Forum Moderators: open
I know we have some directory-obsessed members here and I readily acknowledge that I have developed tunnel-vision re spiders and represent the other end of the spectrum. Without raising the defensive shields of all the various directory editors we have represented here, I would like to at least address the growing misconception that you HAVE to have directory listings to survive. True, it may be easier to get in the spidering engines with directory listings, but they are not mandatory.
So, check your guns at the door and come on in for a discussion about NOT getting directory listings and how to cope.
>RC, is there a particular reason you ignore the directories?
In part, it's because they take so much time. Someone dealing in thousands of pages (or tens of thousands in my case) has limitations on what they can or will do that "small" site webmasters don't have.
Secondly, without deep listings, directories provide little chance of referring any significant visitor traffic as my content (guide sites) thrive on keywords that do not surface until the 3rd level. On rare occasions, I have worked out a deal with directory senior staff for deep listings and they have been great --particularly if they involved linkpop, but that's another story.
Saying that you don't want to be listed in directories, is denying some of the best, and easiest to find PR out there. Not all directories are worth the time, but many are, and this is the proven way to get started on building PR.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone else purposely ignored directories?
I've almost written DMOZ off totally, add a few links to other sites and ask for a few in return is enough to get you spidered!
but has anyone else purposely ignored directories?
I don't think we have outright ignored them, but for some sites and projects, most of the directories do not apply, and you can certainly do just as well without them.
IMHO, it is inefficient to concentrate on directories. Your site link shares space with too many others. Usually they take a long time to be added. You can spend less time and gather links more quickly by searching out for other websites in your niche.
My PR now often equals the PR of the categories I'd be filing under. (BTW, it is a commercial site with affiliate links --but enjoys some GREAT non-reciprocating links.)
There is #1 enormous advantage here that you rarely get with directories - that is more flexibility with the anchor text.
In this case I would be more inclined to develop a trusting relationship first such that the exact anchor you need is provided and greater potential to be linked where limited numbers of off-page links exists.
Even in DMOZ with you as the only reference site on the page there is a minimum of 12 other off-page links
PageRank is OK but the link anchor is better.
As with everything we do here at WebmasterWorld, so much depends on the site specifics, but how many sites have a page that tells other webmasters that they are free to link or deep-link or even frame the page? And, as fathom points out, even "suggest" the anchor text you'd like. I've been very successful in getting hundreds of inbound-only links from sites ranging from real estate companies in Podunk to National Geographic Traveler. But you have to show them how. I'll admit that this is something of a Catch22 for new sites, because you have to be found in the serps first.
True enough now Fathom, though with increasing manipulation, it's only a matter of time till it too gets downgraded.
This is a given... I suspect somewhere in the future sites with forums, chat, full narration, virtual reality, or collaborative workspaces will be the choice of quality referencing to establish top SERP's and through increasing manipulation, only a matter of time till they to get downgraded.
We take it as it comes.... I do intend to retire in the summer of 2006 regardless with the closest montior and keyword 1500 miles away.
Ok... my PDA with satellite uplink will be on, but that's as close to SEO as I get.
