Labor Price You're Willing To Pay For Relevant Targeted Directory Link

Assume a new directory wants more info in order to be more user friendly

[Webwork]

Imagine a subject matter targeted directory that, instead of simply asking for a URL + limited site description, asked you to provide the kind of details that a person searching for "X information" might be happy to find in one location.

Suppose this required you or your client to fill in 10-15 fields with information including address, contact info, background info on service providers offerings and/or education/experience, etc. In other words the directory requested the type of information that someone looking to make a "Buy A or buy B?" or "Hire him or hire her?" decision would value in their decision making process. A directory that did a better job to help cull the candidates.

Where do you draw the line in taking the time to submit info to get a link in a tightly focused directory, especially a relatively new one? :)

Is it a case of "All I want is a link with some relevant text?" OR would you / your clients in fact be happy to "put more information about your company / your website out there"?

Would you value a more descriptive listing + link, and therefore consider taking the time? If the listing is more helpful to users/visitors might it be the case that "more IS better" when it comes to getting listed in certain human edited directories?

Help me out here. What will it take to get you or you (You know who I'm talking to. I'm talking to YOU!) to take a few minutes more to collect and enter more data . . . than just the standard very basic stuff?

[martinibuster]

It's in my interest to add more information. Some software directories ask you for something like a ten word description, thirty word description and a hundred word description. I've always viewed that as an opportunity to help my listing rank in the serps, and generally they did.

[Webwork]

It's in my interest to add more information.

Okay, but maybe that POV simply reflects that you're a bit smarter than most? :) and :P

I wholeheartedly agree that, when it comes to "listing sites", more is or can be better, in large part depending on how "the data" is handled (collected, organized, presented).

Still, I have to ask: What circumstances might trigger a response to a directory asking for more that might sound like "Man, that's too much of a bother! I won't waste my time."?

What about a (new) directory might inspire more people TO add more?

When most every directory looks pretty much the same . . I have a feeling that there may be (soon to be explored) some resistance to a directory "asking for more information".

As I roll out various directories I plan to "ask for more" and I'm wondering what I might do to . . reduce the friction?

[SevenCubed]

By labor price I imagine you mean labor of effort so in that case if it is the site owner submitting for consideration then they would probably welcome the opportunity to submit more detailed info. I know I would.

But if it's the task of some back room link builders then they probably couldn't be bothered (or wouldn't know the relevant info to enter). That in itself could be a good thing as it will weed out trash submissions thereby making your chore easier to handle with better quality submissions.

[Webwork]

By labor price I imagine you mean labor of effort

Yes. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

back room link builders . . couldn't be bothered

Yes, I tend to agree, but I wonder if going forward the rules of the game will change OR if they're already changing? I mean, aren't link developers given instructions about targeting quality?

Then again there's link developers . . and then there's link developers. ;) The question is "which is the dominant species"? (I suspect the lazy, poorly paid/trained type. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[FranticFish]

If I use a directory I add everything that I can - if I can see that it is quality. If it's a new directory, maybe the listing page isn't indexed right now because the site hasn't taken off yet, but if the directory does well then I hope that the detailed information I add will help me.

A quality resource should not only attract links but also indicate a savvy SEO team for the directory who are determined to push it and get traffic, so hopefully we can both help each other out. They get a quality sub, I get a useful listing - maybe even one that drives traffic.

If I were running my own directory I'd make the 'featured listings' those that are unique and complete. I'd either delete cookie-cutter listings or make them non-linked. Drive-bys are for the 'SEO friendly' crowd - not that they don't work in some instances.

With certain core UK directories I have found that utilising the images, reviews and other features really is worth it.

[wheel]

I'd see that as a colossal waste of time for me. If its a directory, I want a link. Let's not pretend you're going to drive any real traffic my way - directories don't do that. Seriously, we all know they don't. The only thing that matters is the link.

Nevertheless, I have a niche industry directory that requires people to put in a short description, phone, fax, email, full address, and check off a long list of products they offer. And my directory once in a while will actually push a visitor through to their site. But I don't charge for the listings, I've done it simply as a way to hand out free links to others in my industry.

[FranticFish]

IMO the link stands more chance of helping you if the page it's on is more than just contact details or a cookie cutter description in use on other sites.

It depends on the site and the time you can devote.

What I gather from your posts is that you work on your own sites and you'll do whatever you can to get them ranked.

I work for others and do what I can in the time they have decided to allocate, which is often limited.

I don't bother with directories when I've the time to devote to getting better links. But with limited time, a client who I can't get content from, a client without the budget (or sometimes inclination) to develop their site, I have to work with what I can.

Directories provide limited returns compared to other avenues, but if you have to use them then using quality ones and making each listing unique only takes a little longer.

That's far less time than (say) deciding on, researching and writing some top-notch content, especially if you have no knowledge of the subject area.

In some areas just using quality general and niche directories is enough to get rankings for terms that bring in work.

[Elsmarc]

I thought 'directories' were old hat (relevant in the mid- to late- 1990's) and links from them were of minimal, if any, value. The only directory I ever cared a lick about was DMOZ and that was years ago. Even DMOZ had little credibility these days. With Google and other search engines, who needs a directory?

[Webwork]

Might be a helpful tip for some to hunt down Justin Sanger's presentation at PubCon where he spoke about "atomization". It's a shame LB @ BC, who "live blogged" Justin's presentation, had such a hard time following his commentary. Worse -> her "frustrated college professor" comment. Argh. :-/

Although Justin's presentation likely was a challenge for many to follow (especially those with brains saturated with G-link juice) his "treatise" was worth the price of admission to PubCon all by itself.

Summary: In the future (now arriving on/in an Internet near you), in/on the increasingly crowded, noisy and clamoring for attention Web, the traffic winners will not be those who grab some rank in Google but those who are disovered/discoverable everywhere, i.e., traffic "atomization" begets a discovery optimization model that includes SEO but where discovery/discoverablity overtakes SEO as what really matters. "Find me. Everywhere." (There's a YouTube PubCon video where Justin briefly addresses his presentation ~minute #5.)

What does ^that^ have to do with providing greater detail to those directories that ask for or require it? Hmmmm . . .

[CainIV]

More robust listings and more descriptive text make absolute sense because of citation and Local Search.

In my experience, gone are the days where only the 'link' counts. The amount text, position and type of text in relation to the link, and overall page theme all count as positive indicators of topic.

The amount of unique text on the page, references to locale, address, area code, and tons of other identifiers are used in Local Search alone to classify the impact of that page on your Local Search positioning.

Thorough is almost always better these days.

[Webwork]

Nice/helpful observations CainIV.

Thorough is almost always better these days

When it comes to link building and "other linkdev concerns", a directory by style and function may be ideally suited to serving such "~needs" (desired outcomes). Of course this assumes that the directory isn't an expansive link-schlock emporium, i.e., is tightly themed, well edited, etc. :P

[defanjos]

What about rewarding people that complete more information with a higher position on the page?
Assign points to certain fields that get completed and to the amount completed (i.e. longer description, more points) - whoever gets more points, goes higher on the page.
Even if you have price tiers, you can do it within each price tier.

It is a win-win. You get the "meaty" info higher on the page and you'll get people entering more content - everyone wants to be higher on a page :)

[buckworks]

Before you go soliciting all sorts of extra details, be sure you have a sustainable plan in place for monitoring said info and keeping it up to date.

"Info Rot" is just as big a problem as link rot.