Rand Fishkin upsets directory owners?

When you live and operate from Asia as I do and you know this OP referred to tool will never work, the rest of the peripheral information around this subject is of no use

As half the world cannot access this information so what is the point

 

?? What tool did i refer to?

 

Yer i thought that was rather amusing, also that he said that Yahoo Directory and DMOZ are probably very good...

 

I don't remember the month --but Rand met Matt Cutts few months back in a SEO conference.
These SEO guys are --just so lame/toothless that --they abide by whatever Matt Cutts/Google tell them. Yahoo Directory-- 100% good but dMOZ --nothing but a LINK-FARM - Skeleton/fossil of a very BIG GIANT

I believe an online revolution has already started --much in line with Open Source Movement against Microsoft. John Chow is the pioneer of this movement -as he is the first Big Shot to challenge Google publicly by saying that he has no use of Google for his traffic and income.

Do you guys find similiarities between the Scenarios?

Mr. Rand just does not have the fore-sight to see the obvious near future --he might be out of place/sort if he does not endorse directories So let him be what he is --- and let us be what we are.

We don't need him or his SEOMOZ ( is he jealous of directories because directories are popping up everywhere on search results for every imaginable keyword/keyphrase ahead of his clients?) -- but SEOs need links to serve their clients --and.....................

 

I think SocEngine.com is a general web directory managed by SEOMOZ crew don't know if Rand would classify it as a worthless general directory.

 

The irony is that he probably does classify it as worthless, yet continues to accept review fees.

 

This debate about directories being worth anything or worthless has really increased lately, its crazy!

 

I'm not upset either. He doesn't say all are worthless, only some of them, then goes on to do a fairly good example of how not to build a valuable directory.

 

I agree with him most directories are not worth submitting to.

 

Why is it CRAZY?
It is completely valid --and all this has been result of all those QBCs -who buy domains with PR without any relation to directory -- install free directory Script and try to sell links on the basis of domain PR.

Many inexperienced webmasters are being duped by this phenomenon --its the most dangerous disease that has been plaguing our industry ATM.

I think even Mr. Rand has also been duped by them while SEOing his clients' sites--thats why he is against directories who sell PR and not quality. As far as I understand -- he is not against quality directories ( just that he does not have any idea how to pik quality directories out of hundreds of thousands of directories online. I say this because Google is giving authority status to directories -and Mr. Rand still thinks they are not of high quality. He must have little ideas on web directories and my saying is -- "don't talk about what you don't know").

This debate is 100% valid

 

He didn't say anything that I can disagree with. It all boils down to the value proposition. Most directory owners are chasing PR to entice submitters. Few are chasing hub status for their cat pages and that's what makes an authority directory/page that's really worth paying for IMO.

 

Time is of the essence, and within that time things progress and grow

yahoo is a search engine, a directory and a newsfeed.
google is a search engine, a directory and a newsfeed.

They started somewhere and with an idea as others do and have, and nothing comes overnight.

Now, with a directory adding the same two or three sites that every other directory has, where and what is the difference? Oh, that's right, there is none, because those directories lack ideology. They are nothing more than spam/duplicates. Your views are as skewed and you lack innovation/thought on betterment.

 

Oh I know its completely valid, I just made a comment on how it has really popped up like wildfire lately!

 

That is the crux of it, with all this new competition directory owners are looking to improve their resource and the value they offer to visitors and submitters. As an example: just the wide spread addition of deep linking options has doubled the value of directory listings. It was always challenging for website owners to build deep links and now there is a very cost effecient option by utilizing deep link listings.

It is very difficult to just open a completely innovative completly all encompassing site in one-shot, it is something that needs to be built and molded over time. Web directories have changed a lot over the past 18 months and they will contiue changing and evolving to strive to offer better value to the submitters and the visitors. The ones the don't will likely just die off, it is the nature of all business.

 

My take on the video, any comments

http://www.directorytrials.com/seomoz-on-web-directories/

 

Whenever people talk about SEO, it's usually Google SEO nowadays. Assuming Rand was talking about G SEO exclusively, I find his comment yet another typical advice from "SEO guru".

They tend to devalue PageRank which is created by Google, by saying PR doesn't indicate any value of a website. I tend to disagree on this view because I don't think you can simply ignore PR as long as it shows correctly in DC's. I think it's better to let Google decide the value if you want to Google SEO. His opinion is just one man's to me.

 

Every potential customer has the right to asses directories in their own way, thats business.

Although he has failed to evaluate the actual objectives of using directories in the first place.

 

Right on track and I have disclosed it already to MC. Most directories rushes in forgetting the value as its intended to be I agree with time and the time to grow but most of them have acquired sufficient time like 8 months or more without any or of no value only tricky stuff.

Yes indeed.

Yes Jay many have changed and evolved but there are also some that didnt and suffice to say their intention was absolutely directed of becoming popular without having a sweat shot at adding valued sites.

Nothing wrong with the debate really; we are all spam duplicates but at least we try to put sweat in adding and putting time as in most declaration as quality, seo friendly, best resource, human edited, etc. lets live up to what we declare.

 

Maan-- you frighten me because I am using that name.

Does this category offers quality? Download Free Games

Or This? Fencing

Or this? Business Law ?

My only goal is to adhere to what Matt Cutts said about directories and I am hell-bent on justifying my domain name or site-title-- though my intention is not to follow him blindly like SEOMOZ. Since I bought the domain -I had this dream of making it a super resource site. Thats why that name

Please remove my title name --I am still developing though -and will fill up all my categories with the best Online resources within managable time.

 

One thing I have to agree with, is that 95% of directories I have checked (banklink wise) 90% of the categories have zero backlinks and the links have nothing to do with the categories that have backlinks, I think people who manage directories should work from the inwards to outwards, and get relevant links to there categories, rather than relying on the pagerank of the domain.

Not pointing this at anyone, it was something that I notice a while ago.