20 replies to this topic

[loveleen]

Hi....

Here's something Iv heard about.......... what are your opinion about directories that claim to be "seo-friendly".
I mean.. are they really seo-friendly, and what's the reason behind that title. Can they be totally trusted. I heard of rumors that we should totally keep away from directories that say that they are "seo-friendly". I hear "human edited directories are good to approach, but are there any criterias according to which we should avoid considering certain directories. Please advice!!!

[ScottSalwolke]

I've seen a lot of these directories too. But some do have benefits. Look to see how many links the directories have, how many pages are indexed by Google, etc. I've done a few of these and have received Google alerts within a couple of weeks that I'm in their directories. I think one reason they call themselves SEO friendly is that you can determine the anchor text they use.

[qwerty]

I think one reason they call themselves SEO friendly is that you can determine the anchor text they use.

That seems to be their principal trait, and it leads me to think that search engines aren't likely to be very fond of them.

[Bernard]

I think originally the term was coined by Dan at IVS. His use of the phrase meant that the directories were crawlable and used direct links (no redirects or javascript) so that the listings would be indexed as good IBLs.

With the advent of free directory scripts like phpLD, most directories started fitting this criteria and I think some people started using the phrase to mean "I'll list any spam with your desired anchor text" in an effort to attract $$$ from SEOs and webmasters. This was when people were just starting to jump on the directory site bandwagon.

I think the model has changed a bit with more concern about quality since Google called out paid links.

[qwerty]

Hey, Bernard. Haven't seen you in a while.

I expect you're right that a lot of directories have had to make changes. The Aviva directory published a blog post explaining what they had to do after getting slapped down by Google. My guess would be that the term "SEO-friendly directory" has been labeled as negative, and we won't see many directories describing themselves that way in the future.

[don h]

Vilesilencer's website lists a large number of directories that are 'SEO friendly'. Having submitted to several of these I noticed they're using the title as the anchor text to link to your site. I think all of them are human edited directories, so website's submitted are verified that the title/description you gave it are relevant to the website.

I don't understand why Google would dislike such directories when a human is personally checking the website's relevance to the title used as anchor text to ensure it accurately describes the website. Google does use anchor text as a way to 'vote' on what kind of content can be found at the site, correct? And that vote should come from another party, Well in this case the human editor approving your link is doing the vote. Sure the owner of the site is initiating these anchor's, however since there is a neutral party verifying that these anchor texts describe the site, I don't see why Google would punish the directory, site, or inhibit these anchor's to have any less weight than an anchor initiated by someone else.

I don't agree with spamming these title's with keywords, or automatically approving links without review, however. To give an example of one I think would be an acceptable title:

A website that sells Nike shoes and other misc. footwear, officially called ShoesRUs submits a link to a directory. He names his title/anchor: Nike Shoes Footwear, instead of ShoesRUs.
Now, Google would frown upon this kind of scenario? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited by Randy, 08 March 2008 - 06:57 PM.
Removed quote.

[Randy]

Whether anybody likes it or not there is a certain healthy suspecion the engines have about Directory sites. And rightly so IMHO.

Lots of them are total dross that were only built and popluated with sites in an attempt to give an unfair linking advantage to the directory owners other sites. What with the DMOZ dumps and free directory software that's been out there for years, this isn't terribly surprising. Not to mention that it's probably justified on their part for the search engines to view 99.9% of directories with some serious skepticism.

Then there's the other crowd that charge for inclusion in their directory. Not that it bothers me that people charge for the service, but seriously can anybody say that more than a handful of directories would be worth paying to submit to if there were no potential SEO benefit? Is the cost worth it for the amount of converting traffic you get from the vast majority of directories out there? I can't think of a single General Subject directory that could meet such a burden, because most of them get very little traffic if you were to strip out webmasters who are there to see if they can submit for free.

With the rare exception I can see exactly why the search engines would take the approach they've taken. When the vast majority are there to live off of potential search engine benefits I think they're well within their rights to discount such links or even take a harsher view if they see tracks in the snow that lead one to believe the directory is attempting to live off of trading search engine benefits.

Thus only the few really good directories will survive and be worthwhile.

[glengara]

I'd stay clear of anything that touts itself as "SEO friendly"...

[loveleen]

oooook... So after penning down each of the facts that you guys have stated.... I feel like I cant totally trust a directory that calls itself as "seo-friendly" and yet ....if I'v understood right, directories (irrespective of whether paid/free/seo-friendly/human-edited) cant really be trusted entirely what so ever???
Please correct me is m wrong, It has come to past that "seo-friendly" directories have a bad reputation????
But if its a mis-conception that "ALL" seo-friendly directories are foul.. then how would I recognise the "good - seo - friendly" from the "bad - seo - friendly" directory??? I know there aren't set rules for this but I wont give up till I find a solution to my dilemma
help me out here, could there be some criteria according to which I could just strike out an "seo friendly" directory from my list other than the usual criterias - ( no gambling site/ no adult sites/ no good PR/ ignore very new directories/ check their back links... etc etc ) or do i strike out all of the "seo-friendly"

[don h]

I think that the SEO friendly term is getting a bad rap for no good reason. SEO friendly is a term used to simply mean that the directory allows flexibility in choosing title's (anchor text) for your link. Unlike dmoz, that has very strict criterion. SEO friendly may have been originally coined to mean something else in the past, but at present, it seems to mean what I said above. You can take the O out of SEO, and it would still mean the same thing, infact, copywriting is SE friendly. Any text that helps a search engine identify a website's relevancy to a search term, as long as it isn't overdone, I would think is SE friendly.

I havn't seen any directories yet that claim they're SEO friendly, I see other people refer to them as being SEO friendly. I imagine Google wouldn't like any directory, or any website for that matter, that claims they're SEO -anything-.

So with all that being said,
I look for a few things before I submit to a directory:

Does the directory look like it is being maintained?
Do you see keyword spam in the directory listings' titles/descriptions ?
Is the directory penalized? Does the directory have 0 PR, but over a year old?
Does the directory offer automated paid inclusion?

If the directory isn't penalized, seems like there is house cleaning going on, doesn't allow spammy titles for its websites, doesn't offer automatic or paid inclusion, then IMO it is ok to submit to.

No directory is perfect though, you'll find that even dmoz links to bad neighborhoods. Of course when such a site is found, it's removed, but it's impossible to keep a large directory 100% clean. I would assume that Google is aware of this fact and takes it into consideration before penalizing a directory.

[Randy]

I agree Don. It is a bad rap that is often unnecessary as a label. And too close to SE (as in Search Engine) Friendly, which is actually a good thing. The two are too close and too confusing though.

Getting links from quality directories won't harm you loveleen, whether they describe themselves as seo friendly or not.

But by the same token directory links alone aren't going to get you nearly to where you want to be. They just don't carry all that much authority as a general rule, nor do they really set your site apart as being Special since everybody and their brother usually has several directory links pointing at their site.

[loveleen]

Thanx Don, Thanx Randy.......... totally appreciate your explanation. Don, I have added your criterias to my list (ie the list to help knock out the not-so-good directories). But I guess I have understood the bottom line - that it doesnt really matter what the directories claim to be (seo-friendly/ human edited ... etc) its up to our discretion to choose the ones that contain none of the "negative points" as discussed.
Thanx a million all of ya......... If you guys have any other conventional / unconventional points to keep in mind whilst choosing directories or for that matter link building to let me know.... I have gone through the other section of this forum about link building and picked up many hints..... but do keep the good advice flowing!!!!!
m getting right back to work now c ya!!!!

[Randy]

The only advice I have is what's worked for me forever loveleen.

When doing link building I specifically target sites that are already attracting people with the personality profile that I'm going after. For example if my site would be most useful to Teachers, I try to get links from sites where Teachers already hang out. Like teacher resource sites, lesson plan sites, sites run by teachers who share their wisdom, school sites that have a section for teachers to use, etc. The same idea goes for if I were targeting IT Professionals, Human Resource department employees, CEO's, CFO's, etc, etc. I try to get links from the places they're already going.

Sometimes these sites will be selling some complimentary product, so that a link exchange makes complete sense. Sometimes the other site doesn't sell anything at all and is purely informational. That doesn't really matter to me as long as they're not direct competitors or mine.

Not only do these links end up providing me quality traffic all by themselves, thus lessening my dependance on SEO and rankings, but the search engines also make the connection. So you get double the benefit. Sales to real people who find your link somewhere else they already frequent, plus a benefit with the search engines.

Link building becomes a lot easier and more sensible when you view it from the customer perspective first.

[fastreplies]

It amazes me how intelligent people sometimes totally off the mark in grasping simple concept. Dan Vilesilencer pioneered this concept to advance site owners benefits by indexing in his List only directories that have link to the site itself and don’t use internal links to directory own index instead thus benefiting that directory only.

Example: AMRAY Web Directory 3 years ago had PR6 (without being listed in DMOZ BTW) but then switched to SE friendly and as result went down to PR4 even thou we have now 5 times more backlinks than before. We can go back to PR6 or even 7 if we switch back to internal links but because PR is nothing more than mirage created by SEO companies and we don’t care about green slimy bar any longer, we are continue benefiting site owners and not ourselves.

I know must of us get jumpy when we hear SEO but the correct phrase for Dan’s concept is SE whereas ‘O’ stands for Optimized to be beneficial and friendly to the site owners.

[qwerty]

That's absolutely fine, and if that's the origin of the term "SEO-friendly directory," I'd have to say that the term has been stolen. What you're describing is what I'd call "search engine friendly" and of course I'd recommend that people seek out directories like that.

But what the term we're talking about has come to mean is a directory that allows the submitter to choose the anchor text of the listing.

What you're describing is a directory that would have listings like this:

Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble

The sort of directory I'm describing would look more like this:


Buy Books
Buy Books

If you want to win the term back, I wish you luck. I think the consensus on what it currently means is pretty clear, and it's pretty tough to change that. I remember fighting the use of the term "linkbait" to describe something that doesn't happen to be dishonest. That didn't work so well either.