Directories - waste of time?

[ACSSEO]

Originally Posted by Craig Fifield

This is not quite correct. Google will generally count any link it finds, but only show a random selection those in the backlinks at Google. It used to be that Google would only show links of PR4 or higher, but that is no longer the case...and it never had anything to do with what links actually get counted.

Google does end up picking up spidering all of the links whether it is a pagerank 1 or 4 link. But if you look at the backward links of the sites after a link and pagerank update you will see that all of the backward links have a pagerank of 4 or higher. Those are the links that they are showing us. It could be that those links have the most emphasis or have an equal weight. No one will be 100 percent sure if those lower pagerank links are being counted because in many cases they will not be showing up in our backward links.

[Robert_Charlton]

Originally Posted by ACSSEO

...But if you look at the backward links of the sites after a link and pagerank update you will see that all of the backward links have a pagerank of 4 or higher....

This is simply not true. Google currently shows a random sampling of backlinks of a page. There was an extensive discussion of this on these forums a while back, and Google in fact adjusted the copy on its website to acknowledge that it was in fact not displaying all backlinks.

Google Say Not Reporting All Backlinks
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...3&page=1&pp=20

Something like a year-and-a-half or two back, Google did show only PR4 or above, but even then it was understood that Google counted all links. It certainly doesn't count all links equally, but I don't believe that it in any way disregards the links it doesn't display. It doesn't display them because that makes things a little harder for SEOs.

[Craig Fifield]

Thanks Robert, we said the same thing but you said it a little better

[Robert_Charlton]

PS to the above...

Originally Posted by ACSSEO

The directories can be very helpful and might help increase your site’s ranking if certain requirements are met.
1. Your link is on a static page.

Also not true... The page doesn't have to be static. It simply needs to have a spiderable url which can be found by the search engines. Dynamic pages generally present more problems in this area than static pages, but static vrs dynamic isn't really the question.

Originally Posted by ACSSEO

2. If you want the link to get picked up by Google it needs to be on a pagerank 4 or higher page.

Covered in my previous post... I'm not the only one who disagrees with this.

I think some of ACSSEO's other "requirements" are arguable, at least in the way they are stated.

[martinibuster]

>>>if you look at the backward links of the sites after a link and pagerank update you will see that all of the backward links have a pagerank of 4 or higher.

Bob is right. Your information is invalid by about a year. Here's what is going on:

Someone (whose name I won't mention) spoke to someone at Google (take a guess who) at the London Pubcon last year about this time. He suggested to the Googler that they should stop showing only PR 4 links and above in the backlink searches. What Google should do, he suggested to this Googler, is show a randomized set of backlinks. Within a week or so that is what happened. This was around May 2004. This is public knowledge, it was widely talked about last year but I guess not everyone got the memo.

Many link hunters discount any directory submission on a page with less than PR 4 from the mistaken belief that those pages won't be counted. Well, the backlink shakeup puts that myth to bed.

The fact of the matter is that Quantity of links plays a role in ranking a website. There are many aspects of a link that are counted, and quantity is one of them. Why do you think blog spam is so effective? Think about it.

I love links from under PR 4 web pages.

[Robert_Charlton]

Originally Posted by martinibuster

Someone (whose name I won't mention)... suggested to the Googler that they should stop showing only PR 4 links and above in the backlink searches.

He's still hiding out somewhere.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by martinibuster

The fact of the matter is that Quantity of links plays a role in ranking a website. There are many aspects of a link that are counted, and quantity is one of them. Why do you think blog spam is so effective? Think about it.

I love links from under PR 4 web pages.

But they have to be unique quantity.... and the anchor text needs to be varied... just buying a bunch of links and using the same anchor text is an accident waiting to happen.

Even having multiple links from the same domain is a waste and potential penalty getter.

True done right linking can help with SERP positions etc., but how this is determined to be right is a constantly moving landscape with a lot of holes.

Many people here can attest the sudden loss of ranking and presence in Google.

If however you are willing to ignore Google for the traffic from MSN and Yahoo then you can get a lot more accomplished with methods that will risk penalty at Google.

In essence it is becoming a 2 site development environment at the least.

[martinibuster]

>>>But they have to be unique quantity.... and the anchor text needs to be varied

True, that was implicit in my statement, "There are many aspects of a link that are counted." But illustrating every aspect of a link's value (anchor text, position, number of other links on page, topics, bla bla bla) was outside the scope of my point, which is that PR 4 links or under will work, and that quantity plays a role.

That said, if anybody wants to pull their head out of the box for a second, when you get right down to it, the link doesn't even have to be a text link to confer some value.


>>>Even having multiple links from the same domain is a waste and potential penalty getter.

Your use of the word Potential leads me to believe that you personally have never been penalized for having multiple links from the same domain. So should your statement be qualified as being an unfounded but educated guess?

Try feeding that sentence to a web designer who slaps Run of Site links back to her website from every site she creates. I'm certain her hands-on experience will negate that statement.

I will say that from my personal experience I have never experienced any kind of ranking penalty from having multiple links from a single domain. Never.

Often, Google's methodology is to dampen the effect of a legitimate activity that has potential for abuse, which is a smart way of going about it because it avoids collateral damage.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by martinibuster

I love links from under PR 4 web pages.

Forward thinking in my book... since PageRank is a hindsight factor.

I use this as a guide:

1. Find PR0 pages that are included in Google's archive.

1a. Far less links on the page means more for me early on.

2. Find brand new directories and websites to exchange with

2a. Since PR hunter WON'T exchange - far less links on the page means more for me early on... plus it's reasonable to assume the owner will work at making my link of higher quality.

2b. Easier to be listed - they don't snub their nose - "you're only a PR5 and worthless to me" BS

Amazingly enough - most owners search for higher PageRank don't see as much value in reciprocal links because when 'you are high' you tend to have far more outbounds sharing that high than low level site pages - sharing with fewer thus gaining far more!

Also note: the higher PageRank pages tend to drop more than they go up as Google archives more... low pages almost always rise thus in 3, 6, 9 months or a year... you are far superior than those linking based on today's results!

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by martinibuster

>>>


>>>Even having multiple links from the same domain is a waste and potential penalty getter.

Your use of the word Potential leads me to believe that you personally have never been penalized for having multiple links from the same domain. So should your statement be qualified as being an unfounded but educated guess?

Try feeding that sentence to a web designer who slaps Run of Site links back to her website from every site she creates. I'm certain her hands-on experience will negate that statement.

I will say that from my personal experience I have never experienced any kind of ranking penalty from having multiple links from a single domain. Never.

Often, Google's methodology is to dampen the effect of a legitimate activity that has potential for abuse, which is a smart way of going about it because it avoids collateral damage.

Well I can say I have personal experience with this. 50,000 links from the same media site of archived pages with the same anchor text got penalized.

Also know others who had problems from same anchor text as well as multiple links from same domain.

[krisval]

Well I can say I have personal experience with this. 50,000 links from the same media site of archived pages with the same anchor text got penalized.

Amen. Until this happens to you or someone you know, it is still theory For me, it is reality.

When I launch a new site, I typically pick 4-5 directories, submit then wait. After a month or so, I start adding more links. Why wait? For me, Budget and cash flow mostly and the fact that it will take a while for my newer sites to get fully crawled anyway. I don't expect high rankings within a month.

Certain directories only allow business name which may mean repetitive anchor text. So, in addtion to varying anchor text when possible, I always use a different description for each submission. Don't be lazy. Spend a couple of minutes and write a fresh description for each submission.

[martinibuster]

>>> 50,000 links from the same media site of archived pages with the same anchor text got penalized.

Heh. Woo-hoo. Something like that isn't caught by an algo, it's a hand check. So yeah, that can happen, I totally concede that. But it's not an automated process going out catching these things, it's not an algo penalty.

But getting back to the topic, I don't think directories are a waste of time, but I do think you should be careful to measure it by the metrics you would use if there weren't such a thing as a GTB. There are many directories I don't submit to because they don't meet my criteria of quality.

[kevsh]

Originally Posted by fathom

Forward thinking in my book... since PageRank is a hindsight factor.

I use this as a guide:

1. Find PR0 pages that are included in Google's archive.

1a. Far less links on the page means more for me early on.

2. Find brand new directories and websites to exchange with

2a. Since PR hunter WON'T exchange - far less links on the page means more for me early on... plus it's reasonable to assume the owner will work at making my link of higher quality.

2b. Easier to be listed - they don't snub their nose - "you're only a PR5 and worthless to me" BS

Amazingly enough - most owners search for higher PageRank don't see as much value in reciprocal links because when 'you are high' you tend to have far more outbounds sharing that high than low level site pages - sharing with fewer thus gaining far more!

Also note: the higher PageRank pages tend to drop more than they go up as Google archives more... low pages almost always rise thus in 3, 6, 9 months or a year... you are far superior than those linking based on today's results!

Excellent and informative post. I agree 100% with your approach and it's amazing more people haven't caught on. It's like buying a stock for a little-known company at dirt-cheap prices. If they turn into the next Microsoft (or even 1/100th as big!) you're going to reap the rewards in a big way. If you wait until their stock is in the $100s, ask yourself how much higher can it go? I'd say there's as good a chance of it dropping back as rising.

Anyway, my analogy is a bit off but the point is clear: Get links early and often and down the road if even a few have a big raise in PR you're going to be patting yourself on the back

[sootledir]

Anyone who doesn't have $200 in their budget for directory promotions is missing out. Static, permanent, one-way links with diverse anchor text you control are hard to beat.

[Jmoney1172]

Originally Posted by sootledir

Static, permanent, one-way links with diverse anchor text you control are hard to beat.

True but the directories that let you control the 'anchor text' of their listings probably won't be around for very long. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have complete control over the link text but just imagine what a directory would look like if every site title was listed with just keywords.

From a usability standpoint, it wouldn't look pretty.

[DaveN]

also try to think like a search spam hunter, everyone knows that links are import , I still like to have a good Dmoz link and A good Yahoo link....

But how does Google tell what is a scraped directory against proper directory if there's such a thing...

there most be away of giving a link a better value than PR alone..

a link from the BBC, W3c , .gov site should weigh more than DaveN pr7 spam directory or "DEAD" blogs or guest books or link exchange programs..

the way SE's look at links is changing and changing fast imo If you can ask yourself will this link i have just added get traffic from people visiting that site, then you are on the right tracks if the answer is Yes.

DaveN

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by sootledir

Anyone who doesn't have $200 in their budget for directory promotions is missing out. Static, permanent, one-way links with diverse anchor text you control are hard to beat.

You link spammer..... lol

[krisval]

From a usability standpoint, it wouldn't look pretty.

Slight disagreement. If every URL stuffed multiple words like
Title: Cheap Airlines Cheap Tickets Cheap Flights, I could see your point but.

If a directory has keyword rich titles that is within limits, it is actually a benefit to the user. User wants to find what they want fast. Keyword Rich titles let them know exactly what the site is about. If this were not true, Search results would list just the Domain name as the title and not the actual page title. They list the page titles because it is good for the user.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by krisval

Slight disagreement. If every URL stuffed multiple words like
Title: Cheap Airlines Cheap Tickets Cheap Flights, I could see your point but.

If a directory has keyword rich titles that is within limits, it is actually a benefit to the user. User wants to find what they want fast. Keyword Rich titles let them know exactly what the site is about. If this were not true, Search results would list just the Domain name as the title and not the actual page title. They list the page titles because it is good for the user.

descriptions also could help describe the link as well.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by krisval

Slight disagreement. If every URL stuffed multiple words like
Title: Cheap Airlines Cheap Tickets Cheap Flights, I could see your point but.

If a directory has keyword rich titles that is within limits, it is actually a benefit to the user. User wants to find what they want fast. Keyword Rich titles let them know exactly what the site is about. If this were not true, Search results would list just the Domain name as the title and not the actual page title. They list the page titles because it is good for the user.

There are many cases where the domain name may not describe what the company does....