Why wouldn't a directory as well established as V7N offer something as simple as deep links? Same with BOTW
Do they have detail pages? If not, deep links aren't much use as like on Dmoz there are few places to display them.
They do have details pages. We pay to be listed in directories and expect value out of our money. Deep links are pretty standard nowadays for any good directory. Perhaps the visitors of the directory can find the main sections of a listed site better. It's sort of like the "Site Links" section that appears below some searches on Google. It helps to highlight the important sections
Site Links is shown by a specific method, and not the choice of the website owner. When Deep Links are submitted by a person to a directory, he usually shows the page which converts his traffic to his income. Site Links and Deep Links are two different things and it is best not to mix them. As far as v7n not having the deep links option is concerned, John should know about it the best rather than we guessing on why it doesn't have so.
So are you guys really saying you think directories should NOT offer deep links? Really? Can you name me couple of them? BOTW, V7n, and Yahoo are the ones that i can think of, but they are hardly "most". No one is confusing the two with each other. I said deep links are "like the "Site Links" which i believe it is true. Google chooses what the Site Links that are listed under your site should be and We (submitters) choose it ourselves when we submit to directories. However, they both represent important parts of the site. Also, you CAN manage your Google Site Links to some extend. You can block the ones you don't think should be listed in Google webmaster tools and Google would replace it with something else. So throughout time you can almost get exactly what you want.
If you don’t know what the major directories are then please don’t ask me to waste my time listing them for you. Deep link submissions were always known as spam submissions until quick buck webmaster found they could make more money with them.
Directories just like many other businesses are in a service industry. Providing services to their visitors and their submitters. So whether or not to provide deep linking options to me should be more of a business decision which revolves around the needs or your clients (visitors or submitters). To me it is not a statement of quality of the directory. If you want to say that deep links are for the submitters an argument can be made for that. If you want to say they are for the visitors in providing quick links to important areas of a site, that argument is also valid. IMO and you can put the "H" in there if you like. Who cares whether it is for the submitter or the visitor as they are BOTH clients of the directory. One seeks quality resources and one seeks quality exposure. So bottom line is that I don't use deep links as a means to evaluate quality of a directory. I see it as an option that the directory either chose to offer or not offer based on their business evaluation of their visitors and submitters.
Deep links only become spam if you let them. I encourage people to submit to interior pages, particularly those that appear on their main navigational menus. Guess, I'm in the minority with this opinion.
Maybe BOTW and Yahoo don't want to be spammed with people submitting 50 internal pages on the same domain. As already stated by many people, this is not that unusual that a directory won't accept deep links. Not sure why you are angry about this. As far as asking "do you guys really saying you think directories should NOT offer deep links?" The owner(s) of a directory can setup whatever submission guidelines they want. Some quality directories don't accept deep links. Some do. Some directories don't accept certain types of sites (adult, gambling, etc.). Some do. There is no reason to get angry that some directories have submission guidelines that don't suit you.
I agree. Offering or not offering deep links doesn't mean a directory is of a better or lower quality. However, higher quality directories generally charge higher fees for review/inclusion. Similar to any other services the more a customer pays for a service the more they expect and in this case deep links can add more value for the money. I'm not talking about allowing to submit different pages of the site under different categories and different titles. I'm talking about allowing 3 to 5 deep links with one submission. What I was talking about wasn't allowing different URLs be submitted in 50 different submissions. I was talking about having the option of additional 3 or 5 deep links submitted with your one listing in the directory. So there would be only one listing with 3 to 5 deep links on the "details' page. Here is a suggestion to waste less of your time: you dont have to reply at all.
Sort of figured that's what you meant. I guess VN7 figures they aren't necessary. Personally I like directories that offer the extra deep link option and if things are pretty much even, I will choose one with the extra links over one without...a better value for the money IMO.
We only allow deep links if they are not related to the main page and/or not reachable from the main page. If someone has a personal web page about his family and on a subpage a good amount of content about, for example, Diabetes, we would allow it. We don't see why deeplinks with the same content would help our visitor. If the content from these subpages is about Diabetes, Cancer and Acne, the main site could go in the main Diseases subtopic. Hugo
I think deeplinks should be seen as an additional service of value to the client and not a criteria as to whether the directory is good or not. Some directories don't have the deeplinks feature but they are still considered authority directories. I don't see any problem in directories offering deeplinks to those who are probably willing to pay more for the value of their listing.
Very well stated defending both sides In the end its one of choice to the owner whether he add them thx M1