First,
be clear what I mean by directory. There are many different varieties, and few
have any value for their visitors - or your site. This article refers only to
Quality Directories, and what
they are is discussed in some detail here. There's
many misconceptions in SEO, and one of the biggest is that Directory Editors decide
which sites get listed in a directory. Couldn't be more wrong. Of course directory
editors make the 'final decision'; but in 99% of cases, the accept / decline decision
was pre-ordained by the submission itself. Very few directory submissions
are borderline. Most submissions are either "appropriate submissions that
conform to guidelines" - or not. Most editors, most of the time, have zero
problem deciding which sites to accept, which to decline; their skill is needed
for fine tuning the entry to bring out the best in the submission, so that it
reflects well on the site - and on the directory. Choosing
a DirectoryOnce you have decided what qualities you want in a directory,
the next task is to choose an appropriate directory for your site. Affordability
may be an issue; but value for money is more important. A $50 one-off fee is cheaper
than Yahoo!'s $299.00, but is it going to bring as many visitors? Is it going
to be as good in SEO terms? Is any spend going to justify itself when there
are free directories? That depends on you and your site. But most paid-for directories
invest at least some of the cash into developing and promoting the directory.
Some don't. Do a bit of Googling, and see which directories earn their money. Local
directories, by and large, can supply many more referrals than a general directory,
for sites that need a local touch. For many sites, there may be some SEO benefit
from your site being listed among other 'local sites'. But beware the 'local directory'
that accepts entries from all over. They have confused or no users, and offer
no advantages over a poorly run general directory. Niche directories are
the best in the world, and the worst! Most are started by experts, or at least
people who care, and so have the potential to display your site most appropriately
of all, seen by your target audience, sympathetically edited with great potential
for referrals and SEO benefits. But there is a down side. Some are sad remainders
of a hobby that got lost; others may be run by your rival - or someone who favours
a rival approach to yours. There's little value and potential harm being in a
bad niche directory - or badly listed in a good niche directory. Know your niche;
know the niche directories, and be careful. Choosing your directories is
mostly common sense - but it's important. Always look carefully, and always look
'as a visitor would' Read The GuidelinesEvery
quality dorectory has guidelines for submissions. Contrary to popular opinion,
there is actually a very good reason for them. Submissions that comply with guidelines
save editing time, allowing more submissions to be processed, plus helping the
editor to maintain a coherent standard across the directory. This helps the editor,
it helps users of the directory - and it helps submitters, because their sites
get accepted; accepted more quickly, and displayed more effectively. The
following general guidelines are intended to throw some light on what editors
are looking for - but these are general points; they never take precedence over
the guidelines supplied by the directory itself. CategoryIt
would be a sad waste of your time to have your site declined because it was submitted
to the wrong category - but that is entirely possible. many overworked editors,
hacking through a line of spam submissions, have a rule that a submitter who couldn't
be bothered to find the right category, did not deserve to be accepted. Most,
I suspect, would not penalise a site that was pretty close, particularly if the
category was not that obvious. But a site called "Just Blue Widgets",
submitted to "Widgets", when there was a subcategory for "Blue
Widgets", need not expect a lot of sympathy. Look at the category;
look at the other sites. You can usually tell if it's the right one. There
is a tendency for people to submit their sites to the highest conceivable category.
Wrong! Find the right one, by name and description; if in doubt, add a note saying
"I really did look, but I'm not sure". But don't do that unless you
really did look! If you really cannot find an appropriate category, many editors
will be grateful for a suggestion - not a demand. Remember, this is the
editors place - the editor decides where to put things TitlePretty
straighforward? Not necessarily. For most directories, they want the title that
appears on the page. But some want the one in your <title> tag, and a few
want your business name, if appropriate, and if different to what's on the page.
Be sure what they are asking for, and don't give some marketing 'anchor text'
that does not even appear on your page. DescriptionMost
directories, when they ask for a description, are looking for a sentence that
describes your site. And that's common sense. But probably more than 50% of directory
submissions consist of an unpunctuated mass of keywords; in many cases, marking
the submission as spam, instantly and permanently. Again, there are exceptions;
some want the text from your meta description (better pray that's not also a mess
of key words!), others may have special requirements. Read their guidelines; look
at the other sites - how have they been described? Key
Words Not many Quality Directories ask you for key words; but if they
do, they really expect a list that reflects your site content. If your site is
about blue widgets, adding Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is unlikely to endear
you to the editor; asking a Quality Directory to spam on your behalf is a little
naughty! And Finally ...I apologise
for the stroppy tone of this article; but I assure you that it is based on years
of experience; I am sure most readers will have learned little - it is largely
common sense - but if that's the case, you can at least take away the reassurance
that you have done the right thing; if your site is still declined ... well, it's
their loss, isn't it?
Published: 08 May 2007
This article
may be published elswhere, provided this footnote is included as is,
with
a live link to the source: http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/articles/
Copyright © 2007 Andrew Heenan. Comments very welcome. | 
|