I don't submit to BOTW, and haven't for a while now, because of the annual listing charge.
But now it seems a lot of web directory owners are going the annual listing route. I have held off saying this for a while now, because I consider most of these web directory owners friends. But it needs to be said:
Yearly renewal fees are beyond stupid. The spirit of annual renewal fees - well, it feels like greed to me.
And the "review fee" is bogus, a lie. If a website is listed in your directory, you should be reviewing it on a monthly basis anyway.
Now, let's do the math. Say a directory charges $69.95 per year. That's $349.75 for five years, and $699.50 for 10 years.
Now, for arguments sake, compare that to Umdum's $40.00 one time fee. I can say without a shred of doubt that Umdum sends me more traffic and more link juice than 90% of annual-renewal directories out there, and at a discount of $659.50 over 10 years.
But more than that, it is a matter of principle for me. If I pay for a review, it should be a review. If it's accepted, it's accepted. But with these BOTW type directories, these clowns actually remove your link if you don't pay the fee.
Even Yahoo! doesn't remove links, but these people do, making it obvious that they are not in the directory business, but in the link-leasing business.
Why remove the listing if you aren't in it for the money. I have two full time and one part time editor ADDING sites, searching for and adding sites on the basis of heir merits. So the idea of removing a site just seems absurd.
I mean, was it removed because it did not add value to your directory? If so why the hell did you approve the listing in the first place?
So let me ask you this. Is a web directory is a valued directory and only charged only a few bucks/year just say $2.50-$5.00 would it be worth it then? Being it got decent traffic and they actually were promoting the web directory?
So let me ask you this. Is a web directory is a valued directory and only charged only a few bucks/year just say $2.50-$5.00 would it be worth it then? Being it got decent traffic and they actually were promoting the web directory?
Case by case, but it's hard to go wrong with that cheap of a fee. Problem is, when they are that cheap, they tend to become spamfests.
Case by case, but it's hard to go wrong with that cheap of a fee. Problem is, when they are that cheap, they tend to become spamfests.
See that's my point exactly. I'm not trying to say nothing but when you posted this thread, it just seemed like you were calling ALL annual listings Greedy. Just wanted to clear that up.
I know I'm not in it for the money right now, but to be honest it's nice. My main goal with my directory is to have a High Quality Web Directory. I've already refunded over $150+ because of my criteria. I know once I Totally finish and start promoting big the annual fee I will be charging will be pennies on the dollar.
Excellent post John, but you used BOTW as an example, and they have a lifetime listing. You can go annual or lifetime. I personaly have submitted to two yearly (annual) directories, Yahoo and Starting Point directory, because they both have awesome page rank and I have a brand new domain. But next year I will not renew either. You stated that Yahoo doesn't remove you if you don't pay again? Did I understand you right? I personaly think Aviva is way over rated anyway. The sites in my category (football) looked spammy to me.
Maybe, maybe not, but the topic is annual listings and you used them as an example of a directory as not having a permanent listing. When at least they do have that option, unlike some directories that don't have the option of a permanent listing like Yahoo and Aviva. BOTW isn't cheap, but they sure have some quality web sites, at least in my category. I think they are a better value than Yahoo Directory and for that matter, any other directory that charges only an annual fee. That is not a knock on V7n, for the money V7n is probably the best directory out there.
That is not a knock on V7n, for the money V7n is probably the best directory out there.
Speaking from the perspective of a submitter, I do agree. That's not just self-endorsement, it's based on knowing that we list more quality sites organically than any other pay directory I know of. If you check out the regional category of v7n, you'll see what I'm talking about - most of those listings were added by editors. We also have the best re-write policy - in that we re-write 100% of submissions.
I don't get it, not at all. You can have a business directory offline (Yellow Pages, your local shopping directory, computer store magazines and what have you) and you pay a fee for a certain period time to get in. You can do the same thing online and if it pays off, then of course you will keep on paying.
Online it's the very same thing. But of course, the whole search engine issue completely perverts this business, just like DMOZ got perverted because of it's power with Google.
So what this comes down to is what you brand yourself with. You can have a free directory selling adsense, a free and paid directory or an all paid directory, and if it isn't worth the inclusion fee, just don't submit.
If you look at directories as powerpoints to help you rank only then yes, everyone wants a lifetime listings, and the current bid directories seem to do well promising permanent listings, even if you only submit a dollar, $5.00 or what have you. If your goal is to build up a huge database of sites then having a one time fee is not a bad idea. But just because Matt says "It's ok for you guys to have a review fee", should that change everybody's submission and payment policy? You can do what you want with your directory. Of course if you call the fee a review fee and charge every year, then that is pretty questionable. Most directories provide very little traffic, even the high PR ones. If people submit anyways and pay every year, then let them and if Google ices them, then that's their fault.
The problem is that very few directories have strong branding. http://www.forplex.com/ is a great example for a business directory as I have mentioned here before and for the life of me I cannot see why a line or two from Matt should suddenly make every directory owner change their listing fees into review fees with free listings and stop selling listings at advertising, just because Google might look at it as a link farm. There are many link farms out there, but you would then have to also blast business.com and some of the most reputable directories which actually do provide people with direct traffic.
If you are referring to the site in your profile, the description was rewritten. It's pretty easy to spot a v7n description. They start with "Offers" for the first sentence, and the second sentence starts with "Includes".
That's my way of writing, and it is the standard for all v7n editors, even though it's not a rule, or enforced.
This is the standard:
Quote:
Offers a search engine for domain names. Includes tools for available, deleted, and expired domains. Most recent tool checks domain availability as you type.
Yahoo.dir changed it to "offers" so it was already like that. It looks almost word for word the same description as the one I submitted. But hey, It doesn't matter to me, I am not complaining, I just checked my back links and I think V7n is my highest ranked directory listing, and I have some quality directories. But back on topic, yea permanent listings are the best. But what happend when V7n gets too big to manage? If it gets so full of permanent listings then where will future revenue come from?
Linear Mode
