Forum Moderators: martinibuster
what you people think?
Not many free directories provide direct traffic, but they're better for getting a few links to ensure a site is indexed in the search engines.
How much valuable are directory links? if we get 300 directory links every month shall we get any value from the search engines?
Very valuable .... provided they are on topic, quality and have good IBL or internal link architecture.
BUT .....
You need to balance this with good quality linking strategies involving other methods. ie. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, plus don't have 300 directory links and nothing else ....
Balance is the key IMO
It is worth while seeking out links from quality relevant directories or categories within general directories where you want to be and are happy to be associated with the other websites on the page where you will be placed.
Haven't checked lately but it used to be by association with other websites within a directory such as dmoz that Google added importance to "related sites" - not sure if that is still true.
One word of caution when listing here there and everywhere is to consider the *strength* you are adding to them and if it will be taken away from you.
There are many "directories" in some of the industries I work in that do far more than "list" your website...baby - they will rip your content and gobble it up...becoming fatter and fatter for your keyphrases and giving little back...but I'm heading off on a tangent there.
In my overall experience I have found it extremely worthwhile to appropriately list websites within their niche, but care should be taken. It is an exercise that should not be done shot gun style or purely for gaining links for links sake!
Have we all mentioned yet that there is a vast difference between a legit, meaningful directory and the type of directories that are created as "links directories" (or worse - reciprocal links directories) in an attempt to pump link popularity...
Are link building directories a good practice and worth using – in a nutshell do they help especially towards a better SERP. I am not talking about links from directories like DMOZ but instead submitting the site to sites like <snip>.
Additionally do link exchange companies have the same affect. The ones that put you in touch with ‘other like minded people’. So you don’t have to take the link if you don’t want to.
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:10 pm (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed specifics. [/edit]
Do you mean to say there are sites out there with a PR 4 or 5 which Google considers "bad neighborhoods?
Your answer to that is why I use PR as a criteria for which directories I submit to.
I don't believe it makes any difference for me whether the directory has a PR of 6 or 1. I simply feel safer submitting to the ones with some page rank.
How can anyone argue with that?
I suspect that too many links from made for SEO directories might get a site a spam penalty in Google.
I can find no evidence to support that theory and I have been involved with hundreds of sites doing directory submissions to the top 300 web dirs.
Do you mean to say there are sites out there with a PR 4 or 5 which Google considers "bad neighborhoods?
Of course there are, tons of sites with pagerank 6 that are link farms with over 800+ outgoing links to other non related sites.
There are plenty of quality directories that have low PR .. usually because they are new or relatively new.
There are also junk directories with good PR.
Page rank should not be considered when making linking decisions.
Wondering what a quality directory is? Look for editorial control, user friendly design that makes it easy to find what you are looking for, and supplemental content (such as articles) that help educate the end user.
Regarding pagerank, I would suggest you take Yoda's advice: "You must unlearn what you have learned..."
That's very much like saying you'll get a spam penalty if you:
1. Get too many links too fast.
2. Have high keyword density.
3. have the same anchor text on all incoming links.
4. use internal linking to a high degree.
In other words, nonsense (but good nonsense since this stuff keeps my competitors cluelessly in the dark most of the time). Google simply isn't in the business of routinely applying penalties.
Getting a site to rank is simply harder than it used to be, mainly due to the growth of the web, the increased competitiveness of the web, and deeper indexing by search engines. For this reason, every failure to rank is chocked up to some perceived penalty application.
In this case, depending on how competitive your niche is, you may or may not get a site to rank well for certain keywords or keyphrases by focusing your link development strategy on directories. Chances are you won't be able to "bound to the top" of your niche via directory links. But you won't be penalized for submitting to directories either, even to those that have their pagerank stripped for whatever reason google comes up with, unless you happen to be giving reciprocals to every bad link-farm-directory out there.
Can you get a site to the top of your niche using directory links? In most cases, probably not. Can you hurt your site by getting directory links? No. Can you help your site by getting directory links? Yes.
No one should expect to dominate a niche on the basis of one link dev strategy. As others have said, use a multi-faceted link buiding strategy. And directory submissions can be part of that, in addition to other types of link acquisition.
I've often wonder if a complementary site for the members here would be webmasterpanic.com
More nonsense. There's no such thing as a "nonrelated site". If this was a valid notion in any sense, there wouldn't be a world wide web. All sites have a potential relationship to one another simply because the relatedness of websites is determined by users needs, not search terms.
A handful of good links from popular niche directories will probably generate only a handful of good visitors.
To google, a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link.
Let me rephrase: one link is as good as another. The only links that are better are the ones with higher pagerank and better anchor text. The only ones that are worse are from neighborhoods that you shouldn't link to...but if you're not linking TO THEM, you shouldn't have a problem in being linked FROM THEM.
Turns out the company is really in India and they've delivered about 100 links that are exclusively in free, crap, directories created only for SEO links.
3 months later I haven't seen any noticeable effect, either up or down. That's not to say their isn't an effect, but nothing that stands out from the usual variations for my watched keywords.
The title/descriptions they used included a few specific keywords, so if there'd been a significant effect I think I'd have seen those keywords move relative to my others (and I haven't).
I'll let you know if it's different in 3 more months.
For years people have talked about the supposed value of a dmoz listing. But the real value of a dmoz listing was not the listing itself, but, rather, the fact that a link would be acquired from every dmoz clone...most of which were absolute crap directories.
I don't think these crinks (crap links) will hurt you, but I would never outsource any aspect of a site, particularly link development.
To google, a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link.
Not sure why are you so sure.
There are literary dozens of patents issued regarding "categorizing", "relevance", "relationship" (and other "similar";) terms) of web documents and other hyperlinked collections.
Do they use it for pagerank? Not sure.
Do they use it in rankings? Yes, very sure.
Do you mean to say there are sites out there with a PR 4 or 5 which Google considers "bad neighborhoods?
As someone else already pointed out, absolutely there are tons of sites with those PR values that are bad neighborhoods.
No offense intended, but I can't understand how one could disavow the toolbar yet rely on it as a measure of quality. It's saying one thing and doing another.
Esteban, no offense, I'm just trying to be helpful: Using the Toolbar Green as a measure of "quality" is a bad practice. Those green pixels say nothing about quality. I will explain why.
I encountered a chain of directories that derived their PR from a web design site. That web design site has backlinks from like a dozen link trades. That web design site then feeds a link to it's directories, approximately thirty, which are all linking to each other. All the sites are hosted on the same server, on the same IP. They all show PR 5. None of those thirty directories has a link from any other source than from the web design site. Oh, and they are all created from the same off the shelf directory script, unmodified.
Esteban, I ask you, is that a quality link?
Your answer to that is why I use PR as a criteria for which directories I submit to.
Obviously you didn't know my answer. ;) My answer to that is why you
should not use PR, as the above example of an actual directory I encountered makes clear.
I simply feel safer submitting to the ones with some page rank.
Don't feel safe if you are relying on PR as a metric. I'm just trying to be helpful. The more research you do, the less confidence you will have on that green bar. That safety you feel is just a feeling.
[edited by: martinibuster at 11:29 pm (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
To google, a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link.Let me rephrase: one link is as good as another.
That POV seems to be saying that quantity of links will always win. There are plenty of folks here with experience in competitive niches that say otherwise.
"Quantity of links" is a factor that the three major search engines pay enormous respect to. I wish it wasn't that way, but I've watched too many sites buy tens of thousands of links and use these link-buys to cruise to the top, or near the top, of their respective content niches.
Did it get them to the top immediately? No. There always seemed to be a link-maturation process of some kind. To my chagrin and disdain, after several google updates, they all got to where they wanted to go, or close to it. Here's what probably made some of them them different from the more cloddish SEO types. They bought their links from old and well-established sites: newspapapers and non-profit organizations looking for sponsorship.
In one case, I've witnessed a site that was essentially a compilation of stolen content go from nowhere to page 2 of a profitable niche simply by using article submission and crap directory submission. Why was this site able to get to page 2? I think because, although the niche is profitable, the players in the niche are relatively clueless, advance-degree professionals who rely on webmasters to build and optimize their sites. Getting to page 2 is difficult but for a determined and patient optimizer, not impossible by any stretch. Here's the more relevant question: why is this site not on page 1? Because the sites on page one have A. lots of links also, B. have lots of pagerank, C. quality content that has allowed for quality link acquisition, D. have well-diversified backlinks, ranging from article and directory submissions to advertising buys to tons of organic/earned links. In all truth, the site on page 2 that used crap links to get to its position could conceivably get to page 1 by getting higher quality backlinks. However, due to the nature of this niche and the user-trust issues involved, this would require providing greatly improved content, in place of the garbage that currently exists on this site. So, from my point of view, content is ultimately king.
[edited by: lfgoal at 12:56 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2007]
I could have responded faster by writing this: Quantity can get you within striking distance and, if your site offers quality content, you should be able to travel the remainder of the distance via earned links and a diverse assortment of acquired links.
For this site, the directory submissions have yielded a net gain in 'able to be found', at the cost of the site itself going down in position.
I have been told that had we submitted unique text to each of the directories, instead of same/similar, such penalty would not have occurred. Your mileage may vary...
And BTW, that's not a "penalty" in any way, shape, or form. It sounds more like the outcome of being outgunned on your desired keywords when your site is not particularly strengthened for them. Get more links with good anchor text, put more text on the page if possible, and use internal linking with favorable keywords if you're not already doing so.
I don't know who you are, but you are a welcome breath of fresh air around here.
Lfgoal, never fear. The only thing that they really accomplish is to make it easier for us. I'd also bet that you know exactly what I mean when I say that. :)
But, again, thanks for posting.
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:49 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed Off-Topic Comments [/edit]
It is quite possible I just got lucky in choosing these directories I use. You have made me think, and I am going to do more research before I add more.
Let me ask you this:
What if a person were to work backward toward PR. Say there are two possible directories I am looking to submit to. Forget the PR. Just research their backlinks, etc. If they both are completely "clean", and all things are about equal with them in every other way, is the one with the higher PR more valuable in your opinion? I of course would submit to both, but how do you think their value's compare?
"I think you put this pretty well, Eric. Search engines want links to be real: editorial votes based on quality and merit.
With Yahoo, you’re paying for the reviewing service; Yahoo rejects plenty of submissions."
Note the notion of paying for the review. Buying a link from a high quality directory is seen differently than buying a link. More precisely, it's seen as buying a review.
What makes this work is that the directory has an active policy that allows them to reject your submissions, and keep the money that you pay. In addition, quality directories may modify the suggested location for the listing, as well as your proposed title and description.
The result is that the listing has editorial value to the search engine.
By the way, when that annual review comes around - the directory re-reviews your site, and once again retains the right to delete your listing.
There are a small number of directories that meet this criteria, such as the Yahoo directory, and Best of the Web. Find the right ones, and you should be just fine.
How can you guys claim it's so great if you can't get listed?
We've been trying, literally, for years to get listed (safe, non-offensive site). If you read other posts about dmoz, we're not the only ones having trouble getting indexed there.
I absolutely agree with you. The process is extraordinarily simple. I think it comes down to building quality content day after day and marketing that content day after day. And all of this can be done in ways that are competitive, benefit users, and stay completely in line with google's webmaster guidelines. The thing that urks me is how often I hear the words "filter" and "penalty" being thrown around.
Sounds like a scenario in which a site has little pagerank, relatively few incoming links with anchor text matching desired keywords, and perhaps not a whole lot of text on the page. Is that wholly or partially correct?And BTW, that's not a "penalty" in any way, shape, or form. It sounds more like the outcome of being outgunned on your desired keywords when your site is not particularly strengthened for them.
Relatively few incoming links - yes
Not a whole lot of text on the page - all pages exceed the 200 word minimum
Outgunned by other sites:
No, this is not the case of new sites suddenly appearing above the one I'm discussing. This is a case where the position of the site in the search dropped from where it was, despite neither the referenced site, nor the competitor sites made page changes. The only change was the new directory listings, which now appear at the very top.
When you say there is no penalties, are you claiming, contrary to Google SEO and other books on this subject that: Having multiple inbound links with the exact same page text will never incur the wrath of SPAM or other SEO manipulation penalties?
There seems to be little other explanation for the rapid change... unless of course it's some algorithmic change.
I started one particular site about 4 years ago. The name of the site matches the desired keywords (to use an example, if the desired keywords were moon rocket ships, the url would be moon rocket ships dot whatever -- no hyphen). On every page of the site I used navigation that referred back to the homepage using those exact keywords. As the site grew to hundreds and then thousands of pages, it (obviously) ended up with thousands of internal links to the home page using the exact same phrase, composed of the keywords for which the site was targeted at. Never a problem from google or any other search engine. For the first year or longer, the site did not rank in any of the major search engines for its major keywords. Over time, as the site aged, the internal links aged, the external links aged, and the site gathered additional external links (with favorable anchor text as the niche and site name matched), and, consequently, gathered additional pagerank, it began to climb through the rankings, to the point where it now sits very comfortably atop its niche. If I had been like many others, I would have gotten extremely impatient during the year or so it took the site to start climbing, and possibly I might have began to foolishly think of imaginary penalities. But there were no such penalties for using internal links with the same repeated phrase, and no penalties for acquiring external links with the same exact phrase. Because those penalties don't exist. I have another site in another niche that is following the same pattern. Was originally created with about 400 pages using the same type of text-based navigation and using an url name that matches its niche. Again, for roughly a year, nowhere to be found in the first 1000 pages of google. Now on page 3 of a 50 million plus serps and visibly climbing fast.
In the last few years, I watched several sites in several completely different topic areas climb to the top of their niche. Some have focused largely on content building using heavy internal linking (and gaining organic external links through the quality of the content they present), some have focused primarily on external link acquisition with very little focus on regularly adding content (i.e. contrary to what many around here say, your site doesn't have to be "freshly updated"). All, however, have focused on acquiring links, internal and external, using a phrase that's repeated exactly. None have been penalized in any way, shape, or form. And all have seemed to go through some sort of link maturation and perhaps ranking maturation process. The difference between these sites and the penalty-criers? The operators of these sites I mention were dogged. They never stopped working to push their sites. Because they were my own competitors in various areas, I watched them like hawks on a near daily basis, observing their content expansion, observing their advertising link buys, observing their directory admissions, observing their article submission campaigns, and even observing how they occasionally "borrowed" ideas from other sites that were prominent in their niche. However---
1. None of them violated any of the google webmaster guidelines.
2. None of them ever stopped working to advance their sites.
3. And all of them, over time, got their sites to rise to positions in the serps that are at the top, or near the top, of their niche.
"are you claiming, contrary to Google SEO and other books on this subject that: Having multiple inbound links with the exact same page text will never incur the wrath of SPAM or other SEO manipulation penalties?""
I would say these guys are relatively clueless and most perceived penalties are nothing of the sort. To build a strong competitive site I would say create unique quality content, continue to build this content day after day, market the site, continue to market the site day after day, and never rely on one (or even two or three)means of link acquisition. My own superstition, however, is not to engage in reciprocals. I link out to other sites (relevant, not relevant, whatever I feel is useful for users as the need arises). However, I don't do recips because, if you think about it, can you really guarantee that the "quality site" you traded links with today will be a quality site tomorrow? Maybe it will become an expired domain acquired by an adult site for all you know.
The problem I see with Google these days, and perhaps its always been this way, is that "links" trumps "content". In other words, you could have a site with 1000 pages of absolutely fantastic, originally written text, each page topping out at 1000 words or more, each page intrinsically valuable to users and adding something of great value to the web...and it wouldn't even get seen in the serps, aside from the odd search results set, without appreciable numbers of links and acquired pagerank to get it noticed. So, is google (or yahoo) all that smart? No, they're relatively dumb and have very little ability to discern the relevancy of a page. Sadly they only thing an SE knows about a page is what the links tell it. Webmasters today are put in the position of having to divide their time between content creation and marketing/link acquisition. And most webmasters don't have the ability to adequately do both, which is why you see legions of scuzzy SEO people offering magic fixes.
However, in all fairness to Google, their system is probably the only way to do things. Think about it. How many articles are there on the common cold? Lots. Many of them sounding much the same. How is google and the others SEs to determine which pages rank higher and in what order? Votes, otherwise known as links. Theres' no other way to really do it. Which is why detecting ranking manipulation schemes is so very important.
I would say these guys are relatively clueless and most perceived penalties are nothing of the sort.
Many of the penalties you say don't exist have been specifically mentioned as possibilities for webmasters to consider as a possible cause of lowered rankings from time to time in posts here at WebmasterWorld or in blogs by people who actually work for Google.
To google, a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link is a link.Let me rephrase: one link is as good as another.
So a link from a affiliate viagra site is as good as a link from the BBC?
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 5:51 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2007]
