Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
All I said was it works for anchor text. I personally do not care about anchor text.
|
Generally speaking, quality directories don't allow its members to control anchor text in the link itself.
In the beginning, links were about traffic. Those of us who could not compete with the "big" companies that paid for banner ads on Alta Vista and many now defunct search engines got "links" from various places, including agents all over the web. The idea was to pull in "onesies twosies" traffic from having widespread links, then funnel that traffic to agents that made sense to the visitor.
Then Google happened.
Gradually, then suddently -- directories became more about PageRank than traffic.
What Jay is saying is that some directories still do deliver traffic to the directory members. If they require you to reciprocate links or pay for links, it won't matter -- you're still getting traffic (He and I used to compare how much traffic we referred out by reviewing the logs on our members' sites. His site beat mine by a lot, and caused me to modify what I am setting up on my newer site).
The opposite is true. If you are accumulating links mainly for PR purposes (blogs, blog comments, forum signature, directories, whatever), sooner or later (mostly later) that benefit will gradually decrease. Anything you do to "game" the system will eventually be of less value.
The "knock" on reciprocal linking was mostly against "peer-to-peer" reciprocal linking just for the purpose of inflating link totals and PageRank. Basically, it was an extension of the "knock" against automated link-farms.
Valuable links are always going to be valuable, whether they require payment, reciprocal linking, or nothing at all.
Re: Good Directories vs. Bad directories
Linear Mode
