Forum Moderators: martinibuster
what you people think?
A link in the Dmoz directory is a notable exception, but the hundreds of pure link farm directories serve only to compromise your site.
Don't use them!
Matt
Says who?
1. I've seen sites go pretty far on just the strength of directory links alone.
2. Inclusion to dmoz doesn't help a site because dmoz is so great. It's because of all the backlinks you pick up from dmoz clone directories.
So, again, I ask: directory links are considered spam according to WHO?
Do the google guidelines say that? Not that I'm aware. Google tells you to submit to relevant directories.
Has Matt Cutts or Adam Lasnik said that? Haven't heard it, but if they have please tell me where I can find the quote.
Here's what I would do. If you're thinking of submitting to directories, gather a list and check them out. Do this by using the link and site operators in google to see if GOOGLE considers them real sites (counted links and indexed pages). Then, to be a little more cautious, check their whois information to see who owns them (and also to see if one person/company seems to own many of them) and to avoid anything that smells fishy.
>>Directory links are generally considered spam by prominent search engines.
Hmmm, not sure where you heard that Matt and very not sure I would agree.
>Do this by using the link and site operators in google to see if GOOGLE considers them real sites
Well, actually, I wouldn't rely on information supplied by any one Search Engine alone, you really have no idea by how much that information is being filtered before you see it. To get a better picture I would suggest researching the suspect directories thoroughly at certainly all of the three main engines before deciding whether they are a prospects or not.
Onya
Woz
As for "spam" .. lol, another unprooved BS. Many people use them and service like that in very high demand and worth it. As for "harm"... if you link to #*$! site it may be bad for you, but not vice versa. Cause let me know your site and if we are competitors I will destroy you with that links:) Just not work.
Also do get other links too.
I don't care what a search engine thinks... give me a link from a respected, trafficked, regularly updated and non-biased directory anyday over dmoz which sends a site single digit referrals a month - once your site has actually made it in, assuming your category has an editor who isn't a competitor...
>>>spam
As with everything else... a directory is a TYPE of site. It can be used for good or used for evil. Stay away from crap, list with quality directories and you'll be fine.
How much valuable are directory links? if we get 300 directory links every month shall we get any value from the search engines?
The value comes in the quality of the directory. Not the "total" number of links. Ten high quality directory links are going to outperform 100 low quality directory links (in most instances).
Look for niche directories that are hand reviewed. Focus on directories that are related to your site and provide more than just a link on a page with hundreds of others.
Inclusion to dmoz doesn't help a site because dmoz is so great. It's because of all the backlinks you pick up from dmoz clone directories.
So ifgoal, you're saying that Google assigns link-lift-value to duplicate links from clones of DMOZ? Your assertion or assumption strikes me as a bit suspect, as it sounds a great deal like you're saying DMOZ clones fool Google's algo in 2007.
I could be wrong, but in 2007 I would infer that the very fact that the links ARE clones - in their duplicate content and structure and self-evident source - is a portent of the very opposite of your presumption. That such link clones within clones - no matter how ubiquitous - don't lend lift in 2007.
You might be right, but even if so, I'll risk saying "not for long".
Particularly when such 'truths' are posted in public forums.
[edited by: Webwork at 9:34 pm (utc) on Jan. 14, 2007]
I have about a dozen directories I will submit a new site to. I only optimize for long tail phrases and these submissions will get my pages ranked well in a matter of weeks (90% of the time).
I know page rank isn't everything, but...
But, nothing. Your actions betray how you really feel about PageRank. ;)
If your actions are a true measure, then PR is indeed everything to you because you are using it as a yardstick.
Break yourself of this habit. The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem. :) Y
Yeah, leaves out the problem of trying to determine why a particular directory page has zero pagerank. Is the page new?, is the page penalized?, is the webmaster not allowing pagerank to pass?, etc.
I've yet to see the "300 free directory links" do anything for any of my sites however i regularly see "5 quality directory links" help.
I find them an excellent way to get a site moving from a zero links standpoint.
Hypothetically, Google could use spammy directories (and links from other sites it considers spammy) as one indicator of quality. If you have plenty of good links, presumably, they would more than cancel any negative points from the questionable sites.
For brand new domains, just stick to the majors.
It's all about the overall link profile to me.
The worst thing that happens is some of them don't help but some of them will.
A listing in the appropriate category in Yahoo or DMOZ is a pretty accurate indicator of the subject matter of your website.
It would be foolish to believe that search engines such as Google do not use such indicators.
Just because every relevant site is not included in the appropriate category of these directories, does not mean that the Search Engines will ignore such valuable information.
The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem.
You have no idea how many clients I have had this conversation with.
Client: "My PageRank dropped!"
Me: "Did your rankings drop?"
Client: "No."
The conversation should end there, but it goes on and on that they just don't want to see their PageRank go away.
I hate Google for publishing PageRank.
You actually get monthly referrals? Damn Rae, I'm jealous.
Persuade them to rely on a browser without a toolbar. Even if I dinna think it was sleeker and faster, kicking that PR monkey is reason enough to switch, and stay, with Opera. :)
>>dmoz which sends a site single digit referrals a monthYou actually get monthly referrals? Damn Rae, I'm jealous.
Right.
I am tired of trying to point out how many visitors anyone get from DMOZ or any other directory.
It's Google assigning a few more points which provides the value of any such link, for the rest it is next to worthless.
Why is this on home page actually? OK, let's chew it again...
This implies that links that qualify traffic have more value. A directory certainly has the inherent potential to qualify, i.e. direct, traffic.
Thus for a directory (indeed any) link to have value it must:
* provide traffic
* that converts.
Are there likely to be 300 directories that will do so for your niche?
That is for you to determine.
I rarely find more than a few. Not always the same but for each niche just a few (and DMOZ hasn't been one of 'the few' for several years).
How many links are appropriate from each directory depends on your site architecture, the granularity of the directory, and it's TOS.
Mass links are mass links, quality links are quality links: 'directory' is not some magic link dust.
In the course of my design business, I have created a few directories as well. One is rather large, and has been on the web since 2002. So, no, it is not a MFA site nor a scraper site.
Using my largest directory, I have been able to get new sites owned by my partners, indexed by Google in less than 48 hours, and ranked in the top 3 for their major keywords. This is a result of having pages designed correctly, and plenty of popularity votes from my relevant network site links to them.
If I have partner selling blue widgets, and I have the largest blue widget directory on the web, in business for going on five years, where the partner is advertised heavily, how can that not be relevant, or better yet, how can that be spam?
People come to me looking to see who sells blue widgets, and I give the most comprehensive list, free of charge of course, of blue widget suppliers on the web.
They don't have to weed through bogus search results that have no relevancy to their query. I am about as relevant as it gets.
So, does Google give those partners credit for my promotion of them? Yes, they do, and rightly so.
My site is no more spam than the DMOZ is. In fact, my nitch directory is better than DMOZ in my nitch. DMOZ has MFA and Scrapers listed in my nitch, I don't. While they will list MFA directories and scraper sites, they have never listed my site, ever.
They would not list my PR5, but did list a PR3, and PR4. But, this is way after the fact, long before PR was in concept, they have refused my site.
Not only that, by percentage, nitch to nitch, they have more broken links than many smaller directories, because they have editors who like to wear the name tag, but not do the job.
You have to ask yourself how MFAs directories and scraper engine/directories got in, while I am ignored (I think we all know), and why would a link from DMOZ in my nitch be worth more than mine given the trash they list within my nitch? I really don't think they are more relevant with their two dozen links.
But, even without that precious DMOZ link they have deprived me of, I rank #1 for my main keyword, and have for several years. Why? Because I am the most relevant. I provide a valuable free service to my nitch widget seekers.
I am seeing a warped definition of the term 'spam', here. Stuff Posing As Mail, has nothing at all to do with search engine results. There is no 'mail' involved. There may be 'stuff' and it may be 'posing', but there are posers throughout all aspects of life, and we don't call them 'spam'. Just look around this board and you will find plenty of posers.
What you mean to say is FRAUD. FRAUD describes search results that consist of websites claiming to be something they are not, claiming to provide something they do not provide, and just plain outright hijacking searchers to sites for illegal, immoral, unethical, or deceptive agendas.
Long before there was a web, there were nitch directories. It was the only way to find things. Every home and business has one or two directories at hand, the white pages, and the yellow pages. I dare say nobody considers them unuseful, or in industry terms 'junk mail' when they show up on the door step once a year.
Beyond that, industries had directories of nitch specific suppliers within their industry. The service they provided was, and still is, as useful as any web nitch directory. The difference being many nitch directories in the past, might weigh 10 pounds or more, and were hard to handle.
Moving the mouse has made things much easier, and much quicker to find. As well, many required a fee to be listed within, or to purchase the directory and browse it. They were expensive, and for many, could only be accessed through public libraries due to that expense.
I have heard more than enough slamming of directories in forums, mostly by ill informed individuals who own websites that are unsuccessful. They have to blame somebody for their failures, because they live their lives in denial, refusing to admit they can't succeed, because they are inept.
*pushes the hornet's nest off her desk onto the floor, sits back and smiles*
[edited by: MsHuggys at 7:23 am (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 7:39 am (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
A listing in the appropriate category in Yahoo or DMOZ is a pretty accurate indicator of the subject matter of your website.
No it's not. I have a ton of clients who rank near the top in most engines and have no link from dmoz.org or from Yahoo.com. I also see MFA sites in dmoz.org.
Links from directories are what they are - scatterbomb links. I doubt anyone can say with any certainty unless they use a controlled experiment of two websites how effective those links are overall.
My guess is they are not; at the same time I doubt they hurt you at all...
