Niche Directories

Maybe completion upon the most used directory lists ? (bob's, vilencer's and lee's) :

http://www.incominglinks.com/

500+ niche directories, so it seems

Good luck people

 

nice thanks for posting

 

Submitted my Pet Directory

 

Nice post. Thank you

 

This looks interesting. Thank you. Might be a good topic for an article.

Merry

 

Indeed.

I would suggest Bob, Vilencer and Lee to contact the owner, and include the niche directories, that are not in their lists.

It would surely benefit the visitors, as they own the most visited lists.

 

A very useful resource indeed. Keep up the good work .

 

Thanks for your post!

 

I had an idea for a website like this once... great resource though, I'm just now submitting to several.

 

a good list of resource. keep up!

 

Yeah. It's a nice resource

 

expertu: Very nice find. I gave him a link on Skaffe.
http://www.skaffe.com/viewCat/8241

And a link on my Lists of Directory Lists.
http://www.seocompany.ca/directory/top-web-directories.html

I also emailed him to see if I can get a link on his front page and to see what he thinks about me [using his uncopyrightable] db of links : )

Good work.

 

For the record, I said "no" to Bob's requests.

It took me the best part of 10 years to compile the original list of URLs (incominglinks.com draws on a fraction - albeit a significant fraction - of my private database of URLs to promote sites at, which in turn is a subset of the massive Favourites lists I've been building up since early 1996) so I'm not happy with anyone simply piggybacking off of all that effort.

 

expertu: Yes I talk to Edwin and he was a bit testy with me what he called having his "arm twisted" for a reciproal link and suggest I "remove the links" I gave him. It is a very nice site and he didn't want to sell any links. His site would have been a nice fit for my resources.

Any way I when domain hunting and found all these nice domains.

TOPICAL-DIRECTORIES.BIZ
TOPICAL-DIRECTORIES.COM
TOPICAL-DIRECTORIES.INFO
TOPICAL-DIRECTORIES.NET
TOPICAL-DIRECTORY.BIZ
TOPICAL-DIRECTORY.COM
TOPICAL-DIRECTORY.INFO
TOPICAL-DIRECTORY.NET
TOPICALDIRECTORIES.BIZ
TOPICALDIRECTORIES.COM
TOPICALDIRECTORIES.INFO
TOPICALDIRECTORIES.NET
TOPICALDIRECTORY.BIZ
TOPICALDIRECTORY.COM
TOPICALDIRECTORY.INFO
TOPICALDIRECTORY.NET
NICHE-DIRECTORIES.BIZ
NICHE-DIRECTORIES.INFO
NICHE-DIRECTORIES.NET
NICHE-DIRECTORIES.ORG
NICHE-DIRECTORY.INFO
NICHE-DIRECTORY.ORG
NICHEDIRECTORIES.NET
NICHEDIRECTORIES.ORG
NICHEDIRECTORY.BIZ
NICHEDIRECTORY.INFO
NICHEDIRECTORY.NET
NICHEDIRECTORY.ORG

Edwin Hayward: You seem to think that a list of URLs is copyrightable. If you do a bit of home work you would quickly find that code is, and look and feel in some case is also. But a list of other people's domain names. I hardly think so.

The strange thing is I offered to either buy the list of uncopyrightable URLs from you and you turned me down. Very strange.

While I am very much again ripping any ones code or even using wholesale their compilation work with our giving due credit surely you are not so niave to thing that people won't supplement they resource with yours.

Any way welcome to Digital Point. It is one of the better SEO forums on the planet. Lots of good resources here.

 

I fail to see why refusing to sell you something that I very clearly told you I did not want to make available for sale can be considered "strange"? I'm not yet cynical enough to believe we live in a world where everything automatically HAS to be for sale...

And please don't presume to lecture me on Copyright issues. While I may be a new arrival at Digital Point, I've been building sites on the web since 1995 and have had plenty of opportunities to review the relevant laws. You will find that the context the links are presented in, if substantial work has been put into the collection, presentation and categorisation of the links [all 3 apply here], can in effect render the compilation itself copyright. See for example

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-02/0304.html
http://uaweb.arizona.edu/council/copyright.shtml
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
http://www.wheatonma.edu/Library/Info/Copyright.html
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/copyright-2002/webpagesfaqs.html
http://art.ntu.ac.uk/liveart/issues/Chapter8.htm
http://my.simmons.edu/services/technology/policies/copyright.shtml
http://www.evolt.org/article/Copyright_Law_and_You/20/15208/

Furthermore, you'll also note that the URLs themselves are not present on IncomingLinks.com, only pointers that redirect to the URLs. So a case could be made that a wholesale attempt to "copy" the URLs would be tantamount to reverse-engineering the database underpinning IL.

Aside: I'm very happy to see other thread posters have found IL useful. There's a lot of sweat (but no tears) in that site, so it's nice to see that it's able to help someone.

 

Edwin Haywood: "I fail to see why refusing to sell you something that I very clearly told you I did not want to make available for sale can be considered strange?" I found it strange to not sell a list that minus its format, code, look and feel, and perhaps 10% of the list is not copyrightable.

"And please don't presume to lecture me on Copyright issues."
I didn't presume and I didn't lecture. I brought out what I feel clearly are the the facts. Just as you are doing the same but you will not find me charging your with lecturing or presuming.

However the links you posted don't give weight to your position. In fact they clearly support the position I have taken.

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-02/0304.html
"Be aware, however, that a LIST of facts may be copyrightable if the
selection and arrangement of the elements in the list is sufficiently
original."
A list with format and arrangement "may be".

http://uaweb.arizona.edu/council/copyright.shtml
"Although a URL is not copyrightable, a list of URLs that a web author has compiled in a unique way is copyrightable. So, if you come across someone's Neat Links to various URLs, DO NOT copy the entire document for use on your web site."
Don't copy the entire list. Drop 10% and the format. Is the position of the University of Arizona.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html

I suggest you read the case of "Rural Telephone Service Company". Very interesting.

"According to the Supreme Court, a compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship..."

Take away the code, format, categories, there is no copyright.

I do how ever think this is a good suject that has come up and its some thing that it good for us to be in the know. So we know the rights of our material and so we don't transgress the rights of others. So for this I thank you for bringing this topic up.

Lets digress for a few minutes and look at a copy of examples that are not as so close to home for you.

Lets take for example Dan's list of free web directories. Dan puts alot of work into the list, getting directories that are free, non-reciprocal, don't let your site sit for 3 months etc.

Here is Dan's list.
http://www.seocompany.ca/directory/free-web-directories.html

Bob, that’s me, uses Dan's list with out permission or asking to update my list from time to time. I have 185 directories, Dan has 202. I add out my own will a note stating that I use Dan's list to update my list.

Here is the notice:
"This list is updated regularly from the VILESILENCER.COM list of Free Web Directories. His highly maintained list of general, free and non-reciprocal web directories is the best on the internet bar none. Hats off to Dan's quality work!"

Do you think that is violation of copyright as far as you understand the copyright law?

Let take another case.

http://www.info-sales.co.uk/dirs.htm
This is a site that has a 200+ list of links. From the most part as far as I can see the format is very much the same and the URL are very much the same.

There is some change for sure. Dan's is in the db, this one is not. But they look very much the same.

Would you consider http://www.info-sales.co.uk/dirs.htm in copyright volition?

I think this can make a good conversation and expertu we don't want to hijack your thread so if you want us to fork this we will. But if this is ok with you I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion on copyright where we can all learn.

 

I'm not going to waste my time fencing with you. It is possible to pull single sentences out of any of the links I gave you and "interpret" them however you like (by for instance inventing a "10% different" factor absent of any supporting material). But read ALL the relevant sections of ALL the links, and there is a transparently clear preponderance of opinion in support of my POV. Note also that several documents explicitly make a distinction between yellow page-type material (telephone numbers, addresses etc.) and URL lists.

I have asserted my copyright privately and publicly, I have also stated that IL is a unique work that has taken a significant amount of time and effort to compile [note that it has 3x the number of links that either you or Dan have - I'd never even heard of your sites until I followed up your email to me by looking for references to my own site]

Let us be even more clear. You, Bob, explicitly DO NOT have my permission to work through IL to extract the URLs. Neither does anyone else reading this thread. End of story, as far as I'm concerned, since by your replies you have clearly read and acknowledged my explicit refusal to grant you permission to extract the information.

 

On a side note, with having three times more directories, you compare apples with oranges. Dan's list has only directories that are search engine friendly, ie. no redirects, and on top of that, are non-reciprocal.

So, for example, just looked up your forum directories and you list three redirects, while Dan has three yet seo friendly (plus one in the queue, but not in current list, that makes it to 4).

That's just to put facts straight. Otherwise, kudos for great job in compiling and presenting the links. Must have taken a lot of effort, and is a valuable resource.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Edwin Hayward: "I'm not going to waste my time fencing with you."
I am sorry you feel it is a waste of time to discuss these matters. I think we could have had a very good discuss.

"...by for instance inventing a "10% different" factor absent of any supporting material... "
I use 10%, as 90% of a list is no longer the complete list. The supporting factor is the statement "DO NOT copy the entire document".

"I have asserted my copyright privately and publicly..."
I accept that. I will not voliate the copyright of you site. I would never consider taking your complete site with format, code and categories and posting it on my site.

"You, Bob, explicitly DO NOT have my permission to work through IL to extract the URLs."
I don't need your permission to go through your public list of other peoples public work and go to the pages - I would not call this "extract the URLs" - and supplement my topical list with some of the sites that you list on your directory.

You should feel free to go through my lists and supplement the areas that are weak in your site. You have this right by law and I will not try to hog my list of other peoples work just to myself.

And if you would add a link and give acknowledgement you can use 100% of the list and not just the 90+/-% so that the copyright law allows you.

Here is my copyright notice that I put up on my pages.
"If you want to copy this list and post it on the internet as is, you are required by copyright to note the source and to give a link back to this page. The form that this list is in has a copywriter as does every page on this site (see the footer). If you want to fill out your own list from my list and make your own comments be my guest."

You will see while I don't want people taking my pages wholesale - like this copyright voliation - I am all for the spirit of free sharing of information as provided in copyright law and am against the concept of making lists of other peoples work and try to stop people from supplementing their list from my list.

I would also say that if a significance portions of ones work is supplemented from the gathering done by some one else, that the person that has used the other persons work ethically owes them a notice of them having benefiting from that work.

I not only believe this by practice it. Hence the notice on my free web directory page.
This list is updated regularly from the VILESILENCER.COM list of Free Web Directories. His highly maintained list of general, free and non-reciprocal web directories is the best on the internet bar none. Hats off to Dan's quality work!
http://www.seocompany.ca/directory/free-web-directories.html

"...note that it has 3x the number of links that either you or Dan have - I'd never even heard of your sites until I followed up your email to me by looking for references to my own site..."
I have 430 sites listed in my resource so I don't think you have 3x more. Not that it matters. I think it would be great if you did have 1200 sites in your directory. I have never heard of your site until the other day either. The internet is vast and there are lots more good resouces and I expect we will both continue to find good resources almost daily.

All the best in all your endeavours Edwin. If supplement my topical list to any large degree from your list I will make sure I make a note of that and will give you a link also.