A list of directories posted here
Daniel Ruscoe
was posted here some time ago?
The directories were listed alphabetically and had their Google PR next
to them.
I had it in my bookmarks but I've managed to loose it. Any help would be
fantastic.
Thanks,
Dan
mark | r
Mark
for the more seasoned hacks out there many of the directories below will be
very familiar, but for the newbies here's a list of, on the most part, free
to submit directories (posted 19thJuly http://www.seroundtable.com/)
The list includes:
http://www.dmoz.org/ (base page PR9)
http://dir.yahoo.com/ (base page PR9)
http://www.earthstation9.com (base page PR6, it uses frames, but it is SE
friendly)
http://www.geniusfind.com/ (base page PR6)
http://www.re-quest.net/ (base PR6)
http://www.qango.com/ (base page PR6)
http://www.wowdirectory.com/ (base page PR6)
http://www.directoryarchives.com/ (base page PR6)
http://www.gimpsy.com/ (base page PR6)
http://www.smartlinks.org (base PR5)
http://www.josh.nu/ (base PR5)
http://www.blakkat.com/ (base PR5)
http://www.webworldindex.com/ (base page PR5)
http://www.yeandi.com/ (base page PR5)
http://www.turnpike.net/directory.phtml (base page PR5)
http://www.websavvy.cc/ (base page PR5)
http://www.webworldindex.com/ (base page PR5)
http://www.worldwidewub.org/ (base page PR4)
http://www.thedirectorysite.com/ (base page PR4)
http://www.seekon.com/ (base page PR3)
this one?
"Daniel Ruscoe" <danr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d06606...@news.btopenworld.com...
Daniel Ruscoe
says...
> Danniel - you ever lived in Southowram UK?
Always been in or around Manchester.
> for the more seasoned hacks out there many of the directories below will be
> very familiar, but for the newbies here's a list of, on the most part, free
> to submit directories (posted 19thJuly http://www.seroundtable.com/)
That'll do nicely. I found a couple of good links through the above URL.
Or this bit, specifically:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000669.html
It isn't the site I had in mind, God only knows where that is, but I
think I've got enough directories to make a decent start with now.
Thanks,
Dan
Roy Schestowitz
Apart from DMOZ, I am not sure that any of them is of significance. Yahoo
have charged for inclusion for quite some time (I last checked 2 years ago)
and the rest are too weak to be worth the time investment.
What's more, I wanted to mention that Google exclude (or are about to
exclude) directories from their engine. Who knows if Yahoo and MSN will
soon follow. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of people,
real people, will actually /follow/ links from these directories.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
Jez
> exclude) directories from their engine.
Roy, would you mind quoting a source for the above information please?
That would be a very dramatic U turn for google as it seems to prefer
directories above all else in some SERPs.
Jez.
Roy Schestowitz
It took me like 5 minutes to find the URL for you, but here it is:
I honestly think that while moderated directories are excellent, they have
often been exploited and misused. The whole culture of "link exchange",
"addition to all possible directories" and "ping all possible feed
services" is time-consuming, bandwidth-consuming and eventually noisy.
Big Bill
I've heard it too. In the beginning, itr made sense for Google to give
weight to directory inclusion as sites were checked by hand and
included if they were deemed to be of merit. That hasn't been the case
for some time so it makes sense to dump directory inclusion weighting.
Hilltop and on-page seo here we come!
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--
Borek
> I've heard it too. In the beginning, itr made sense for Google to give
> weight to directory inclusion as sites were checked by hand and
> included if they were deemed to be of merit. That hasn't been the case
> for some time so it makes sense to dump directory inclusion weighting.
DMOZ still checks sites by hand. Or rather doesn't check and doesn't
include them for quite some time.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions
Stacey
news:8b7p919uta92l4tve...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:04:04 +0100, Jez <j....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>> What's more, I wanted to mention that Google exclude (or are about to
>>> exclude) directories from their engine.
>>
>>Roy, would you mind quoting a source for the above information please?
>>
>>That would be a very dramatic U turn for google as it seems to prefer
>>directories above all else in some SERPs.
>>
>>Jez.
>
> I've heard it too. In the beginning, itr made sense for Google to give
> weight to directory inclusion as sites were checked by hand and
> included if they were deemed to be of merit. That hasn't been the case
> for some time so it makes sense to dump directory inclusion weighting.
> Hilltop and on-page seo here we come!
Take a look at a few SERPs right now. For mine I am not seeing the
Google/DMOZ directory listing in it. It was normally in the top 10 for rag
rugs. Also, I had to work hard at bringing it up in a SERP. It will come up
for crocheted rugs, needlework(Yahoo directory did), crochet, crochet crafts
etc.
At first the directory was a grayed out PR now it has a white PR.
Stacey
Big Bill
<bo...@parts.bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:26:31 +0200, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've heard it too. In the beginning, itr made sense for Google to give
>> weight to directory inclusion as sites were checked by hand and
>> included if they were deemed to be of merit. That hasn't been the case
>> for some time so it makes sense to dump directory inclusion weighting.
>
>DMOZ still checks sites by hand. Or rather doesn't check and doesn't
>include them for quite some time.
>
>Best,
>Borek
I've said this before - DMOZ is an idea who's time has gone. No-one
seems to care over there any more.
Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer
>
> What's more, I wanted to mention that Google exclude (or are about to
> exclude) directories from their engine. Who knows if Yahoo and MSN will
> soon follow. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of people,
> real people, will actually /follow/ links from these directories.
Is this for sure? If Google disregards directories, will there still
be good reason to pay $200+ for a listing in the Yahoo! directory?
Mikkel
Guide til Guatemala:
http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/
Big Bill
Moldrup-Lakjer) wrote:
Nothing is for sure until some time after it's happened.
davidof
>
> Is this for sure? If Google disregards directories, will there still
> be good reason to pay $200+ for a listing in the Yahoo! directory?
was there ever a good reason to pay Yahoo $200?
----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/
Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer
news:429d7ad9$0$303$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
> Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer wrote:
>
>>
>> Is this for sure? If Google disregards directories, will there still
>> be good reason to pay $200+ for a listing in the Yahoo! directory?
>
> was there ever a good reason to pay Yahoo $200?
I sincerely doubt it!
No, I have not paid :-)
I was surprised to see that my page had reached PageRank 4 without me
doing anything to promote it, really, except submitting it to the DMOZ
directory. Maybe the DMOZ is the reason.
Mikkel
--
Study Spanish in Guatemala
http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/spanish.shtml
Excellent tuitino and social involvement
Borek
>> DMOZ still checks sites by hand. Or rather doesn't check and doesn't
>> include them for quite some time.
> I've said this before - DMOZ is an idea who's time has gone. No-one
> seems to care over there any more.
Funny thing. Sometime bitching works. They just included my site :)
mark | r
http://www.internet-search-engines-faq.com/submit-url-free-directory.shtml
this as well
Mark
"Daniel Ruscoe" <danr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d06606...@news.btopenworld.com...
mark | r
ca.yahoo.com free submission still active
mark
"Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer" <mik...@fabel.dk> wrote in message
news:429d806a$0$18638$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Roy Schestowitz
> ca.yahoo.com free submission still active
The directory of use only if your business or site is somehow affiliated
with Canada. It appear so anyway.
> "Mikkel Mřldrup-Lakjer" <mik...@fabel.dk> wrote in message
> news:429d806a$0$18638$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>>
>>
>> "davidof" <david....@g-dumpthisbit-mail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:429d7ad9$0$303$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> > Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is this for sure? If Google disregards directories, will there still
>> >> be good reason to pay $200+ for a listing in the Yahoo! directory?
>> >
>> > was there ever a good reason to pay Yahoo $200?
>>
>> I sincerely doubt it!
>>
>> No, I have not paid :-)
The smile of a man who has seen others paying $200 in vain. If popularity
could be bought so easily, something would definitely be wrong.
>> I was surprised to see that my page had reached PageRank 4 without me
>> doing anything to promote it, really, except submitting it to the DMOZ
>> directory. Maybe the DMOZ is the reason.
I heard about people whose sites got PR4 because of some fundamental links
that they were not even aware of. I am not very surprised and it might not
be owing to DMOZ.
>> Mikkel
>> --
>> Study Spanish in Guatemala
>> http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/spanish.shtml
>> Excellent tuitino and social involvement
Mark, your E-mail/NNTP client does not omit signatures. It appears to 'eat'
that whitespace after the dashes too, which then affects follow-ups.
Jez
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Jez wrote:
>
>
>>>What's more, I wanted to mention that Google exclude (or are about to
>>>exclude) directories from their engine.
>>
>>Roy, would you mind quoting a source for the above information please?
>>
>>That would be a very dramatic U turn for google as it seems to prefer
>>directories above all else in some SERPs.
>>
>>Jez.
>
>
> It took me like 5 minutes to find the URL for you, but here it is:
Thanks for finding that Roy. I appreciate your time!
It's very interesting and I wouldn't mind betting that the root of this
is what is disrupting sites hit by "bourbon". Changing the weight given
to directory listings and clones of DMOZ.
Roy Schestowitz
The reason I oppose this is two-fold:
1. The original writers have nothing to protect them from this plagiarism.
If some lady in Berkshire wrote in her Geocities homepage about how to cook
blackberry pie and she then found a copy on a PR7 dot com site, would she
sue?
2. Search engines penalise for duplicates. How will the SE's know which one
is the original? It is more likely that the Geocities page is owned by a
low-profile person who mirrored a popular page.
It is easy to get visitors to a site. One can just automatically archive
newsgroups, but where has all the fun gone?
Roy Schestowitz
Oops. I was consciously referring to a different thread titled 'Page Rank is
back' from May 30th. I think that my arguments still hold though.
Jez
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Lol, I wondered what you were on about
Roy Schestowitz
>> Oops. I was consciously referring to a different thread titled 'Page Rank
>> is back' from May 30th. I think that my arguments still hold though.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>
> Lol, I wondered what you were on about
Just attacking the grey-hat SEO of this newsgroups. It gives us all a bad
rep.
Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer
news:d7kcvg$2kpj$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>
> The smile of a man who has seen others paying $200 in vain. If
> popularity
> could be bought so easily, something would definitely be wrong.
I do not mean to be scornful, but yes it would be unfair if it was only
a question of money.
>>> --
>>> Study Spanish in Guatemala
>>> http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/spanish.shtml
>>> Excellent tuitino and social involvement
>
> Mark, your E-mail/NNTP client does not omit signatures. It appears to
> 'eat'
> that whitespace after the dashes too, which then affects follow-ups.
Hey, I would complain that Marks client did not correct the typo in my
signature either ;-)
Mikkel
Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer
news:3g5rt0F...@individual.net...
>
> It's very interesting and I wouldn't mind betting that the root of
> this is what is disrupting sites hit by "bourbon". Changing the weight
> given to directory listings and clones of DMOZ.
But the URL posted by Roy does not say that the entire directories will
be ignored for the calculation of PR, only that some specific
directories (some to do with SEO) will be ignored.
Mikkel
--
Study Spanish in Guatemala
http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/spanish.shtml
Excellent tuition and social involvement
Roy Schestowitz
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:20:06 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> The reason I oppose this is two-fold:
>>
>> 1. The original writers have nothing to protect them from this
>> plagiarism. If some lady in Berkshire wrote in her Geocities homepage
>> about how to cook blackberry pie and she then found a copy on a PR7 dot
>> com site, would she sue?
>
> What is the copyright license on these recipes?
It is a matter of ethics rather than pre-defined law. However, it can be
taken further if needed and handled juridically, I think.
Hypothetical example: If I was in the process of writing a thesis and
somebody scooped it off a temporary directory of mine to then edit and
publish it, would that be law breaking? Probably no because it was yet
unpublished.
>> 2. Search engines penalise for duplicates. How will the SE's know which
>> one is the original? It is more likely that the Geocities page is owned
>> by a low-profile person who mirrored a popular page.
>
> I would appreciate some clarification here.
>
> How do SE's identify duplicates?
I don't know, _but_...
I have an easy way to check if content is original and I know academic use
it to detect plagiarism. You just take an entire key sentence and paste it
into Google et al. You then see if the sentence matches elsewhere and then
follow the sentences around it. Apply, rinse, and repeat if necessary.
> That's a pretty difficult task, given that sites wrap content with
> their own headers/footers/banners etc etc.
>
> I have some wikipedia content at a site of mine (in full compliance
> with their license), so this issue is quite relevant to me.
With Wikipedia you are probably 100% safe. I'd still encourage you to have a
site that reflects on your knowledge. It will make you feel better, trust
me.
Stacey
news:429de7a1$0$18646$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Jez" <j....@virgin.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3g5rt0F...@individual.net...
>>
>> It's very interesting and I wouldn't mind betting that the root of this
>> is what is disrupting sites hit by "bourbon". Changing the weight given
>> to directory listings and clones of DMOZ.
>
> But the URL posted by Roy does not say that the entire directories will be
> ignored for the calculation of PR, only that some specific directories
> (some to do with SEO) will be ignored.
I posted in this thread earlier. Take a look at some Google directories. See
if you see any PR. The Google directories are mirrors of the DMOZ. DMOZ
appears to still have PR.
Stacey
Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer
news:b_lne.24590$Fv.4918@lakeread01...
>
> I posted in this thread earlier. Take a look at some Google
> directories. See if you see any PR. The Google directories are mirrors
> of the DMOZ. DMOZ appears to still have PR.
I do not know if we understand each other correctly, but the fact that
these directories _themselves_ show to have PR does not mean that their
PR necessarily benefits the pages that they include in their listings,
right?
Mikkel
Stacey
Google's directories that I have visited have no PR. So you get nothing.
DMOZ has PR on the pages. Why shouldn't all the links on those pages
benefit? The links are on the pages the bots follow them and pass on the
good will.
Stacey
Stacey
news:k02ne.22163$Fv.79@lakeread01...
> Take a look at a few SERPs right now. For mine I am not seeing the
> Google/DMOZ directory listing in it. It was normally in the top 10 for rag
> rugs. Also, I had to work hard at bringing it up in a SERP. It will come
> up for crocheted rugs, needlework(Yahoo directory did), crochet, crochet
> crafts etc.
>
> At first the directory was a grayed out PR now it has a white PR.
Ah, more changes. My SERP now lists the DMOZ directory cat(it use to never
be that close to the top!) on the 2nd page. Humm, still no Google directory.
Stacey