Forum Moderators: martinibuster
- How does Google identifies whether a directory link is theme based or not?
- Is it able to identify a particular category?
- If a link is submitted to relevant category despite the home page theme, does it gives weightage to such links?
I have found number of sites providing directory of links, even though the home page theme is very different. This is the reason of posting this query.
There are many thousands of directories - sites dedicated to listing and categorizing web sites - and they vary from quality to Made For Advertising to simple link exchanges.
Many of the sites which have lists of links, related or not to the site's main theme, are simple link exchanges.
In general, it is best to avoid those that are link exchanges, as these are depracated by Google, and probably by other SEs.
Of the 'proper' directories, nobody knows exactly how and when Google values them (except Google); but there's little doubt that Google does value some and not others, and we know that Google tries to apply 'human' quality standards. So I reckon, broadly speaking, that if a directory appears to you and I as a quality directory, there's a good chance Google will also recognise that.
Similarly, we know that Google can detect link exchanges from 5.783449017 light years away, so it's a safe bet that such sites are best avoided ;)
And who wants to be listed on a site full of endless blocks of adsense (above the fold) and endless spammy keywords (below the fold).
There's no guaranteed way to pick the good over the horrible - but once you've looked at a few, you'll soon get a feeling for it.
[edited by: Quadrille at 2:35 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2007]
I would avoid these myself simply because I tend not to trust such sites. However, when it comes to directories that do NOT have more adsense blocks than directory listings on each page, I don't see any reason not to submit to them.
Actually, my own opinion on directories has changed quite a bit. A while back, I had the belief that google considered these things to be spam. And this is why I thought so:
1. I didn't think that directories contributed much to the web because they all seemed to be carbon copies of each other.
2. They seemed to be paid links that were very easy to get.
I don't hold these beliefs any longer, though. Lately, I've been using directories to investigate certain niches and I've been amazed at the websites I've found. I've actually found tons of good sites that I have never been able to find in google, yahoo, dmoz, or the yahoo directory. Based on that alone, I think directories are in a position to make a powerful and positive contribution to the web. Granted, most web users have never heard of the larger directories. But...enough users do come across various directory pages and in many cases this aids their search goals. And that's a good thing.
Regarding the buying links thing, I've found that even if you have a quality site you may not necessarily get in to every directory you submit to. I've had a few situations where I've submitted an older rock solid site and a newer lesser developed site to several directories. The "better" one always got in, the lesser developed site didn't always make it in. To me, even though I didn't enjoy being turned down, this showed me that many directories are using editorial discretion. In other words, its not link buying. You can submit and maybe you'll get in and maybe you won't. In the past, I usually got admitted to every directory I submitted to, which skewed my thinking. But I was submitting some excellent sites. It wasn't until I submitted some lesser developed stuff that I began to see "hey, I guess they don't take everything after all".
At this point, I don't see any reason for not submitting to every quality directory you can find. And you can quite a few. And as far as quality, I would prequalify them by checking their backlinks and page count in google. I'd also stay away from packages that offer to submit your site to a gazillion directories for THE LOW COST PRICE OF ONLY...I would do it by hand and I would exercise discretion. In other words, if the directory looks as though it offers value to users and doesn't seem to be engaged in bad behavior and doesn't seem to be connected to bad neighborhoods, why not?
One thing I would never ever do is give out a reciprocal to get in to a directory, though. Way too dangerous.
I really dislike hunting links, but enjoy browsing "link pages" and find some sites I really like that way. I am *not* done with recips, done on topic and within reason I think they can't hurt - and I just had a $55 sale last week on one single hit from a Mom 'n Pop recip link page. I also have an old, neglected site I haven't touched in years that has very little traffic, but it's all from old links from topically related sites.
There are still some good directories around, but not many.
And, of course, there are some excellent general directories amongst the 50,000 plus that exist.
>> One thing I would never ever do is give out
>> a reciprocal to get in to a directory, though.
>> Way too dangerous.
With you 100% :)
And who wants to be listed on a site full of endless blocks of adsense (above the fold) and endless spammy keywords (below the fold).
Right, just be willing to pay as much as AdSense does for their spot on the page?
And I don't deal with MFA webmasters; most MFA directories are a waste of space. Probably all, but I really don't propose to assess them all.
Ultimately, we all get to choose which directories we use. I'm just giving my views. I reckon there's enough quality directories, so I don't see any need to scrape the barrel.
A directory owner who takes a long view will start by being free, but still maintain attractive and reader-friendly pages; by doing so, eventually they'll reach the point where they can charge way more than an MFA adblock will earn.
The deal for wise webmasters is that they get a listing while it's still free; supporting the directory and helping it on its way.
The directory's link to a quality submitted site will be a genuine recommendation, which the SEs will (eventually) recognise; provided the directory owner doesn't cut and run for a fast [delete]buck[/delete] 10 cents.
Quality sites helping each other in order to help themselves. And both helping the visitor. Works for me :)
Naturally allowing them to link to ones site from a position below the fold would cost considerably more, if it was acceptable at all.
And certainly if they choose to link to ones site, they surely must understand the requirement of removing from the page/directory any and all links they might be getting paid for.
After all, ones image must not be sullied by having a link to ones site appear on a page/directory with links of those of such low class that they might actually pay a fair price for a fair service.
:)
A good directory (in my view), uses sub-categories rather than second or more pages per category; so every listed site is always on the first page of a category. And I'd also hope they'd go for a shallow design rather than a very deep one.
But so long as my site gets somewhere on that page, I'm happy.
I'd never pay for a 'sponsored listing', nor do any of my directories offer them. But if my directories can survive on non-intrusive advertising, I don't see why others find it so hard. I'm aware that some directory owners make a mint; but in general, people expecting to get rich running directories are probably in the wrong line of business.
All these minor differences matter, of course; and it does take some thought as to where you should trouble to submit - and whether you should pay anything at all.
Not my problem; I'm basically "careful with money", and so long as there's enough free directories for my sites, I'll not pay. And there are :)
