Hello All, I want to submit my site in Yahoo paid Directory. Is this worth for my site.My site is very huge (15,0000++ pages). My main income source is Adsence.
How old is your site? 150k pages is a lot, if its fairly new its unlikely to be oroginal and quality content, if the income is from adsense then its probably MFA, it would probably be rejected by them.
Given the way search engines have been evolving more rapidly than ever, I would not consider paid directories anymore. You can put that $300 toward article writing for backlinking over a spread of time.
I think it depends on many variables. If you only manage one site, I think it's worth it, as the listing will contribute to the link pop of the site. Also, it'll get you more links from people who spider the directory and use the results to add pages to their site. However, there are risks involved, such as getting your title and description changed and possibly even getting dropped. I think it's a matter of looking at your particular situation, weighing the pros and cons, and making a decision based on that.
Yahoo directory is valuable, but i think that yahoo's worth isn't $300. you should try dmoz. yahoo(pr8) is with paid, but dmoz(pr8) is free. therefore, you can evaluate $300 different ways better than yahoo. for example in link directories, article directories or blog posts.
I have found Yahoo Dir to be a quick way to get on the map, but you could use the money for content backlinks and probably get a comparable result. I have never had a site rejected by yahoo directory
I submit for DMOZ for more than 1 year and no answer. I submit for Yahoo and got listed with $300. You don't have to pay every year. Many people said you link will not removed even you don't pay.
This exact similar question has been asked for many times already. I would saying this 1. If your submission is based on website revenue. It would worth enough if you can generate revenues for $300 or more in one week. 2. If your submission is based on website branding. It is solely up to you. 3. If your submission is based on SEO. See #1.
I think directories are worthless. The sole purpose anymore is getting listed in Google quickly, and there are MANY, MANY more effective methods to do that today. In fact, you can get listed in hours following a few simple steps
yeah. It is worth and can help you to drive more traffic, but you need to submit your site on proper category.
Yes Google gives a high value for it, anything that Google gives value on internet is valuable to us.
Thanks for your valuable reply , my site is 3 years old and I want to do it only for SEO.My competitor has already submitted 2 years before.
yeah, submitting your website into the yahoo directory is really a worth, b'coz it will give backlinks..... and google can consider a high value for it.
Yes. Absolutely. From substantial personal experience, and a heck of a lot of evaluation of Google top 10 results for a gaggle of different keywords, I see no advantage to being listed in any directory, other than getting you site listed quickly in Google (it's well known that getting your link on a PR5 or greater site will get you indexed fast). Proper keyword selection, link building (using many, many techniques), on page SEO, etc... are infinitely more valuable in the short and long run. Once upon a time, directory listings were far more valuable than today - when people actually used directories to find websites. Now, they use Google, or whatever, so your unlikely to get any traffic from these directory listings. Does Google favor sites listed in Yahoo and DMOZ directories? Perhaps, but using the appropriate SEO competition tools to analyze the top 10 for just about any marginally competetive keyword (i.e. keywords the average internet marketer will compete for) doesn't support it, as directory listed sites are comingled with non-listed sites, sometimes outranking, sometimes not. I would certainly say that being listed in Yahoo or DMOZ would give you a quality backlink, but perhaps not much more.
Why quickly? Whats the point of quickly? That would only be useful if nothing changed within the search engines. One of the best approaches is just running a website normally, the more natural and normal that its done is far better than chasing a moving target. Ah the old traffic from directories mention, lol, why is it that folk who claim to be running tests and all sorts of stuff actually always mention this, its very clear to a lot of people that current web directories are not expected to send much if any traffic. Of course searchers use google, its the backlinks from web directories and other sites that eventually help a site get found. Seo competition tools are not needed, if a webmaster spends that same amount of time just concentrating on what they're doing on their own site then it will be more beneficial. To be honest you sound confused about it all, im even confused about what you feel works and doesn't. Anyway, what made me reply here is you mentioned quickly up above there. To be honest, these days i see a naivety within the webmaster world, its almost embarrassing reading some of the questions and answers, for some reaon people keep going about quickness and best this and does it work, is it worth it etc etc Whatever happend to concentrating on running a website first, i dont even think that half the people that ask about yahoo directory even have the money to submit to it, they dont even search here to read the 500 other threads asking the same question.
There is no confusion - we just have different perspectives and marketing plans. I have websites that have grown naturally, and I have others that that simply redirect links to product sales pages, and still others that technically "bypass" Google altogether using article marketing. Not all marketing even requires a website, at least one that is yours. The purpose of "quick" is to tag a hot market quickly. Some people just want to sell something - truly market a new "need" quickly, and building a blog or site over time will not accomplish that as the market may be gone or saturated by the time the rest of the world even knows about it. There is nothing at all wrong with building a website over time, and having things naturally pan out, but it's only one method, and not a method that everyone chooses. You don't appear to be into keyword based marketing, and reject the use of SEO tools - which is fine, if that's the way you want to do things - I am just stating my stance on directories from my marketing perspective. There are hundreds of ways to market stuff and thousands of ways to spin those hundreds. My only point is that from my personal experience, web directories are essentially useless (I don't even bother with the free ones anymore) for anything other than getting indexed quickly - and there are better ways of doing that even.
If someone wants quick results then maybe they should go the PPC route, its understandable that someone might want to get things moving quickly while theres interest and a buzz around a product or service. Im aware of what to do with keywords, lol, i just dont go using a tool and get all caught up in that, im fully aware of analyzing and statistics etc, i just dont need to grab hold of a tool for that If i need to find where my sites are ranking for keywords and phrases il literally just search and see where they rank, that why i dont get conflicting information, like i read that other get when they say that they checked, and this tool tells me this but when they go and check in google their site is not to be found anywhere near where a tool suggested it was, and why would it? Its normal that the search engine itself would have the most up to date info. Are the search engines even comfortable with these tools being used? Do they not block certain things if a tool for checking something might have been promgrammed in a way that will cause problems? For you to suggest that directories are useless is taking it a bit far, what i can accept is for you to say that they are only one of many ways to build backlinks or that they may carry less weight than they did, or that if its a low quality directory that its probably useless, see i agree with people on that, there really are some very bad directories out there, operated by equally bad people. To lump all web directories together is unfair, im a web directory owner so naturally i have to see it from both sides but i know that there are many good quality and useful directories. When i read what you say and what other people say when they lump all directories into the same basket i often say to myself dont bother replying to them, but then why not? After all you are suggesting that 3 of the sites that i currently own are useless and im saying no, basically no they're not, i look after mine well. Web directories will still be used and appreciated and benefitted from when all of the fads are dead and gone. The trouble is that a lot of people are impatient, some people want to get seen without spending, they wont touch PPC and wont use a directory that isn't free or they realise that the ones that wont cost them a penny are quite often junk (something that i do agree on) and so they say all directories are junk, just out of frustration. Back to the OP's question and my answer, worth what? most people should be able to answer this yahoo directory question themselves, will your site at least cover the fee within 12months?
Most of the experts said yahoo directory is the best directory now, so submitting to it is worth the money. I think submitting to a directory is mainly for SEO, since directory can't bring direct traffic. However, directory can increase your backlinks, and submitting to those big directories, you are also submitting to the big search engines.