Are Directories Like Link Farms

[Local SEO Solutions]

Directories Are Like Link Farms

I know that a large amount of you reading this use directories and have done so for a very long time. You are likely going to disagree with me on this, but here it goes. Try to be open minded.

I truly believe that directories have little or no value these days and that they are nothing more than glorified link farms on one website. After all, there whole purpose is to generate links. They have very little if any usable content. They also are a mix of free and paid links. They have long ago stopped being useful for generating traffic, with perhaps a few exceptions such as Yahoo.

Now, there are a few things that we already know. Google does not like link farms. We know that Google likes quality content and we know that Google does not appreciate paid links. We also know that your links should be relevant. So do you really still think that directories are a good idea?

Ok, let’s now say that your directory sells links but uses the “no follow” attribute in links. If this is so those links are only good for generating traffic and not for gaining higher search placement. So I ask when is the last time you got any meaningful traffic from a directory? If the directory offers free and paid links and they are all do follow how then does a bot tell the difference?

Let’s take a look at what Google has to say about directories. Hmm… It doesn’t seem to say much of anything about directories. It did in the past recommend the human edited DMOZ directory, but that recommendation in the webmaster guidelines has recently been removed.

So what does Google have to say about link building? The webmaster guidelines indicate that your links should be from relevant or related sites. So how then is a listing of links related to your website?

One last thing, for those of you who use these automated submission software do you actually have any idea how many links that you had approved verses those that you applied for. When I did this in the past, in the early days, we had less than a 10 % success rate. That alone would make using directories a waste of time for me.

This should be interesting.

[muckle.martin]

It's easy for directories to turn into link farm, but if editors are cautious they will definitely be able to keep it a quality and useful resource.

I don't agree with you about value of directories going down. I use local directories and real estate directories very often.

[niceextra]

Directories give users a collections of relevant sites. Some directories gives brief description about the site with the URL. Link farm is a collection of links intended to get backlinks.
I also believe that directory submission is less value for today's SEO.

[Local SEO Solutions]

I always like to ask when is the last time that you actually got any traffic from a directory.

[snowbird]

Local SEO Solutions:

Directories are not link farms. If you want an example of a link farm, then check out this url: http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/link_farm.html Notice the hundreds of outbound links on the page. That is a link farm. The term "link farm" is even in the URL. :D

The term link farm was widely used when free for all links (FFA) scripts were popular. FFA pages were indeed link farms - sometimes placing many hundreds of links on one page. Also reciprocal link warehouses fell into the link farm category. These are about as dead today as the term link farm IMO. Link farms still exist but their effectiveness has been lost so there is a quick turnover of participating members (normally people new to SEO). Not even the worst auto approve directory falls into the link farm class.

Most people don't submit to directories for traffic. Some submit in an attempt to rank for a very competitive keyword like mortgages, and they will be let down when they discover even 10,000 active directory listings won't get them to page one for that keyword. On the flip side, SEO's purchase links not for traffic but for their potential to improve their customers ranks. Purchasing a link on a relevant PR 4 links page, for example, won't send any traffic but it certainly will help in ones SEO efforts. And as we all know the higher up you appear in the SERPS, the more traffic potential you have.

Some people do not realize that directory submissions are not in themselves going to help someone rank for a competitive keyword. The submissions certainly can help in ranking for medium and mostly long tailed keywords where competition is minimal. Regardless, backlinks from directories should never be the main component of a backlink profile IMO. If done properly, directory submissions can help. And for the cost, it offers a reasonable ROI.

When it comes to backlinks, there really is little difference between the most notworthy SEO and the person that submits to as many directories as they can find. The main difference is that a SEO tends to have a link budget to work with while the person submitting to directories does not. They are both trying to achieve the same goal of obtaining links on pages that are cached so that their ranks improve. One can afford better backlinks while the other can't.

If the SEO has a link budget available, certainly that person can obtain links that provide both SEO benefits and traffic. But in many cases they simply spend $50-$100+ per link to appear on pages with PR and no traffic. These links must be renewed monthly, qaurterly, yearly, etc. One could argue if the intent was to receive traffic from their backlinks, the SEO made a poorer decision then the person submitting to as many directories as they could find. Who spent more to get backlinks that sent no traffic?

Having stated my opinion on link farms and traffic from directories, I will take a shot at the directory industry. There are some directory networks out there which will post your link on all 100's of their directories for a set price. I took a look at some of these directories. They were all using the same DB. Some of these directories had 1 page listed in Google - their homepage. Therefore, any listings in these directories will not be found by Google. But this is not a link farm issue, it is a duplicate content issue.

Whether some directories are link farms will always be one of those issues that is debated. From previous debates, I have noticed that those that believe directories are link farms tend to have link purchasing budgets to work with. Those that defend directories tend to have small to no link building budget.

[Local SEO Solutions]

Local SEO Solutions:

Directories are not link farms. If you want an example of a link farm, then check out this url: http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/link_farm.html Notice the hundreds of outbound links on the page. That is a link farm. The term "link farm" is even in the URL. :D

The term link farm was widely used when free for all links (FFA) scripts were popular. FFA pages were indeed link farms - sometimes placing many hundreds of links on one page. Also reciprocal link warehouses fell into the link farm category. These are about as dead today as the term link farm IMO. Link farms still exist but their effectiveness has been lost so there is a quick turnover of participating members (normally people new to SEO). Not even the worst auto approve directory falls into the link farm class.

Most people don't submit to directories for traffic. Some submit in an attempt to rank for a very competitive keyword like mortgages, and they will be let down when they discover even 10,000 active directory listings won't get them to page one for that keyword. On the flip side, SEO's purchase links not for traffic but for their potential to improve their customers ranks. Purchasing a link on a relevant PR 4 links page, for example, won't send any traffic but it certainly will help in ones SEO efforts. And as we all know the higher up you appear in the SERPS, the more traffic potential you have.

Some people do not realize that directory submissions are not in themselves going to help someone rank for a competitive keyword. The submissions certainly can help in ranking for medium and mostly long tailed keywords where competition is minimal. Regardless, backlinks from directories should never be the main component of a backlink profile IMO. If done properly, directory submissions can help. And for the cost, it offers a reasonable ROI.

When it comes to backlinks, there really is little difference between the most notworthy SEO and the person that submits to as many directories as they can find. The main difference is that a SEO tends to have a link budget to work with while the person submitting to directories does not. They are both trying to achieve the same goal of obtaining links on pages that are cached so that their ranks improve. One can afford better backlinks while the other can't.

If the SEO has a link budget available, certainly that person can obtain links that provide both SEO benefits and traffic. But in many cases they simply spend $50-$100+ per link to appear on pages with PR and no traffic. These links must be renewed monthly, qaurterly, yearly, etc. One could argue if the intent was to receive traffic from their backlinks, the SEO made a poorer decision then the person submitting to as many directories as they could find. Who spent more to get backlinks that sent no traffic?

Having stated my opinion on link farms and traffic from directories, I will take a shot at the directory industry. There are some directory networks out there which will post your link on all 100's of their directories for a set price. I took a look at some of these directories. They were all using the same DB. Some of these directories had 1 page listed in Google - their homepage. Therefore, any listings in these directories will not be found by Google. But this is not a link farm issue, it is a duplicate content issue.

Whether some directories are link farms will always be one of those issues that is debated. From previous debates, I have noticed that those that believe directories are link farms tend to have link purchasing budgets to work with. Those that defend directories tend to have small to no link building budget.

Thanks for the well thought response.

We gave up on directories very early on in our website marketing careers. We tried using automated software in the beginning. Then discovered less than 10% of these sites gave us a link. So it just seemed like a waste of time.

Since many if not most directories provide free and paid links I recommend avoiding them. Google doesn't appreciate paid links so we avoid sites that sell links. Also if the link is not going to pass link juice it is of no value for me for ranking purposes.

Using most directories for traffic generation is also a waste of time. So what purpose does a directory serve. In most cases it only purpose is to generate and grow links, thus I refer to them as link farms. Since farms are where things are grown it makes sense to me.

On another point, all of our sites do extremely well in the SERP's and we have done so without the use of these directories. Throw in the fact that Google has removed its recommendations for using directories and that all I need to know.

[snowbird]

Local SEO Solutions:

Directories typically do not provide a whole lot of offpage SEO power. As a directory owner I will be the first to admit that. However, most directories are flexible and permit one to use their desired anchor text. If it's a good directory that will be around for a while, the review fee can be money well spent. That's why the popular/well known directories get so many submissions. 5 years from now the submitters link will most likely still be active.

Many free directories turn paid, while others close. I've listed new directories in my list only to find they were turned into parked domains three days later. It is frustrating. But a good percentage of these directories will turn paid. For those that get listed while it is free, they get a good return on their time investment.

Many people wrongly submit to high PR free directories only. This might explain why so many people have a poor listing rate when submitting to free directories. The legit high PR directories (not using dropped domains or forged PR) typically delete all the free submissions or take many months to review them. If it's not that, then it is the impossible listing standards they have for free submissions. This is why I always recommend that submitters focus on newly released directories. The owners of new directories want to populate their directory and are more inclined to approve listings quickly. And since there are fewer listings in the directory, chances are the search engines will index their listings rather quickly.

I completely agree that directories do not generate much traffic, if any. One has to write a compelling directory listing to get click throughs and few submitters spend the time needed to write a good site description. Regardless, I still see organic search traffic going to listings in my directory.

Most directories that charge a review fee are not "selling" links. What I look for are sponsored links, footer links, sidebar links, etc. If the homepage of a directory is loaded with a bunch of outbound links, chances are those are all paid for. Matt Cutts has covered the topic of review fees a number of times and it boils down to listing standards. If premium directories accept every submission that is paid for then they are indeed selling links.

A good portion of offpage SEO work is link building. In many cases the links that SEO's develop are paid for and do not send traffic. The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that the difference between a SEO and person submitting to directories is their available budget. SEO's typically purchase links while those submitting to free directories don't. One could argue that those submitting to as many free directories as they can find are actually in compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines while the SEO is not - because the SEO is paying for links.

Google did indeed remove the suggestion to submit to directories. Here's how Matt Cutts responded to a question on this topic:

Question: Recently, you removed this suggestion: "Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!" from your guidelines. Is there any chance that you will be discounting these kinds of links for ranking value in future?

Answer: There's always the chance that we'll discount directory links in the future. What we were seeing was quite a few novice people would see the "directory" recommendation and go out and just try to submit to a ton of directories, even if some of the directories were lower-quality or even fly-by-night directories that weren't great for users. Right now we haven't changed how we're weighting directory links--we've only removed the directory suggestion from the webmaster guidelines.

Many SEO companies continue to submit their client sites to a select list of premium directories while others don't. Since there are a variety of techniques available to build links one could say that no one method is right or wrong. It solely depends on the goals and the personal preferences of the SEO.

[Local SEO Solutions]

Local SEO Solutions:

Directories typically do not provide a whole lot of offpage SEO power. As a directory owner I will be the first to admit that. However, most directories are flexible and permit one to use their desired anchor text. If it's a good directory that will be around for a while, the review fee can be money well spent. That's why the popular/well known directories get so many submissions. 5 years from now the submitters link will most likely still be active.

Many free directories turn paid, while others close. I've listed new directories in my list only to find they were turned into parked domains three days later. It is frustrating. But a good percentage of these directories will turn paid. For those that get listed while it is free, they get a good return on their time investment.

Many people wrongly submit to high PR free directories only. This might explain why so many people have a poor listing rate when submitting to free directories. The legit high PR directories (not using dropped domains or forged PR) typically delete all the free submissions or take many months to review them. If it's not that, then it is the impossible listing standards they have for free submissions. This is why I always recommend that submitters focus on newly released directories. The owners of new directories want to populate their directory and are more inclined to approve listings quickly. And since there are fewer listings in the directory, chances are the search engines will index their listings rather quickly.

I completely agree that directories do not generate much traffic, if any. One has to write a compelling directory listing to get click throughs and few submitters spend the time needed to write a good site description. Regardless, I still see organic search traffic going to listings in my directory.

Most directories that charge a review fee are not "selling" links. What I look for are sponsored links, footer links, sidebar links, etc. If the homepage of a directory is loaded with a bunch of outbound links, chances are those are all paid for. Matt Cutts has covered the topic of review fees a number of times and it boils down to listing standards. If premium directories accept every submission that is paid for then they are indeed selling links.

A good portion of offpage SEO work is link building. In many cases the links that SEO's develop are paid for and do not send traffic. The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that the difference between a SEO and person submitting to directories is their available budget. SEO's typically purchase links while those submitting to free directories don't. One could argue that those submitting to as many free directories as they can find are actually in compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines while the SEO is not - because the SEO is paying for links.

Google did indeed remove the suggestion to submit to directories. Here's how Matt Cutts responded to a question on this topic:



Many SEO companies continue to submit their client sites to a select list of premium directories while others don't. Since there are a variety of techniques available to build links one could say that no one method is right or wrong. It solely depends on the goals and the personal preferences of the SEO.

Well, I have made a value judgment that directories are not for us and for all the reasons mentioned. However, my opinion might well be different id I owned a directory.

What I do know is the best link development method is to provide useful content that people will want to bookmark and link too. I don't ever expect to link to a directory other than perhaps a local site and I would do that in a blog post.

[2fk]

I do prefer submitting on Directories first and foremost not in the sense of spamming...I do make sure to submit the site on it's proper category...second submitting to this site won't hurt my site...third it a free way of getting one way link,fourth you can use your target keyword as your anchor to your site..fifth Google is not the only search engine available...still this links are being counted by other SE's like yahoo..giving you backlinks..and organize directories with genuine review before approving submissions are not link farm...

Here is an insightful interview with Greg Hartnett from the web directory( about directory sites...)
http://www.shimonsandler.com/web-directories-interview-with-greg-hartnett/

[Local SEO Solutions]

A total waste of time from our perspective. Google teaches that your links should be from relevant sites. So that would mean directories that link to other directories would be a good thing. Linking to any other site... Not such a good thing... The link has to be relevant to your site to be valuable.

[2fk]

A total waste of time from our perspective. Google teaches that your links should be from relevant sites. So that would mean directories that link to other directories would be a good thing. Linking to any other site... Not such a good thing... The link has to be relevant to your site to be valuable.

Waste of time for you?do you consider Google as the only search engine on the planet? if yes then you dont have to submit on directories...being relevant that's why it is a directory cause they are categorized..of course if you are going to submit your site you'll going to place it on the right category..

[Stevejeff]

Link farms have no editors or moderators while directories have. And link farms accept any links by automated software while directories accept only it abides site rules and falls under the suitable category thereby increasing your quality inlinks. Editors of the directories review these and accept it.

[Local SEO Solutions]

I would beg to differ here most directories do not have editors those that do are useful. There just isn't many of them.

[2fk]

I would beg to differ here most directories do not have editors those that do are useful. There just isn't many of them.

That's why it is up to you to select the directories you are going to submit with. So you can't say A total waste of time from our perspective. cause i think you also do directory submission? Am i right? :D