|Link Building Tips: Limits to Development of Your Inbound Links|
If DMOZ Won't Take You... Should You Expect as Much From Webmasters?
| 5:00 pm on Jun 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This post is concerned with creating a situation that encourages one-way inbound links.
Building an authoritative resource is just One of the ways for laying down a foundation for a link-able site. What falls under authoritative?
- Good Site Design
- Original Content
- Useful Content
- Does not replicate anything else on the web
On good site design
There are many sites with ugly design in DMOZ. But they usually bring value in other ways that transcend their design. While editors may say that a good design is not part of their criteria, I know from experience that a good design can help convince an editor that you are serious about your design. If it can help impress an editor, then it will surely convince a potential linker.
All of the above will help get you into DMOZ. But if your site isn't DMOZ-ready can you really expect to get free one-way inbound links from webmasters?
[edited by: martinibuster at 1:13 am (utc) on June 18, 2007]
| 5:39 pm on Jun 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think, martinibuster, that it may be more correct to look at it as "care having been taken".
So, in other words, a pig-ugly design can sometimes be a positive element in that it is evident that all "care" has been spent on the written content.
And, of course, a nice design can also be an element of "care".
Where it often becomes apparent that no "care" has been expended is when there is a generic business design created with vacuous stock images, meaningless textual babble, and a form as sole method of contact.
| 10:36 pm on Jun 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Excellent points, stever. All of those elements you cited are the same combinations that will generate a thumbs down from either DMOZ or a one-way link from a webmaster.
If you can't build a DMOZ-quality site, is it reasonable to expect webmasters to link to your site?
| 10:48 pm on Jun 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Many a DMOZ-quality site has yet to be listed, simply because the review times are so long in some sectors.
Aim at DMOZ quality (I think I know what you mean by that) but don't let the lack of a DMOZ listing inhibit your other link building efforts.
| 1:11 am on Jun 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So, in other words, a pig-ugly design can sometimes be a positive element in that it is evident that all "care" has been spent on the written content. |
Pig-ugly sites can get great, one way links as well as make a lot of money.
| 3:04 am on Jun 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
* Good Site Design (what is good to me can be a dogs breakfast to someone else. I personally consider the regional heirachy of DMoz to be an almost unintelligible, repetitive maze... to others it may be a good design.)
* Original Content (it was only original when the first author penned it... everything since then is a repackaging of the same basic information)
* Useful Content (useful to who... the site owner, the viewer, the buyer, the seller, the industry, the merchant.)
* Does not replicate anything else on the web (that is a very big ask... in this day and age, anything that is worth adding into a website has almost certainly been included into another site, blog, forum etc...)
In the travel sector, you will usually find each state and region has a big, official govt site. I consider them as authority sites, as I do with much of Wikipedia and Wikitravel. But do they offer unique content that does not replicate anything else? Not even close... they repackage what is, and has been, available on other sites long before they came into existence.
MB.... I'm playing devil's advocate with the bait you have dangled in the water with this post... and for every opinion I have, there will others who totally agree/disagree.
As an industry we have been trotting out "useful content" and "original content" for years as the holy grail for websites. They remain just as much a moveable target now as ever before and will continue to mean different things to different people.
Successful websites (authority if you will) get that way because they fill a market need...and that will probably be because they package their information and services in such a way that it impresses the viewer. The information provided can be found in lots of other places, its just not packaged as well, or used as effectively, as on the authority site.
| 10:33 am on Jun 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree with austtr. At the end of the day, the people who edit things like DMOZ and other "quality" directories, as well as things like Wikipedia are of a very particular creed of people with their own ideas of what contributes value and what makes good design. I recently had a run-in with someone from a different "quality" directory and was reminded of what happens when people who are normally powerless suddenly get given "power".
| 11:27 am on Jun 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Shimrit - To some extent you are right because there were issues with dmoz only where an editor was found to have listed different pages of the same site. The site was related to cooking so automatically the reason behind submission of different pages was that each page contained unique recipe so each one is different from the other.
As long as editors does not get biased its all good.