|"Quality Directory": What is the meaning of "quality directory" to you?|
Does quality guarantee visitors? If not, why not?
| 12:50 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Having been there and done it, one thing plays on my mind - quality is a single person's thought, and combined with emotion and possibly panic for traffic, rankings and links, does it really pay off majorly to use these?
I mean - jump-starting the link building aside, what makes/attracts hoards of sites to submit to one over another. Are some more popular than others and is this the reason why everyone swarms over certain directory types?
What defines real true quality? Is it the sites listed in the beast, maybe it's the look of it - what about the layout of results? Or is it more than this, something I miss picking up on as a user?
At the moment I see link chasers, I see PR chasers, page listers but few spend eg: many just want the free link and that's it, you never see or hear from them after that. So wonder why so many directory owners still maintain them when it's such a monsterous task for little reward.
Any thoughts on this as advertisers perhaps?
Do you just pay for any old directory link (it's a link after all) or do you value some real quality results on your investment?
[edited by: Webwork at 1:48 pm (utc) on June 2, 2007]
[edit reason] Tidying up [/edit]
| 12:39 am on Jun 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
To me quality means that the directory is useful to visitors.
Simple test - go to the health category at a directory - most just have listed hair loss; weight loss; sell drugs type sites.
Go to the health category of a "quality" directory (eg DMOZ or Yahoo) and they have sites that are actually useful to visitors - eg what would a health category be if it did not list the World Health Organisation; the National Institute of health; WebMD etc --- the poorer quality directories do not tend to list these sorts of useful sites.
| 1:13 am on Jun 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You mean these directories are badly maintained and filled with Spam sites. That would also mean that the directory owner accepts bad sites, so why would they do this - what is the purpose of such actions?
| 11:21 am on Jun 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There are general directories, there are focused or niche directories and lastly there are the ones whose primary objective is to make themselves and their contents attractive to the big search engines, without regard to the surfer.
To be really general these days, a directory needs millions of links. Unless it has, the surfer is better served by the large established ones.
Niche directories can be extremely useful to the surfer interested in that particular niche. If you want to know about breeding hamsters, a directory focused on that topic would be a a wonderful find.
Niche directories have to be done right though. I was looking at a world wide directory of night clubs the other day. It looked very attractive and it had loads of entries. There was just one major problem. You couldn't tell what country a club was in without clicking it's entry and it's search didn't seem to work at all.
For the first two classes, high quality means useful to the user IMHO. As for the last class, they might look pretty but I just don't know how you'd measure quality.
| 10:13 pm on Jun 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pretty directories do very well. I know of 3 that have an incredible amount of links to them, and I think is why they can get away with selling links.
They are very attractive to the eye, but feel only link chasers will use them, what I mean is there are no businesses listed in them - only webmasters. Perhaps that's the intent here, and what's more shockable is the lack of listings, which wouldn't justify the fee. Yeah, they have loads of links - but why would a searcher return, I mean they have no informational value to offer.
Just a very nice looking directory. Are they useful - I say a big NO. If they bothered to fill their indexes, then they would be useful.
| 12:31 am on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have a somewhat diferent take on directories , thing is, there is so much on my mind, but i'll try an get some of it out coherently,
a, is a web directory a library of businesses , a standard of measurement for websites, or an advertising medium
b, Yellow pages , paper directories do not generally saddle themselves with the baggage of having to list only high quality sites, instead they focus on selling as many slots as the can but, they ensure they categorise everything very tightly, afterall they're proper businesses, unlike,,,, ergo, they leave it to their users to determine what the want to use, an yes, a lot of the paper directories have successfully transitioned in to online businesses too.
c, web direcctories people say do not bring traffic, this is not true,due to the overaching dominance of just 3 search engines, world wide, a bizzare situation, they bring in only a trickle of traffic, but consider, if your site is listed in 10,000 little directories run by 10,000 guys in their bedrooms around the world, an each gives you just 1 unique visitor per month, would you say no to the 10,000 visitors per month?
An yes every month, I do get a trickle of visitors from all the directories i've submitted to, yes a lot of them are webmasters, but you know what, they've got money too an they buy stuff, online too.
This visitors often find very poorly advertised websites in directories, cause the directory listing is much better advertised, tis just as it is with paper directories, businesses outsource some of their advertising to directories, so when you see a directory with gadzillions of links, tis all part of it, those links combined bring in a flood a visitors, quite apart from SE rankings
d, With the current penchant for directory bashing, tis obvious to me that we really do need to better inform our fellow webmasters of the good reasons why they should get listed with us, we do need to work harder on getting none SE traffic into our directories, we only need to get 1 frequent visitor at a time,
directories are the poorer cousins of the princes of search, the big SE's , but tis still the search market,,
Anyway, support your local directory today, get listed :)
| 1:36 am on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Directories have inherent potential advantages and inherent limitations. The Yellow Pages is one example of a kind of advantage: because no sane legitimate local business doesn't have a phone, the phone company has an authoritative, exhaustively comprehensive list of local businesses--accurate beyond the reach of most researchers outside the county tax auditor's office.
That directory isn't perfect, of course: for instance, the print version is on average about six months out of date. There are still a few typographical errors in phone numbers--I've even run into them on occasion. A very few fraudulent companies go to the trouble of obtaining local numbers in places where they have no presence, thus enhancing their own "appearance of reputation" by debasing (that is, stealing) the reputation of the phone company. But in the end, someone who tried to compete with the phone company to produce a directory of local businesses, without having some corpus of organizational knowledge to add, would have to be considered insane and thus unreliable. For example: I knew about a large company that tried to launch a web-based directory based on Wiki-like information. I've never heard of that directory outside the walls of the building (I worked for another division of the company at the time), and that didn't surprise me.
Local chambers of commerce (and, to a varying extent, other trade organizations) have their unique own kind of authoritativeness and accuracy, and often provide directories based on their own reputation. For instance, when the ODP abandoned listing individual MLM sites, one of our considerations was that if a list of (say) Amway dealers was a good thing, Amway had the motivation and information to create the ultimate list: we could not compete with that, nor should we waste energy trying.
But the limitations are always there. Directories are based on the knowledge their sponsoring organization can harness efficiently; they don't get built or updated in real-time; and like all other human artifacts they are subject to errors.
And while directories are not susceptible to systematic sabotage like search engines and other automated processes, they are not completely immune to individual cases of small-scale malicious damage.
So, what makes a good directory?
(1) A trustworthy BUILDER (or rather, a builder whose trustworthiness can be guaged). So an anonymous or pseudonymous directory cannot be anything but worthless, because one can't ever know how far (or when) to trust it. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book beat Encarta (known for howling errors--that is, reliably untrustworthy) and Wikipedia (based on unknown individual sources) all hollow.
(2) A PROCESS for collecting information efficiently. To expand the previous example, Wikipedia beats the print encyclopedias hands down, because it draws on so much larger an information pool: each contributor simply provides what he already knows, and there's no need for the wrong person to do research for some obscure fact simply because he was the one assigned to write THAT article.)
(3) a TOPIC that is within the capability of the BUILDER and the limits of the PROCESS. Only a very large organization can produce a general-purpose web directory; a directory with global scope needs local help from everywhere; an industrial directory simply MUST be backed up by people with EXTENSIVE experience (aggregating hundreds or thousands of man-years) in the field.
With these guidelines, I think you can easily see what kind of topic any particular organization might be able to address authoritatively, and for any particular topic, what kind of knowledge its supporting organization needs to have at hand. And looking at any particular directory, you can often see at a glance whether the necessary organization and process are in place.
| 2:56 am on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But the limitations are always there. Directories are based on the knowledge their sponsoring organization can harness efficiently; they don't get built or updated in real-time; and like all other human artifacts they are subject to errors. |
That applies only to paper directories and badly designed web versions. Any directory worth it's salt will allow the client to able to keep it's information updated via a CMS. Thus as long as the client keeps their listing updated, there's no problem.
This shouldn't be an issue anymore with web designed directories - they are getting better and learning all the time. The real problem is getting one filled - no data - no sales!
| 1:02 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, let me just address a few off the comments here
Neither Wikipedia nor Encyclopedia Britannica could possibly be described as a directory, nor do they promote themselves as such,
Consequently, they cannot be held up as examples
Nothwithstanding the availability of self editing facilities, rarely do people go back to edit their listings in the directories
So, I would encourage you all to visit directories and use them, if you see things you don't like, give them feed back,
| 1:18 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I can't see anyone giving feedback to a directory. Even the feedback on Alexa isn't used anymore - (Alexa feedback system won't post anymore). I think you are expecting way too much from busy people who just don't have any interest in telling some directory how to improve itself - they just expect this to be done naturally, like any company. These directories aren't million pound businesses that can hire market research campaigns as and when, and they aren't thought of in that way either.
No, it's upto you, the directory owner to come up with the ideas. Whos running the show, you - or the visitor/client.....
There are also many folks that dislike directories and want to see them fail, and these can be businesses that are/have been hassled by them, or are other directories that see them as competition and want to wipe them out. Thus these 2 will NOT give any help whatsoever.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 1:24 pm (utc) on June 10, 2007]
| 5:20 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>That applies only to paper directories and badly designed web versions.
No, it has nothing at all to do with design. It has to do with implementation. And if it's not inherent in the concept of "directory", it's inherent in the impracticality of allocating resources to keep a directory up to date.
| 5:39 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Implementation is why I said 'bad design' or more accurately 'zero anticipation of client needs'. Meaning web designer didn't think to incorporate a user-friendly way for clients to manage listings.
Well if one can't be bothered to allocate such 'resources' then it's just one more thing that will lead to a directory's downfall and eventual failure. The advertiser will soon go elsewhere, if they aren't desperate for links.
| 7:31 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ah ... "client-managed" listings (in my experience as a user) brilliantly combine all the disadvantages of FFA's with all the disadvantages of a centrally-managed assembly-line. Except for professional self-promoters, most people simply don't take the time and effort to keep their own listings up to date. Either there are too many listings to keep up with, or they don't bother to get listed at all in most directories. And whether the user finds most potential listings absent or simply wrong, there's no possibility of anything resembling what I'd call "quality."
| 8:15 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, I can't speak for FFA's, except that they are missused, worthless and a thing of the past - so that has nothing to do with properly run directories or this thread. We are talking about upping the quality of directories, and that includes the client/user experience.
As far as I can see, most everything on the web has some sort of client managed area for advertisers including Google. - and it's very helpful tool indeed. Secondly it depends on what is on offer in these managed areas don't it, as some are highly full of features which are worth a lot to the clients. And as these things are bespoke, this mean all manner of benefits can be made available to advertisers and users.
If you better the experience and add value then you increase the offering and thus trade with it. There is nothing negative about client managed areas, and infact had a few mails asking for this very service. Businesses do move address, they do change phone numbers and like to modify descriptions - granted not all, but some do. But you can't provide this extra for a few, you have to give this to everyone.
|or they don't bother to get listed at all in most directories. |
Then it doesn't matter then does it. So why do all these directories claim superiority, when they can't even deliver the basic requirements of service business - because that's exactly the market they have entered, and will be judged on their ability to compete with the best at the very least.
|And whether the user finds most potential listings absent or simply wrong, there's no possibility of anything resembling what I'd call "quality." |
That could accurately describe most 'web sites' these days. I haven't completely grasped what you mean by that though - care to put it in lamens terms.
| 12:54 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Okay, i'll put it very simply,
For almost any new site, that seroiusly wants to generate none ppc traffic, the first port of call should be directories
The benefits of being listed in directories is proven,
Its very much like a bricks an mortar business getting listed in the yelloew pages or telepone book
| 1:43 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Exactly - but a smaller audience and much lower clickthrough. Unfortunately the last 10 years has seen a small surge of imitation directories invented for all the wrong reasons, and this has offended many a business with their cold calling and mailshot tactics, while offering little in the way of clicks or ROI.
Most of these directories are b2b, have all the same search criteria and even the same style of advert services. The advertiser sees little value in this, when he can get all of this from the leaders in this field.
The advertiser obviously wants more value, trust is near impossible to gain being a start-up, and the ones that do have the guts to announce themselves effectively, don't maintain it and after a few years shut up shop. Now that's not saying "Here I am, list with me and you will get great value, as we are long term" - but it's not enough to say it, you gotta be genuine and do it, or that trust is surely gone. There are no second chances..
Although the quality idea is interesting, it has limitations, and must surely exist on the vapour of occassional traffic searching it's engine (er, for the freebie). The B2bs have the capacity for mass indexing, but require more than that to grow into anything truly successful beyond $40 listing fees.
To be honest and perfectly straight, I see little value in the general b2b directory, even Yell - and desperately crave something beyond a platform for link collection/building, which yeilds little in ROI. And this is the truth, the reality that few directories give anything worthy for free, and a serious mistake for there are hungry sites and start ups out there, that need better services, and a leg up, so they too can get started. The idea being that they remember the directory that helped them, and buy-in to it's future, thus helping others etc.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 1:45 am (utc) on June 11, 2007]
| 2:37 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Helpinghand, I can unreservedly agree with that.
| 2:37 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I really don't understand what the issue here is.
a, most businesses start out small, if you only want to do business with the establishment, thats your own call, there are people who only shop at Tesco's or Walmarts an ignore there local groceries, each to their own.
b, smaller directories are started by people for a host of reasons, and providing free assistance to other people will not be an objective in iself.
rather, some directories are free, or free for a short while to gain popularity, traffic. But these guys are not paying their hosting fees or domain renewal fees or script fees or advertising bills so that other webmasters can get ahead. Nope, they're following a strategy that might work or fail, see google for example.
c, If your site is new, or you're not keen on spending a lot off time begging snobbish webmasters for links, you best bet will always be directory listings
d,a well promoted directory could have 500 to 2,000,000 valid inbound links and these confer a lot of power on the directory, which is partially transmitted to the listed website, benefiting SERPs, and sometimes confering direct traffic
You don't have to submit to directories, its a free world,
Directories by an large are commercial ventures and in various formats continue to offer there services to other business
Everyone, in a free society is entitled to start any business they are not legally disbarred from. I folk don't like the businesses, then they should really just walk away.
My fellow web masters, directories are your friends an are good for you :)
| 3:55 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The issue is lack of quality with these all-purpose directories, and offer nothing new, nothing unique and nothing for free.
I see hoards of ugly directories, some adsense, some not - but most set to extract cash and no ROI for the advertiser, except the odd clickthrough once a week. This is very wrong and no way to entice new advertisers. Quality of design and offering has much to do with this, but more importantly is the quality of return of a listing paid or unpaid.
If I pay £30 a year for something basic, I know as others surely do realise it's not great, ok - but should provide something pretty good for the money (the need to impress is vital at the early stages). Obviously a higher charge/better ad spot should indicate a far superior return, but these 'me too' sites cannot compete with sending decent traffic levels or maintaining that.
This is the problem today, and doubt it will go away any time soon. No effort or money is further invested into these directories to either improve value or promotion - especially advertisng the things.
People want results, I'd say results over quality is more important, but quality is necessary as standard.
| 4:45 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
for you, the solution is obvious, walk away.
However, as you walk away, consider, if these 1,000s of little directories where not benefiting their clients in some way, they would not exist.
Yet they do exist, an every once in a while , one or two of them become titans,
| 6:11 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Oh I do walk away - and thus these directories make nothing from me. I don't help promote them or pay them, nor recommend them. The quality or return isn't there for me, I wouldn't say I'm fussy, as ofcourse I'm aware of the limitations with directories, but do expect something for my spend. But if no service delievery then taking my business elsewhere isn't a problem.
|if these 1,000s of little directories were not benefiting their clients in some way, they would not exist. |
Sure they do - for the money! It's small change to keep a site on the web, as hosting is peanuts, and if the directory takes £10 a pop, that's not a bad little income. Sorry, but I expect more than just a link for that. Quality and traffic spring to mind.
|Yet they do exist, an every once in a while , one or two of them become titans |
Yeah? Who? Dmoz right.... hmmmmm, it's okay, but it's too political in getting a listing. So that's out for many - just not an option. What else - business.com, well not too bad, but a bit expensive and unlikely to send me hoards of the targeted traffic I require. But then it's a general portal isn't it, so not right for everybody.
I can't think of much else apart from a few niche directories. They are all UK generals, and thus any link bought is based more on what Google thinks of each directory link. This is why directories are created, to sell links based on someone else's say so - it's not smart and riddled with problems link-wise. Quality is based on perception, when it should be based on delivery of something.
You make money by unrivalled service and results - not by some copycat menatality. Too much easy-street going on, noone wants to create anything anymore, and it's kinda sad really. But creating quality is where the money is.
The more something is copied, the less effective the quality is. You know the public ain't stupid, and will cotten on to the scams and valueless directories that exist today. But it's the public who really decides where to spend and who to vote for - so the better the quality and service, the better the experience.
This is about creating something truly useful, so one can say "Yeah, I did that, it's mine and it does something wonderful" - this is what being an Entrepruneur is about. Inventing new and exciting ways to aid the web, you want to make money, fine, but sticking up some duplicate of something and qualityless at that - isn't the way.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 6:18 pm (utc) on June 11, 2007]
| 6:57 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>However, as you walk away, consider, if these 1,000s of little directories where not benefiting their clients in some way, they would not exist.
No, you are absolutely wrong there. A directory doesn't have to benefit clients or users to exist.
It merely has to benefit its proprietor. As for the clients: its promotional material doesn't have to be true: it doesn't even have to be persuasive for very long. It merely needs to be persuasive long enough to cash the check. Or it needs to be cheap enough to attract people who are dumb enough to buy a lottery ticket (and that's a large market.)
The majority of self-proclaimed "directories" have no intention of helping either clients or users. They're generated because a web directory seems such a drop-dead-easy way of making a quick buck.
| 7:36 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
with respect to you guys, i know where you're coming from, so I ask for your pardon when i say that the following is not exactly for your sole attention.
Directories are very popular right now, and as someone who started with a self coded example, it was a bit of a shock to find that there where a multitude of directories already out there, thanks in part to customer software.
Now, is there anything inherently wrong with following a popular activity? There are probably 5,000,000,000 people on this world, how many are programmers? doctors? train drivers? nurses? salespeople?
With your comments, you basically denigrate the evolution of humanity from the begining, we imitate that which works, we are thankful when one of our number plows a new path that works, then the rest follow
Now, there are lots of cute sayings, i'll give you on
"You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time"
Do you chaps think that based on your record, you are fit to call the multitude of webmasters who use ltttle or large directories, fools?
Take a little time to peruse a lot of directories, to see the caliber of sites listed in them, try not to see them sole from the point of view, that focuses on financial success, afterall, they certainly might not satisfy your fixation on absolute originality from each human output
| 1:13 am on Jun 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|it was a bit of a shock to find that there where a multitude of directories already out there, thanks in part to customer software. |
This just means that people can't think of original ideas or don't want the hassle involved. They figure if they copy a successful model, it will somehow guarantee them success - they buy into the dream of easy riches, get fooled by others that talk and spread lies etc. Competing with established directories is, way more than most can handle and combined with over-valuation it's doomed before it's even begun. This activity suggests the market is already flooded and your about to become a grilled fishy.
|Now, is there anything inherently wrong with following a popular activity? There are probably 5,000,000,000 people on this world, how many are programmers? doctors? train drivers? nurses? salespeople? farmers? |
Working for an employer is less risky than starting your own business. You are paid a salary and the only thing to worry about it doing the job - you don't need to worry where the work is coming from, if you will be paid or anything, as it's all taken care of by the employer.
It's so different to compare the two and not relevant as they operate at different levels of risk.
|when one of our number plows a new path that works, then the rest follow |
Unfortunately this is accomplished by the very few only. If the masses were so hot as entrepruneurs, all these directories wouldn't be falling like they do. I haven't seen a decent quality niche directory effort since 2 UK Graduates did it last year - and that latest creation hasn't done anything more or new since.
|"You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time" |
But it's being done all the time. When was the last time you thought you were buying into a great quality directory, only to discover it just ripped you off for $40. I did this myself, I took a chance and although didn't totally lose out, the link bought didn't hold the promises that were offered - but then they rarely do!
|Do you chaps think that based on your record, you are fit to call the multitude of webmasters who use ltttle or large directories, fools? |
First off, I suggest you read this very carefully, as it will save you from the illusions and mistakes many make. [webmasterworld.com...]
Buying directory links or just using directories? I'll answer both. I think because of the numbers of 'directories' involved, they are chased, sought or whatever is because it's a free and easy option without much effort required. You get a link, not always quality in completely unkown sites, highly unlikely owned by corporates, and chances are little ROI - and if folks are okay by that, then that's fine. But will it deliver? Is it quality? I say probably not, and there is a way, infact many ways to tell this, but that's another argument entirely.
Point is directories are tough to run, useless unless filled and expensive to promote. They are great if properly and professionally run and maintained, sadly the effort involved is always greater than one can imagine. Few are kept going and the others sit on the web gathering dust hoping to pick up a few paying clients here and there.
Few will make it, lets just say that. Most fold.
Users - I think some are the biggest fools on the planet, yep. I think they don't research enough before buying advertising. I think they overspend and overvalue what a link will actually deliever.
I feel the web has a lot to answer for, and can partly be blamed - but not totally. Humans have brains and can decide not to buy, yet they buy these directory links and get stung every day. These directories want money and they aren't interested in quality.
Actually using them as a resource, well, if you find a great one they are invaluable and will beat a search engine hands down. Find a targeted one and you've hit the jackpot baby - best of both world, quality, niche and hopefully no junk to wade through.
The web is a mess and I don't even think quality directories can save it now. But we did it to ourselves by abusing something great.
| 5:50 pm on Jun 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So an anonymous or pseudonymous directory cannot be anything but worthless, because one can't ever know how far (or when) to trust it. |
but only a reality if directory goes bust. It's a risk, but this risk is judged on whether it:
1. Is connected with a large company behind it
2. The directory subject is truly unique
3. Directory subject offers limitless expansion for future
4. Value is maintained
5. Will it deliver web clicks to sites
Basically a directory needs Trust and Capital to not just announce itself, but to continuous value services. First impressions of quality is very tough to judge, and this is one of the main issues currently facing the search industry.
Quality may attract webmasters, but that's a small amount of businesses compared with Corporate world. Directories often go bust, but it serves as a message to only do it if - IF you know what you're doing. A quality anything just isn't enough anymore as demand for perfection creeps into the web, thus the effectiveness of advert services gradually diminish and will eventually fail.
New ways of doing things are necessary to generate ad revenue and maintain interest for surfers. The all-purpose generals are dead and apart from a link are worthless, and am very surprised that some are still maintained, as quality certainly isn't the motivation behind these.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 5:53 pm (utc) on June 20, 2007]
| 2:48 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Go to the health category of a "quality" directory (eg DMOZ or Yahoo) and they have sites that are actually useful to visitors - eg what would a health category be if it did not list the World Health Organisation; the National Institute of health; WebMD etc --- the poorer quality directories do not tend to list these sorts of useful sites. |
You mean a 'certain type' of information. Not B2b?
Like say: J Bloggs & Co
591 Cookie Avenue
(This is B2b listing with web address, phone and company name, and thus wouldn't be thought of as 'quality')
Yet Science Museum or uk.Gov.org is.... Even though there must be LESS of the specialist info to build a database from. So why, is B2b taken as not quality and thus not worthy...
I'd say b2b information is searched for more than other types. So why the elite attitude webmasters seem to have, it's still fulfilling a purpose and helping others.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 2:48 pm (utc) on June 21, 2007]
| 3:59 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>This is B2b listing with web address, phone and company name, and thus wouldn't be thought of as 'quality'
I wouldn't say that. "Quality" simply means "effectiveness for a particular purpose" -- it's not an intrinsic or single-dimention attribute. So if I want to know the phone number of Mr. Bloggs, that is exactly the kind of directory entry I would want to find.
It remains only to ask: is this entry in a reliable directory? That is, (1) can I trust the source to NOT send me to phone sex entrepreneurs in Ghana? And (2) can I trust the source to have phone numbers for all (or most) of the folk of Mr. Bloggs' ilk (whatever that is) -- so it's worthwhile to look in that directory first, rather than second hundredth?
If so, then that entry is obviously "quality." Otherwise, it's NOT quality, because it's not suitable for ANY purpose, because it won't EVER be where I'd look for it.
| 4:11 pm on Jun 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So basically anything 'quality' is down to perception, and reality of it is just something normal.
Users expect bog standard company information, so quality doesn't even come into this. The quality aspect is something far greater than normal directory listings currently deliver, the search engines are the same and offer even less quality than directories do. It's just the mass and depth of results 'saves' them from destruction and retains visitor flow.
Mass of information impresses me. But there's a long way to go before we see anything unique quality-wise. That's to say - Quality should mean something special..
Not something everyone else has got or copied.
Quality is NOT: Mass information gathering
Copying other's ideas
Inventing some 'automated user content generator'
it's much more, and profits depend on it.
| 10:52 pm on Jun 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The key is to concentrate on the quality aspect and the results.
Search engine Limitations
Search engines aren't the be-all and end-all of what's on the Web. They're only as good as their most recent findings, which is only a small proportion of what's on the web and possibly 6 months out of date. So just because you can't find it via a search engine - doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This would surely affect the "quality" and freshness of results and in turn the user experience would be bad, if they can't find something at once. This is where directories are like Gold dust.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 10:53 pm (utc) on June 23, 2007]