I think as a metric it’s pretty useless, but as a way of selling links on your page it’s very useful.

My theory is that the affect page rank has is constantly changing. It shows when something is crap and when something is fantastic, but there is this huge middle bit that we really don’t have enough info to go on.

Sometimes I think it’s like conkers, my fiver can be your twoer. Well not always.

I know this thread is about directories, but the only metric that really matters is ££££££

I setup one in January – added 300 links or so – and pointed to it from another site. In May it was a page rank 5… Its just a basic directory with a search engine attached. Confused the heck out of me…

Just like my netscape profile was created around the same time and is page rank 5… I’m so very much not sure of how google does their page rank calculations – but sure enough – having lots of links helps.

As for submitting to 100k search engines… well I say submit to none – and let them find you…

With regard to those sites, I agree the community thing is very much in evidence if anything its dominant yes, it is the very thing that powers its uptake and generates the interest, they are indeed social community platforms serving the purposes and promotional/networking aims of blog owners yet all have a directory componant at their heart. Without a thematic categorised view they would be little more than a chaotic miasma of random nonsensical links – you wouldn’t be able to find a thing!

http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory

http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/community/

http://www.bumpzee.com/seosem/blogs/

My main point was aimed at saying that the old style directory model is a little tired and that we don’t really need anymore polluting our space.

Its a little bit like the days when all we ever had was things like ‘submit your site to 100000 search engines’ and all that nonsense. The uninformed were basically being ripped off, sold an idea that wasn’t in any way beneficial or useful. The proliferation of directories out there today, is IMO getting close to being of a similar vein.

Quality directories CAN differentiate themselves and should be taking steps to learn from what web2 is about and could learn a lot from those guys referenced. I agree that it takes a bit of work to reduce what I’m saying down to a simplistic core directory model – web directories on steroids even, communitories perhaps .

Just to reiterate, whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with a plain topical set of themed categorised links, too much of the same, or new kids on the block who add little value just shouldn’t expect to do too well in the game. Those directory owners that get this have changed their model or are working hard to add value daily.

Ok, I’d better shut up I’m in danger of repeating already made points

Ok thats enough out of me before I rant myself into a whole other post.

Hence the headline, most directories suck and could do a whole lot better