Info Vilesilencer Directory Owners Forum and Free Directory List » Blogging Central » General Blog Discussion

[Dan]

I don't really want to enter the debate on any given side, though I am happy for both sides to be aired, as long as we don't descend into name calling. I've let that happen before and it never ends well for either side.

The part of the debate that interests me, because it is undefined, is what I would call the activity of a directory.

Let's start off by saying that we are only talking about free submission directories here.

Activity of a directory is probably the most important aspect of a directory in terms of how useful that directory will end up being to the submitter, but it is so hard to stick in a box and say "this is how active a particular directory is". I have tried to deduce ways in which to get a guideline on directory activity, but none of it would be fair.

e.g. Directory A adds 500 website listings a month, Directory B adds 50 websites a month.

At first glance, Directory A might appear to be more active.

But let's say that Directory B has 5000 submissions per month, and Directory A has only 1000 submissions.

Then we would suggest that Directory B is more active (actively excluding submissions, etc. and processing a larger queues).

But what if, we then say that Directory A has a stronger editing policy and we can see this in the descriptive listings it adds/edits as opposed to Directory B?

We could continue this back and forth argument, and never come to a concensus about which directory is more active to the end user.

So what do we do... nothing?

I like to look at a directory and work out whether it is adding any listings for free. In many cases this is extremely obvious, in others it is not. Once I have worked that out I like to work out how strict the editing/inclusion policy is. Some directories don't even have guidelines, and so they are easy to dismiss. Those that DO have guidelines, I like to see how actively they police those guidelines.

Once we've worked out that they are indeed adding listings for free, and they are strictly following their own guidelines, I like to see just how many websites make it through to be listed. That can tell you the popularity of submissions to that directory and whether or not people are following guidelines.

Once you've gone through all that, which can take a great deal of time as a lot of it requires investigation over a long time period and not just quick glances at statiscal numbers in a sidebar, you get a better understanding of what a particular directory has to offer, and whether it is indeed worthwhile.

What I hope to do with IVS, is knock out the easy/obvious dud directories and just present a list of those that require the end user to decide for themselves what works for them.

Let's face it, we are not all ever going to agree which directories are the best. But, if we can agree that we have a list of several hundred, which do contain say the 50 best, then we can compile our own "best lists" and the reasons why we think the way we do.

The same thing happens in life in any facet or industry. Look at a show like Top Gear where they rate cars... Their bias is on a cool factor, without "trying" to appear cool, regardless of pricetag - They generally rate speed as the ultimate factor. Other car shows rate things like security and affordability as their big factor when deciding on what gets a car into their top 10.

So let's just agree that there are probably a number of factors that make a directory useful to the end user. Some directories have all the factors, some have none, and most lie somewhere in between....

[mimika]

Originally Posted by Dan

Let's start off by saying that we are only talking about free submission directories here.

I’m sure you agree that you can’t hold ill will against free directories that

• Picky about content of their Indexes
• Intolerant when it comes to Guidelines violations
• Prejudicial when it comes to spam

I’m sure you aware that we reject paid submission if they are not up to our quality standards and if we are taking such an actions against paid one, then we believe that we have right to be outspoken when it comes to free submissions given that for free inclusions we’re getting nothing in return.

Also, I’m sure that you share my outlook that:
any one who places demands and feel like free directories own them free inclusion is most likely out of touch with reality.

mimika

[George]

The case that I see too often is directories calling themselves free but only approving paid submissions (a bait and switch process).

We have no option for paid listings. All submissions are 100% free. We normally have all submissions reviewed within a day.

We have no use for whiny people who don't follow the submissions rules and then complain. No second chance.

The "customer" is not always right, especially when he is wrong and is trying to get more than his fair share, ie: a submission that doesn't meet the rules approved.

[ModCars]

Originally Posted by George

For free, you get one chance and that's it.

I guess I missed my one chance then

[George]

pm me the site you submitted and I'll look into it. Because:

1) you didn't whine!
2) you were interacting here in a forum!

[mimika]

DirectoryMan

I have some solution. Lets make a deal.

Add AMRAY to web-directories.ws and best-web-directories.com with attributions it deserves and I will ask Fast to remove thread from Middle Finger Award Forum (which BTW is placing “your family sucks” it Google’s top 5)
We will also add your sites to AMRAY Index if you choose to have them listed.

I am offering you an opportunity to leave that entire ordeal behind and start fresh with hope that you choose positive outcome, which in a long run has more benefits for all parties involved and in a short, will instantly end your war with ranter.

Now, ball is in your court. Everything that will happen from now on is going to be an outcome of your own making.

mimika

[DirectoryMan]

So you are saying that I just have to say great things about your sites ranter will stop harassing me online.

That's just a nicer way of saying the same thing that ranter has been saying for 2 weeks. Anyone reading will have to think twice about dealing with your company in any way.

[mimika]

Originally Posted by DirectoryMan

So you are saying that I just have to say great things about your sites ranter will stop harassing me online.

No. What I’m saying, you can say honest things and that will give you an opportunity to fight back and disarm ranter’s arguments if he continues destroying your reputation.

Originally Posted by DirectoryMan

That's just a nicer way of saying the same thing that ranter has been saying for 2 weeks. Anyone reading will have to think twice about dealing with your company in any way.

Well, I am not looking for nicer way to put to rest this issue, I am looking for the only way which says that bad peace is better than good war. I hope you do realize that so far you are the one who has bloody face while we are getting and enjoying free publicity no money can buy, which in our case is win win situation.

I’m offering you a way out so, please stop biding the hand that feeds you.

mimika

How about if you say:
If you’re planning to spam AMRAY, you’ll waste you time
Read and follow Submission Guidelines if you want to get listed
Because of Editorial intolerance to spam, AMRAY is the most difficult directory to get in

[Snowblind]

Because of Editorial intolerance to spam, AMRAY is the most difficult directory to get in

Heh, I like that one.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by mimika

I’m sure you agree that you can’t hold ill will against free directories that

• Picky about content of their Indexes
• Intolerant when it comes to Guidelines violations
• Prejudicial when it comes to spam

I don't believe you can hold ill will against free directories that display those attributes. Correct. But that's because I expect directories to behave that way.

The free directory industry ranges from ill-disguised link farms (think about all those .info directories that accept-all and don't edit OR those directory networks that people set up and have absolutely no time to maintain) to average directories who edit some and let some junk through, to excellent directories who heavily moderate/edit their listings, remove dead listings and are strict about who they will include.

Look at DMOZ. It's not a dead directory. It still carries weight. It is the most recognised directory on the internet.

Yet, it has some flaws.

Gaining entry into the DMOZ directory is extremely difficult. Many people consider that a flaw. I actually lean the other way and think it is a necessary process for the directory to retain its integrity. If people cannot get a listing in DMOZ, it doesn't mean that they do not have a good site. What it generally does mean is that their industry/category is already well covered with a good range of sites, or that they did not follow the submission guidelines correctly (most people don't I've seen the sort of bullshit that they try and submit and then whinge about).

So is that a flaw or not? If that isn't a flaw, then every directory worth its weight, should be strict about who they add, and should have a "difficult to gain a listing" policy. Ok, maybe not to the magnitude of DMOZ, as it is infinitely bigger than every other directory out there, but a proportional *difficulty* to gain a listing.

If that is a flaw, then shouldn't DMOZ also not make people's directory lists?

I include DMOZ, on Info Vilesilencer, in the trusted web directories category because I believe that their barriers to entry are not a flaw. They are a must. It is one of the reasons the directory is held in such high regard by other authoritative sites, despite the negative reputation it has in the SEO community (who are only a small number, and who are only whingeing because their own sites are not listed).

I did however mention flaws. DMOZ has a couple of big flaws in their model.

1. They are not actively removing dead links

I ran through a shopping category about a year and a half ago, to prove a point to someone who was calling Alive Directory a bad directory because they had 1 poor listing in a category (it was a clear cut MFA site). I showed them that DMOZ had 12 bad/average listings in a category with only 30 listings in it.

Dead links are going to appear in directories. Hell I just removed 4 this morning from Info Vilesilencer. Directories that no longer exist. Every directory will have its share of them, but DMOZ by its sheer size will have more than most.

I could use that as a reason to remove them from the list.

2. They are not actively policing categories, and the sites listed within them

That shopping category I refer to above, was very poor. 18 good listings, and 12 bad ones. Now, not all of those 12 were deadlinks, actually only a few were. The others were just poor websites. Not on their own domain; poorly designed; offering very little to the end user; and some were just tantamount to junk.

Again, I could use this as a reason to remove DMOZ from the list. I apply the very same critique against new directories coming into the list.

So why don't I remove them?

At the end of the day, DMOZ is a free directory and so concessions NEED to be made, because of that. If I was as strict as I want to be regarding directories I could turn the IVS list from 300 into about 1 or 2. You can't be so damn picky about a free directory, because there is no profit margin, and people are not being paid to review the sites that they choose to list.

This is also why, from time to time, I will let directories into the list or to remain on the list, which may on the surface appear to be junky. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Often I will notify a directory owner about junk that they have in their directory (the same as people notify me about directories listed in IVS) and ask them to remove that junk. Some do, some don't. Those that do, generally get a big thumbs up from me, and even though their directory isn't perfect, I can see that the are actively trying to make it better. Which is all anyone can really ask.

I’m sure you aware that we reject paid submission if they are not up to our quality standards and if we are taking such an actions against paid one, then we believe that we have right to be outspoken when it comes to free submissions given that for free inclusions we’re getting nothing in return.

I would expect nothing less from a paid directory submission. In my opinion, paid directories need to be held to a far higher standard because they are being paid to review the listings. Some people look at being paid as a source of income, and will therefore list whoever pays them. That shows a distinct lack of integrity.

Once the paid module is live (it is coming soon I have just had a horrendous last 2 months, and I need more time to ensure it is correct). I will be strict about who I include in the paid list. Because the members will not be paying me for a listing, they will be paying for the special membership (which grants them exclusive access to other areas of the site). Whether their directory makes the paid list or not will rely solely on meeting the IVS selection criteria. The most crucial element of that these days is the ability to maintain well-edited listings.

Also, I’m sure that you share my outlook that:
any one who places demands and feel like free directories own them free inclusion is most likely out of touch with reality.

mimika

I wouldn't say out of touch with reality, I believe that goes too far. I think instead that they are asking too much of the directory. That's all.

Originally Posted by George

We have no option for paid listings. All submissions are 100% free. We normally have all submissions reviewed within a day.

One of the reasons that I like the directory. A pure free directory.

We have no use for whiny people who don't follow the submissions rules and then complain. No second chance.

I also agree with this, there is no room for whingers when they are applying/requesting a free link/listing. Either they are given that listing or they aren't. If they cannot choose to follow simple rules then they can basically go jump off a cliff.

I have the same policy here on the forum. I have simple rules for people to follow when announcing their directories and gaining listings. Some people do not follow those rules and they are banned. I'm not interested in hearing that they didn't know the rules, or that they didn't realise that they were doing anything wrong. Ignorance is not an excuse. It doesn't work in legal circles (oh sorry officer I didn't know that speeding was against the law) and it shouldn't work in the directory industry or anywhere else on the web.

The "customer" is not always right, especially when he is wrong and is trying to get more than his fair share, ie: a submission that doesn't meet the rules approved.

Invariably the customer is most often wrong. It is how we choose to deal WITH that which differentiates us all. I choose, when it is a customer, to either educate them about why they are wrong, or to not take on their business. I will never slam the door in their face, but at the same time, just because they are a customer doesn't mean I will accept what they say to be right when I know it to be wrong.