| 6:39 am on Oct 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've found that human edited directories -- the kind that charge for evaluation and do not automatically rubber stamp just any old domain -- are useful and quite safe. But get too far away from that kind of "top shelf" directory and you really are approaching an FFA site, link farm, and in some cases, even an MFA site. Too much of that kind of thing is at least not helpful, and can be a problem.
| 9:58 am on Oct 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
thanks for your reply i agree with dmoz yahoo etc but there are many supposed human edited (meaning they consider more than whether the submission is just viagra spam) and some appear more legit than others
so in addition to the "top shelf" directories do people feel they get worthwhile backlinks from other directories paid and free - some directories might be quite small and not heavily used but do they have value
also is there a set of criteria one would use to help guide you - here are some of my suggestions
1) directory pages show some PR
2) no duplicate pages (eg probably straight html) or supplemental pages
3)can find sites in their directory which show backlinks to the directory in G
| 3:10 pm on Oct 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sure we all know dmoz and yahoo are safe. How about the next dozen or so directories that will help instead of hurt?
I think <edited> seams like a decent directory?
[edited by: tedster at 4:02 pm (utc) on Oct. 14, 2006]
| 4:07 pm on Oct 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find that niche directories human edited with only relevant links helps and brings also good traffic.
Same thing with links pages.
Google should not mind that, IMHO...
| 4:11 pm on Oct 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Even our Directories Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com] asks
|Do not publish your directory's name or anyone else's directory name in the Directory Forum. Such posts will be deemed promotional. |
So our discussion here should not be to list specific directories. How Google treats any particular directory might well change over the future anyway, so let leave a thread here for the future -- one that discusses traits of directories that Google trets well, rather than specific directory names (that would lead into a marketing war, anyway.)
|directories are often recommended as a starting point |
My view: getting a few solid directory links is certainly one common and "safe" way to begin. Getting ONLY directory links is not likely to be of much benefit.
| 1:29 am on Oct 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
tedster - the aim of the thread is not to list specific directories it is pretty easy to find them by search - there are plenty of lists out there - directories of directories (i love how derivative the web gets)
what my thread is really about is deciding the traits of good and bad because there are so many on offer and on face value many look fine
but when i do some research on some of these many rarely show in the backlinks of the sites they list and many have 0 PR on their pages - so that makes me a bit nervous when using them but we know that these these attributes (PR & BLs) may or may not mean something
so i was hoping to hear from people who may use directory listings as a cornerstone of there link establishing strategy - what do you look for, do you just go for established directories, use only large pay for listing directories or do you use a swathe of smaller pay and free directories to get your site indexed & provide a bit of PR and some BLs
or as Tedster suggests - few but not too many - but how many and what quality - only DMOZ and the like and don't touch the rest?