Aaron Wall Still Likes Directories

Directories have taken a lot of crap lately, but don’t count them (all) out yet. Aaron Wall blogged yesterday about how he still likes directories (and believe me, he, if anyone, is aware of their flaws):

Even if Google was not placing significant weighting on directory links I still would use many of them for how they work in the other search algorithms, but with that being said it may also be worth looking more into other sources of link popularity as the business model of junk general directories is dying.

I think the business models that will work the best longterm will be those that have a strong social position in their marketplace, those who can afford to advertise a ton, those who can get media coverage, or those that naturally pick up the random citation on random blogs and community driven sites that provide many random unrequested links.

What I got from all this:

• MSN = easy to spam, even with crappy directory links
• Good directories = good
• Bad directories = bad
• Common sense is making a comeback

martinibuster on Crapola Directories

I like martinibuster’s blog a lot, my only complaint being I wish he posted more often. Maybe he read my mind as he made a killer post yesterday.

Taking the Brain Cells Out for a little exercise
Let’s whip out those two brain cells and rub them together: What do you imagine the search engine engineers would think about a directory that is marketed exclusively to webmasters? Aren’t directories supposed to be useful to web surfers? Would the search engineers think that these directories were a scheme for helping SEO Webmasters manipulate their ranks? If so, what action do you think they would take?

Sometimes it’s hard to step back a bit and look at search algorithms with a long term perspective; martinibuster seems to have a talent for this. Read more: Directories with a Kick Me Sign on Their Backs

martinibuster on Neighborhoods

Just found this post by martinibuster at SEW forums. If you’re into linking this is a must read.

What
I’m getting at is that when you make a map of all the sites linking to
you, and who is linking to them, it says something about your site,
patterns arise. These patterns are very important, because Google is
very much interested in statistics.

…The question I would like to pose is, if you have a golf website, is it
normal that you share a hundred backlinks with hundreds of seo
websites?

…I’m sure the notion of avoiding being mapped to directories that are
heavily mapped to SEO link networks will not sit well with many that
have a financial interest in those directories, but come on, it’s also
common sense.

I posted a bit about these neighborhoods and their role in the Sandbox in my Guide to Beating the Sandbox (WMW – Supporters only). I’ve aways thought directories were a great tool for link building, but lately I’ve scaled back a bit, and am now only working with those that I think are part of good neighborhoods.

Are Directories On Their Way Out?

Noted spammer DaveN asks an interesting question in Did Google just target Directories at SEW Forums:

I have been collecting quite a bit of data just recently and noticed
that some WH sites got canned the only thing I can find is a large % of
their IBL’s are from directories.. is this the end of the road for
smaller directories ..

DaveN

DaveN is well known for being ‘in the know’, so if he asks a question like this it is not to be ignored. Marcia’s reply gives us link builders some more food for thought:

You know, if we look back at the first post, what Dave was saying is
not related to the directories themselves, but that sites with a large
% of their links from directories took a hit.

I think the engines probably have more serious challenges than the slew
of little directories out there – but the issue is whether those types
of links, especially if they comprise the majority or IBLs to newer
sites that aren’t established, in great numbers and accrued quickly,
really have any value as far as algorithmic link analysis is concerned.
Do they represent genuine links that reflect relevancy or importance,
as would a link from a page from a related, on-topic site?

My .02: I think Google may be nuking low quality directories with tons of spammy sites listed, so a listing in those types of directories may not have much value going forward. From a relevancy perspective however a listing in a quality directory such as GoGuides probably will help a site in the SERPs, since that directory actually makes an honest attempt to categorize quality sites and rejects many low quality sites, and as such who it links out to is actually useful data for Google.

In any case, obtaining 100 directory links is no longer a short and easy route to high rankings. That said, when I’m trying to get a new site established I will still be submitting to my shortlist of HQ directories.

Yet another ‘How do you choose Directories’ thread ;)

SERoundtable has posted on an SEO Chat thread, Main deciding factor [when choosing directories in which to list your site].

Some joke that the best directory is the free directory, or better yet there is no recip link required for inclusion. There is a good discussion about design and the visual appeal of a directory. While I do agree it is nice to see, it doesn’t necessary mean the directory is always the best.

I agree that it’s best to stay away from directories that require a reciprocal link. My earlier post on TrustRank stressed that low quality directory listings may not help your rankings (and could possibly even work against you). When in doubt: get listed in those places you would like to be even if Google didn’t exist. Yes, I toot that horn a lot, but I truly believe it!