe they are a measure of a sites value, why do you have PR listings next to your entries in your directories ?
Blame it on the installer. Its just a default setting on the admin panel and I usually switch it off but not because I don't believe PR is relevant. I switch it off because it uses resources. What has changed is that contrary to what we had rammed down our throats constantly a directory does not need PR. Nor do I believe it needs thousands of links if its not looking to rank in the serp's. Some SEO's swear blind that PR2 sites pass more link juice than PR1 sites but I don't. To me its all part of the same fairy story and I believe we should start looking at measures and values that are little more tangible.