As someone who's spent sometime submitting I would suggest that if you have designed a unique structure you should promote that and don't sell the template. Plenty of directories have the same design and its obvious the content would not be viewed as unique by Google. maybe a small discount but still its discounted. I think that long term even if you are starting from scratch if you design something that is unique you will be way ahead of all the other cookie cutter directories that appear every other hour. If I could code I would already have done it but... I would suggest that anyone who has a directory of directories start a subcategory - custom design from scratch directories!
I like the custom directory category idea! And that probably goes a long way in helping to stand-out to the humans an the spiders. I have started only using original designs in my last few directories and a few of them I have designed myself <shameless plug> www.searchingtech.com and www.submit4fun.com
I really disagree strongly with what you said about Matt. I might have felt similarly prior to this PubCon, but being here and hearing him talk was very interesting. The thing is, and imo the reason you say he's talking a lot but saying a little, is that we (seos) don't want to listen to him. He's basically saying that to do well w/SEO in Google, you can't go out and do all the easy things (eg submit to 1000 directories). Matt is telling us that we have to actually work and get quality links from quality sites, and of course we don't like what we're hearing (who wants to do hard work? ), so we just stop listening to him. The problem is, what he's saying is true. Directories that do not require editorial approval or have very lenient review policies aren't going to be very valuable w/Google. They're good at identifying this kind of thing, and they're only going to get better.
Every little bit counts as far as I'm concerned. However it is they measure things all it takes is one more point than the competition to be number 1. I think that these comments are in direct response to all of the QBC directories that have popped up this year. I do believe in time their value will decline. Directories with unique or slightly different category structures and which look unique will not be going anywhere - at least IMHO. I suspect those directories who keep accepting non-topical links, sitewides, and absolute rediculous descriptions are the ones that G is targeting here - assuming there is actually any stick associated with this threat. But, to be totally honest, I've begun to wonder if Matt makes a claim of this or that to get webmasters to change direction because G doesn't have a real solution for dealing with something. This is the same company/spokesman who claimed that a link on a Real Estate site to a mortgage site is not related and a no-no. whatever
I don't think that what he's saying is untrue. I just don't think it means very much, in that it has hidden layers of meaning that you can infer from what he says. In other words, I don't think Google has much up its sleeve for dealing with the profusion of directories. Or at least, nothing we didn't already know about, like a tightening of the duplicate content filter.
Honestly, I don't think it would be a very hard challenge for some of the most brilliant tech minds in the world to identify low quality directories.
I believe that this statement is more for all the cookie cutter directories that show up all the time. I think what google is doing is sending a statement, just like we are tired of seeing MFA sites drown the search engines, they too are tired of seeing the same kind of directories with the same categories and same style just drown the search engines. It is getting old, every single day someone adds a new directory that is not in away different from what we see all the time. If I was a search engine spider I would get tired of eating the same kind of sites every day too. After awhile it starts to lose it's taste if you know what I mean.
May be it's time most directory owners realize they can't build a great resource alone only in a month or so I see future in directories because it is indispensable for search engines, and Matt Cutts wasn't talking directly to directories such as Yahoo, DMOZ, BOTW, but to link farms owners. I think it's a fact for a while that having a link in a link farm isn't going to give you a high vote. BTW Google has a directory... So i believe they aren't talking to themselves but to the majority of dir owners that lists crap ... And seriously its nothing new.
It's obvious that Google will eventually find a way to get rid of pages that generate fake importance for sites, like: Directory links Signature links Unrelated sitewide links And others... Google's progress might have slown down a bit in terms of revolutionary services(such as Search, Gmail, News) , but they still employ people that are talented enough to understand what are REAL links and improve the algorithm accordingly.
i tested this theory about some time back on a moderately competitive sector and achieved top 10 rankings only by submitting to directories. So i guess they still work... for me atleast.
especially when you have a new site with only those kind of low quality link. It is like screaming " I am doing SEO you bitch"
Agreed -- Uniqueness will be key..... All these biz directories, phpld's, etc have a short life span....
Maybe that explains why my one and only web directory still does not have a page rank assigned, despite having PR4/5/6 back links.
I still believe directory submission helps. Provided, these directories are not banned nor have been penalized.