Debra has a
good post on directories, reminding us that there are many quality directories out there that do stick to Google's guidelines, and are a sound part of any link building strategy.
"
Does paying to be listed somehow negate their purpose and objectivity? I don’t think so. And apparently neither does Google representative Matt Cutts: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I’d ask questions like:- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn’t speak well to the quality of the directory.- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site".
There has been a lot of misdirected criticism of directories over the past few months. Sure, there are some directories which break the rules, but that is true of many sites, regardless of format. The directory structure is no more a marker of spam than the blog format, or the brochureware format. Many directories do make a point of conforming to Google's guidelines, and Debra provides a list of her recommendations (and also gives you a chance to get a discount).
As Debra & Matt point out, the key is to isolate the quality directories. The signal of a quality directory mainly has to do with the level of editorial evaluation and overall quality of the sites listed. Poor directories list any old junk.
Glad to see
the SEO world has now moved on to the other old chestnut: Is PageRank Important? (clue: nobody writes much about something they deem unimportant).
Meanwhile, the humble old directory just keeps on keeping on.
Even
DMOZ.
