Last week Debra Mastaler posted the most illuminating DMOZ article I have ever read. In DMOZ: A Solid Directory Or The Great Pumpkin Of Search?, she got through to the right people and asked some hard questions.

Many SEO folks consider DMOZ  irrelevant. After years of angst and sleepless nights waiting for a link that never came, they gave up and got sites ranked using other methods, and by doing so, a secondary SEO truth emerged: a DMOZ link isn’t needed to rank.

None of this can be argued. If the subject is links and rank, then DMOZ does not matter. But separate from DMOZ and SEO is a larger issue, and it’s that DMOZ, as much as I have blasted it (I was an editor there for many years) – it is the only directory of its type in the world, and no matter what state of repair or disrepair it is in today, it represents something important and salvageable.

If you understand the true vastness of the web, you understand that no commercial entity will ever be able to catalog it properly. The web isn’t just the web anymore. Websites aren’t the only thing to be classified. And defining a website is in itself a dicey issue. Is a Twitter user page a website?  Sort of.  If you’re Ashton Kutcher, it sure is. But not all Twitter users pages’ need to be in DMOZ. And what about sites that simply cannot be classified all nice and neat into a specific category? Don’t some sites deserve multiple links? Yes, as these 1,307 links from DMOZ.org to various PBS.org content illustrate (disclaimer: I think I may have seeded half of them). So the very things you are trying to organize and classify (websites and webpages) are only a few of the many challenges.

Complete web classification doesn’t work as a business model because the math does not work. Look no further than the Yahoo directory for proof. No matter how many paid site reviewers you have, there is simply too much web for them to review, and more revenue to be made by doing other things. The DMOZ model uses volunteers, and thus far, we have seen how it’s working out. Parts of DMOZ are outstanding, other parts abandoned like ghost towns. It’s nobody’s fault. It’s human nature. The emergence of other forms of expression, like social voting sites or bookmarking sites, has taken away some of the immediate need to visit DMOZ, but has not diminished what DMOZ is and what it can be.

A possible solution

What I’m about to propose is what I see as a simple, yet elegant solution to the biggest problems DMOZ faces. I have not done in-depth research on the feasibility of my solution, nor do I pretend for a moment to know all of the reasons why it can’t work. I choose to focus on why it can.  It seems so incredibly simple to me, we just need to get the ball rolling.

In my mind, for DMOZ to flourish, it only needs two things:

1. Enough people to maintain all the categories
2. Those people must have an understanding of content classification and quality

I think we’d all agree that if there were a few thousand more of the above two types of people above, the biggest DMOZ problems would go away. Sure, there would be other problems, but if you have manpower, you are on your way.

The big question

Getting to the heart of the matter, where in the heck is DMOZ going to find thousands of volunteer reviewers with the exact two types of skills listed above?

What if we started right here?  Look at this map. All over the world, right now, are thousands of graduate students of all ages and skills studying for Master’s degrees in Library and Information Science. Start here in the U.S. and invite the ALA (American Library Association) to become involved in the process. I can assure you that thousands of librarians are already at work organizing and classifying the web. Tirelessly. They are a layer of “content quality control” who have been at it for years. The graduate students will soon be joining them in the work world. These folks have a passion for identifying the good, organizing it, classifying it, providing links to it.

Like DMOZ.

Imagine if Bob Keating, Editor In Chief of DMOZ, got together with the ALA, and through a joint venture invited the Dean of every graduate program in Library and Information Science to send invitations to every single graduate student in Library Science to participate in the DMOZ/ODP. That sounds hard, but it could happen in three phone calls and a few emails. Don’t let it get bogged down in bureaucracy and paperwork. Streamline the ODP editor application form. Let the fact that the students made it into Library School (which means good grades, a good GRE score, and attention to detail) be all the proof ODP needs that they are qualified. Because they are. The ODP application is redundant for them. Invite each of them them to take over ANY currently unclaimed category and edit it. Or, get them to help with categories that are already edited but overwhelmed.

This can even be done as part of a practicum or “virtual internship”, or just for a bit of real world experience. For those who participate, the ALA can send them a ALA/ODP certificate to add to the resume.

I’ve thought about this way more than I’ve put down here, and I’m sure there are reasons it might not work. But what I dare DMOZ and the ALA to do is tell us all why it can work, and then go for it. Many years ago, I left library school to start my link building business. My mentors were Jose-Marie Griffiths and Carol Tenopir. The LIS curriculum back then (1993-94) was not web centric yet, but they were trying.

Then, two kids at Stanford ended up being the web’s first librarians, by accident. Now, all these years later, anyone who has heard or read my Revenge of the Librarians sermon knows this could work. It’s just a matter of getting out of the way of it.

Love it or hate it, the Open Directory Project (ODP or “DMOZ”) always seems to creep into the conversation when we’re discussing links and/or SEO. Check any forum, social news or answer site and you’ll see a wide variety of opinions on the 11 year old directory and how it’s managed.

When talking about the DMOZ two camps typically emerge, those who support the directory and its mission (editors) and those who support getting into the directory (SEOs). While the two sides tend to clash, I’ve found the “directory trust” SEOs seek is the same trust DMOZ editors feel they need to protect. The determination by both groups to satisfy their goals fuels the constant struggle between webmasters and directory.

Since DMOZ is not a search giant, and seemingly does little to promote itself or the core values of the directory, you have to wonder why editors and SEO’s even bother with it. But since they do, I decided to approach DMOZ for input on a number of commonly asked questions and post answers and viewpoints here at Link Week. Nothing earth shattering came out, but I did pull a number of interesting tidbits from the interview and the research I conducted to support my input.

To get things going, I asked my good friend and AOL Manager Simon Heseltine to introduce me to someone at the DMOZ. That led to a meeting with ODP Editor Myron Rosmarin, which led to a dialogue with Founders Rich Skrenta and Chris Tolles who pointed me to Bob Keating, Editor In Chief of the Open Directory Project who graciously agreed to the interview.

Debra: Tell us a little about yourself Bob, how did you get started with the Open Directory Project (ODP) and how long have you been there?

Bob: I have been working on the ODP since I joined AOL in June 1999. Initially, I was brought on to work on a directory solution for AOL Search. I joined the ODP team shortly afterward to help develop the ontology and the community self-governance model. About a year later, the ODP Founders appointed me Editor in Chief.

Over the years, I’ve worked on number of search and publishing projects at AOL. In 2004, I left full-time employment with AOL, and took a position with the Federal government to start-up a new search engine program, but I remained as a consultant on the ODP. Since 2006, I’ve worked in the strategy consulting space, helping Federal clients develop product strategies around search, social media, and web-based services.

But through all these career changes, the ODP has been a constant in my life. For the last five years, my involvement has been more focused on overseeing the community and advising the ODP team at AOL on everything from the project’s history to community interaction.

Debra: Why is the directory sometimes referred to as the ODP and other times DMOZ? Is there a difference?

Bob: The directory’s “official” name is DMOZ: The Open Directory Project. DMOZ means “Directory Mozilla” – the idea was to align the directory with the Mozilla brand, even though it was not actually part of that group. DMOZ and ODP are now used interchangeably to refer to the directory.

Debra: Most of us know that DMOZ is owned/operated by AOL, but the site still lists Netscape as “hosts and administrators”. Who ultimately makes the “big decisions” at DMOZ?

Bob: By design, it is the community that makes the “big decisions.” But in terms of the corporate entity that is ultimately responsible for DMOZ, it is AOL.

Debra: Can you explain the chain of command at DMOZ?

Bob: DMOZ is essentially a meritocracy in which editors are granted high permissions based on their interest and quality of participation. There are two general types of permissions: those that allow one to edit anywhere, and those that allow one to participate in community management. An editor with the former permission is known as an “Editall.” Editalls can edit anywhere are engaged in discussions around taxonomy and the editorial guidelines.

An editor with the latter permission is known as a “Meta Editor.” Meta Editors are community managers and are responsible for reviewing editor applications, investing and resolving abuses, and leading editor discussions. For all intents and purposes, Meta Editors and Editalls are “equal” permissions but focus on different aspects of the community.

The “Administrator” permission is the highest community management permission, and is granted to a few, trusted editors to oversee the day-to-day operations of the community. They ensure that Meta Editors and Editalls are being fair and equitable, and that the guidelines are kept current.

The ODP’s governance model is intended to be self-regulating, so there are checks and balances in place to ensure all topics and all points of view are represented, and to foster an inclusive environment in which any editor who wants to contribute is encouraged to contribute. This model doesn’t always work perfectly, but it has been very successful in creating a self-regulating environment, which actually has less to do with the model and more to do with the extraordinary group of editors who contribute to the directory’s governance.

Debra: How do you respond to the allegations some DMOZ editors accept money for submissions?

Bob:Accepting money for submissions is strictly against the community codes of conduct. In cases where we have confirmed this is happening, we revoke the editor’s account. That said, in more cases than not, the allegations are just that… allegations. Still, accepting money in exchange for submission is a consequence of an open directory operation in a closed community.

As I mentioned previously, our challenge is to create a system that allows Webmasters to contribute to the ODP, rather than feeling disconnected from it, which gives one incentive to abuse the system. This solution involves expanding the ODP’s scope, offerings and participation levels. I can’t promise the solution will rid the ODP of nefarious activity, but I think becoming more inclusive while still retaining the directory’s self-governance model will be a significant improvement.

I think it’s important to note that our editor application review process is very thorough. From a directory quality perspective, the best time to identify potential abusers is before they get a foot in the door. We ask that applicants provide a thorough listing of site affiliations and we use full disclosure (as opposed to the affiliations themselves) as a criterion for selection along with general editing quality of the sample sites they provide. While this may mean that we occasionally reject good applicants, the end result is that we keep out many potential abusers. That’s good for everyone.

We unfortunately do sometimes encounter editors who abuse their editing privileges for personal gain. We have a system of community policing to help weed out these “bad eggs.” The public, as well as other editors themselves, are able to report suspected abuse via our abuse reporting tool. When a report comes in, meta editors investigate these allegations fully and if we find that they have merit, we revoke the editor’s account. In the case that a meta editor is suspected of abuse, the case will be investigated by an admin.

We recently did a blog post about what editor abuse really is and what information we need to have in order to fully investigate it.

Debra: There are a lot of categories at DMOZ without editors. I know there is an open invitation for anyone to apply, but what is DMOZ doing to recruit people to fill the empty categories?

Bob: Even though there are lots of categories without listed editors, anyone listed in a parent category or with directory-wide editing permissions can edit these categories. So, even though an editor is not listed in a category does not mean the category is not being maintained.

We are an all-volunteer force, so recruitment is primarily through word of mouth from our current editors and through data users themselves. The editors reach out to others within their own communities and this has produced tremendous growth in some areas. We also get new editors who find us via the DMOZ data attribution badge on other sites or because they learn about us by seeing our results in Google or another search engine. DMOZ gets hundreds of applications daily, and routinely accepts those most likely to edit well and contribute more than just their own site.

Debra: Yes, I understand category editors can/do pitch in, but when I look at a major category like Real Estate and notice seven of the first nine categories are without editors and one category shows 2007 as the last date the page was updated, I have to wonder what the Directory is doing to keep its results fresh. How can a handful of people in a major category like Real Estate keep that section of the Directory current?

Bob: The date at the bottom of the page can be misleading. It’s not always an indicator of freshness. Some pages are not updated frequently simply because they are directional pages (i.e., they direct users to categories where sites are listed); or because the kind of site listed in the category is so specific that few sites are listed at that particular level. http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Agents_and_Agencies/ is a good example.

The category description page explains how agency sites are listed. The lion’s share of agency sites are directed and listed in the Regional area of the site, which is where a lot of the editors in this area are spending their time and effort.

Debra: Has there been any discussion about the ODP offering a paid review program?

Bob: This issue has been raised and discussed many times. Paid review really goes against the whole idea behind the ODP. In fact, our Social Contract with the web community takes an especially firm position on this issue.

Debra: Why can’t DMOZ notify webmasters when their sites are included or rejected? Has there been any discussion on being able to pay for this feature?

Bob: Because the ODP is not designed to be a site listing service, creating a notification system has not been a priority. In the past, there was a “check my site status” thread offered via the editor-run public forums at Resource Zone (www.resource-zone.com). It was not hosted or administered by AOL. It was a good faith effort to reach out to the webmaster community.

However, the thread got quite unruly and unmanageable, so it was taken down. Moreover, some editors felt the “check status” thread conflicted with their other editing pursuits. Nonetheless, I can see us adding this as a feature in the future. As with any feature associated with DMOZ, it would be provided at no cost.

Debra: What are the top three reasons sites don’t make it into the ODP?

Bob: They are:

1. The site was submitted to the incorrect category. Editors may move these submissions to the correct category (which can significantly delay review); or delete them from the submission queue.
2. The site is incomplete, under construction, returns an HTTP error, or lacks adequate or unique content.
3. The site’s content mirrors a URL that is already listed in the directory.

Debra: Mention DMOZ to a group of webmasters or read forum posts discussing the directory, and you’ll usually find the negative comments far outweigh the positive. How is the ODP dealing with their legacy issues?

Bob: Webmaster angst stems from the fact that the ODP is not designed to be a site listing service for webmasters. Webmasters have worked very hard to make the ODP work for them, and the editors have worked equally hard against Webmaster tactics that are contrary to how the directory operates. As result, this conflict has created a cloud of distrust and negativity between both camps.

The Webmasters feel shut out of a community that was intended to be open to all types of contributions. For a while now, our challenge has been to create system that allows Webmasters to contribute to the ODP in a mutually beneficial and meaningful way, while preserving editorial quality.

The solution is not as simple as turning the ODP into a submission service or maintaining the status quo. Rather, the solution involves expanding the ODP’s scope, offerings and levels of participation. This is at the heart of what we are working on today.

Debra: It’s great to hear the ODP is working to expand its scope, offerings and participation levels, can you tell us a little more about your plans and when we can expect to see them implemented?

Bob: ODP is committed to expanding its scope, offerings and participation levels, but I can’t share any details with you at this point. When we are ready to announce more details, we will be sure to let you know.

Debra: Do you think people would be so passionate about being included in the directory if it wasn’t used by Google?

Bob: It depends if you are talking about Webmasters or editors. Clearly, webmasters would not care much about DMOZ if it weren’t for its influence on search engines. Editors, on the other hand, have a different perspective. The reasons editors participate in the ODP are as diverse as the global makeup of its participants.

Debra: There was a post on the DMOZ Blog recently where an editor (crowbar) outlined what makes content unique by ODP standards. It listed a number of points but seemed to dwell on the issue of mirror sites, or that “A site should not mirror content available on other sites”. Since this is a strong criteria for inclusion (or not) in the Directory, why does the DMOZ give away its content through the dump program? On one hand, DMOZ admits to deleting sites submitted that don’t have unique content and yet they provide mirror content to anyone who asks. Is this a case of do as I say and not as I do?

Bob: There are two separate issues here. One is content distribution and syndication, which the ODP does as do billions of other websites. Sites that include syndicated content are not considered “mirror sites” simply because they include syndicated content.

The other issue is content that an entity replicates over different branded domains. This is a common tactic in e-commerce, and is the issue the guidelines around “mirror sites” are intended to address.

The interview ended there. Here’s my tidbits and takeaways:

The tidbits

When I heard Bob make this comment:

“the lion’s share of agency sites are directed and listed in the Regional area of the site, which is where a lot of the editors in this area are spending their time and effort.”

The word “regional” caught my ear. I’ve been following Tim Armstrong since he came on board as AOL’s CEO and understand he (and now AOL) have a strong interest in Patch.com. It’s interesting to note Patch.com is a regional, community specific platform showing news and events from specific cities and towns. Seeding Patch.com with regional results from a respected directory would make a lot of sense, so if you’re bricks and mortar based, now might be a good time to submit your business to DMOZ.

The second tidbit worth noting, is the comment about the notification service. Notifying webmasters why their sites aren’t being added to the directory would go a long way in eliminating the frustration many feel about the ODP; after all, education is preferable to being ignored. I sincerely hope this project moves along much faster than the DMOZ 2.0 project they dropped hints about back in June 2008.

The last and most notable takeaway from this interview, IMO, is the response to my question on why sites don’t make it into the DMOZ. Bob’s answer is informative and also very unsettling because it speaks directly to what I feel is the core problem with the DMOZ – a lack of editors.

Here’s what he said when I asked “What are the top three reasons sites don’t make it into the DMOZ?”

“The site was submitted to the incorrect category. Editors may move these submissions to the correct category (which can significantly delay review) or delete them from the submission queue“.

I’ve spoken to many DMOZ editors who all say the same thing, they delete submissions made to incorrect categories rather than send them along. Why? I’m told it’s because so much of the directory is without editors and/or because they have the authority to do so.

Hmm. This attitude is interesting especially since the DMOZ states “fairness and objectivity prevail here” in their editor requirements. It doesn’t seem “fair” or “objective” to simply delete a submission added to the wrong category but hey, that’s the way things go at the DMOZ. Say anything and even top management is quick to point out “the ODP is not designed to be a site listing service for webmasters”. I think you’ll find a lot of webmasters support that statement and want a quality DMOZ maintained, they just don’t always get it right when they submit. Submitting your site to the wrong category should not preclude you from being added to the directory.

One of the reasons for doing this interview was to find out what the DMOZ was going to do about recruiting editors to fill its very empty ranks. While Bob reaffirmed the DMOZ’s commitment to quality editing, he didn’t address the issue of recruitment, even though I asked the question twice.

How can the directory maintain quality content with so many categories missing editors? Case in point, when I view the page dedicated to the hot topic of H1N1/Swine Flu, see no editor and note the page was last updated October 18, 2009 I wonder if the DMOZ is really a serious search source.

Add to it, I don’t see popular sites such as the Mayo Clinic, the World Health Organization, MedicineNet or FluView listed and now I’m also wondering about the ability of ODP to provide relevant information. It’s not hard to list the top health sites on the Web for the term H1N1/Swine Flu, but it’s  impossible when you don’t have a editor working the category.

Yes, yes – I know section editors can and do come in to edit but they’re obviously not doing that here, are they? For topics in the news or representing financial/health issues, every effort should be made to fill those categories with qualified editors and keep the category updated. To do anything less is a disservice to the public and the directory.

I sincerely hope DMOZ doesn’t become invisible like the Great Pumpkin, as it has been an integral part of the search industry for 11 years and deserves respect for its contributions. A hand-edited directory of 4.5 million websites is an accomplishment no one else can claim and I support the stringent admission standards they have in place. But I also hope the directory makes every effort to utilize the vast resources AOL has to recruit quality editors to its empty categories. The H1N1/Swine Flu category is a classic example of how out-of-date the directory is and how important editors are to keeping it current. I believe once editors are in place, many of the other issues will take care of themselves.

Hey AOL, this is no trick, we want DMOZ to be our favorite treat! Are you listening?

A single highly-linkable article can attract tens – sometimes hundreds – of links from relevant and valuable sites. Make that article *sell* and you’ll drive a similar number of leads that come pre-qualified and ready to talk business. This article outlines how to merge the practice of linkbait (we call it linkable content) and the strategies of content marketing to maximize the value of your content creation and publishing efforts.

Aim for the middle and create content that:

Here’s how:

• Content must appeal to your market: the audience of potential buyers
• Content must attract links from relevant, influential sites
• Content topics must sell your company

Content must appeal to your market: the audience of potential buyers

This is the sphere in which linkbait, in its “purest” form, often misses the mark. Especially when folks target Digg and other mass market distribution networks for attention acquisition. Building links with content that isn’t relevant to your target market can lead to brand confusion and short, ineffectual visits. Though you may not always “get links quickly” through creating and distributing content that appeals to your target market, you ensure an experience that resonates with your company’s brand, values and capacity for meeting your market’s needs.

The core task of appealing to your market with content is to understand its needs. Thinking about market needs in terms of content, and not goods or services – can sometimes prove tricky. Here are some thoughts to get you started.

Your content must:

1. Help meet an aspect of your market’s needs through information or guidance
2. Remain relentlessly factual and helpful (think engagement if you’re a lifestyle brand)
3. Target key stages of the buy cycle

Recommended approach

Ask your customers what online (and offline)  publications they read. Ask why. Then research these publications and see who’s advertising – if the advertisers are players in your space, this is an indicator that you’ve found a relevant site. Identify what kinds of content gets published there, and the questions this content answers. Could you tailor content to fit here?

Revisit your FAQs and emailed questions – what gets asked over and over? These concerns represent the needs of your market and could provide you inspiration.

Any questions that repeatedly come up in forums and Q/A sites can represent your market’s needs as well.

Content must attract relevant links from targeted sites

Addressing your market’s needs with informative content increases the likelihood that it will be linkworthy. However, just because a piece is informative doesn’t mean it will be highly-linkable. It’s important that your content appeals to the most important and influential linkers in your space. This means you need to determine who these individuals are, and identify what gets them linking. The good news is that if your content meets market needs, then you’re well on your way. The bad news is that your 10 tips article might be 90 tips short of earning you lots of links.

Recommended Approach

1. Research your space and identify what content types and topics frequently attract links.
2. Conduct SERPs Analysis Research to see which sites shows up frequently. These websites that frequently occur in the SERPs may lead you to an understanding of “highly-linkable” for your space.

Keep an eye out and a spreadsheet open to capture information such as:

• Which bloggers, media and other publishers appear the most often in your target SERPs?
• Which bloggers, media and other publishers link most frequently to your competition? Why?
• Are there key informational resource pages that appear frequently in the SERPs?
• Write down contact information for the sites that appear to be influential in the SERPs and the market.

Content must create leads or fulfill other business objectives

Creating linkable content that meets your market’s needs is a good start, but you must be sure to sell your company. Please don’t take this as encouragement to pitch your products and services, but rather to write on topics that illustrate your professional competence, domain of knowledge, authority of expertise along with the core values of your organization. If you’re writing to meet market needs, then you’re likely going to demonstrate your capacity to meet them. You may find that in the process of communicating the values that make your organization distinct you end up with content that’s more linkable and more likely to generate leads anyhow.

Brainstorm content topics that:

1. Demonstrate or illustrate authority of knowledge space (thought leadership)
2. Illustrate core values of service/product and company
3. Demonstrate capacity to deliver results
4. Demonstrate core competencies
5. Remain relentlessly factual
6. Describe the process of inventing or making your processes or services.

Next steps: publish content onsite; place content offsite

Publishing your linkable, branded content onsite, combined with link request outreach, generates links. We also recommend, as this article demonstrates, placing content offsite for the purposes of generating relevant traffic, qualified leads, link equity and the benefits of brand association. If you know of sites that engage your target market with content that answers their concerns, we highly recommend that your content appear there. Striking a balance between on and off-site publication is an ongoing balancing act, as demonstrated by colleagues such as Aaron Wall, Eric Ward and Debra Mastaler.

Link building tends to be viewed as on off-page activity – you’re not messing with title tags or site architecture and you don’t actually have to touch the site itself or write new content. However, if all you are doing is building more inbound links to your site without doing any analysis of on-page factors, you’re selling the effort short. While it’s certainly not necessary to do much more than build inbound links, on page factors are definitely something that you should look into if you want to boost your overall link building effectiveness.

Think about the days when you’d search for a site and see a result in the SERPs that contained your keywords in the description, but when you clicked on the listing, they were nowhere to be found, and the content was not even remotely what you wanted. A nice ranking, if you cared, and a nice bit of traffic, but it wouldn’t convert. There were (and still are) various ways to accomplish this high ranking, but in the end, a user who is actively looking for something that isn’t actually being offered is just going to quickly become annoyed and continue searching.

I remember using cloaking techniques to get rankings for a shop that sold silk flowers. They wanted the rankings for things that they didn’t actually offer, so that they could do the whole “how about this option instead?” bit. While that’s not as far off the mark as some things I’ve seen, it’s still not the best way to grab the attention (and business) of your latest visitor. I got the rankings, the client got the traffic (and of course they wanted to do this for about 100 different keywords), but they got very, very few conversions for these keywords. If someone’s looking for silk roses, they might not want to go to a page advertising the fact that the site didn’t sell them, but could suggest silk daisies.

Link building is just another form of creating visibility for your site. If you build links using anchor text for something that isn’t actually found on a site – that’s not a good thing. It is, unfortunately, a common thing that clients want. It’s also not always an attempt at subterfuge, as occasionally we do encounter clients who don’t control anything on the site and make their case to the people in control, who turn a deaf ear to all of our pleas. Yes, we can rank a site with anchor text that’s not on the page. We’ve done it plenty of times. However, it’s not at all a long-term strategy, and honestly, it’s a bit deceptive.

Of course if you want to optimize for a keyword that is a product that you offer, yet you don’t have a good place on the site to send the user other than a fairly generic page (where, perhaps, you could order silk roses) there isn’t all that much that can be done. I’d like to think that if you’re actively pursuing links for a specific keyword, though, that item is important enough that you could create some content about it. I’m being an idealist though.

So if you’re building links for a site that has no content for the anchor text that the client wants to pursue, what do you do? I’m not limiting this to link buys, either, as there are many ways of getting your link done just the way you want it without the exchange of money.

3 tips to help link building with on page efforts

1. Speak up. Yes, you’re the link builder and maybe the client thinks that’s all you know how to do, but actively being engaged in the overall process of optimization makes you a better link builder, and makes the results more targeted. Many times, you’d be surprised at how receptive clients are when you say “hey, we think this keyword actually might work out really well, and this one…not so much.” Clients like honesty and straightforwardness, just like anyone else. If you notice that there’s no mention of the keywords in the page you’re trying to build links for, say something and press to get some changes made. You don’t have to write the content…just point out how things could be done in a better way.
2. Learn more about SEO. If you’re building links and that’s all you know how to do, you really need to start learning more about everything else. While I definitely don’t think that you can’t be a good link builder without knowing basic SEO techniques, I do believe that you can’t be a great one until you do.
3. Social media is big, so use it. Remember that link building doesn’t just happen via email or press releases. Get on Twitter and use your keywords in your tweets about the newest blog post or bit of content. Submit the link to niche social media sites that seem relevant. Tell people about the site in any way possible, trying to get the point across that you have what they want.

Even though you may be able to successfully raise the visibility of a site with what you do off-page, it could easily stop working so well with the simplest algorithm change. Building a truly solid on-page SEO foundation in conjunction with link building will definitely be something that you won’t regret. That’s not a common thing in marketing, so why not go for something that is so easily within reach?

No website is without linking related flaws. Whether it’s on-site or off, I can’t say that I’ve ever encountered a “perfect” website from a linking perspective.  Some link building mistakes are unintentional and inconsequential, others are catastrophic. See When Link Rehabilitation Is A Viable Option.

The idiom “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it“  is in full view all over the web. We’ve all seen sites making mistakes. My own site is a case study in poor link optimization. I’ve made mistakes many times over the years. I’ve killed off pages with Pagerank. I’ve orphaned pages accidentally. I have no xml sitemap. I don’t do the rich snippets thing, I’m missing alt text.

One of my older articles that was out of date was sitting with a juicy link from Harvard Business School, and I didn’t know it, nor did I notice a Title tag replicated on several articles where I had lazily neglected to edit them. My business is global, but I do have two local locations, but I haven’t optimized for local either. My site is a classic example of a shoe maker going shoeless.

I rarely fix these flaws even when I find them because, well, my site ranks exactly where I want it to for the exact terms I care about at the three largest engines. I’m afraid to fix my ugly duckling web site. Why? Because perfect can become the enemy of  good, and if  good is a #1 ranking, then the heck with perfect.

Do you agree? If I ever notice a drop in rank for terms that I value, I know what the mistakes are, and I know how to fix them. Others are not so lucky, and sit atop a time bomb of linking mistakes that are going to blow up, sooner or later.

Being your own worst enemy

The self inflicted linking wounds are the saddest, because most of them could and can be avoided.  See Aggressively Seeking Links: How Much Is Too Much? One site called in a panic wondering why 50% of their organic click traffic vanished, and it turned out the marketing folks were not aware the I.T. folks had deployed a new content delivery system that changed every URL on their site, literally overnight, without a 301 plan. That actually happened.

We used the 404 referrer log to reverse engineer a link recapture plan, but it took months and was a miserable time for them, all of which could have been avoided. Other self inflicted wounds center around search rank, and include going too deeply into the link buying end of the pool, duplicate sites, 301 roll ups. There are many of these. I believe almost every person doing those things knows going in that it could be a mistake, which makes the resulting nightmare self-inflicted.

Linking damage control

But there are those who are genuinely unaware they have made mistakes, and equally unaware that those mistakes are hurting them. I’m seeing a growing wave of concern bordering on paranoia about linking related mistakes. I’m getting new clients who don’t even want me to build links, they want a linking damage control strategy because they previously paid for (and took) bad SEO advice. Now they want to see if damage has been done, and if so, undo that damage. Fair enough. Those are the scenarios where we link builders can help make repairs.

On the other hand, there are those that want help not because they made an honest mistake, and not because of some moral linking epiphany, but because their rank took a nosedive and they know why, and now they want someone to plead their case to the powers that be.

Sometimes we can help, sometimes we can’t

More than once I’ve pronounced a domain DOA, and recommended a full fresh start rather than an Superfund style toxic link clean up. See When Your Link Portfolio Is Devalued. Then again, if you are running a site and have truly been the victim of an overly aggressive SEM advisor/firm that you trusted and now wish you hadn’t, then depending on the damage done, there could very well be hope.

True story, one site I helped clean up had paid links across several verticals related to their niche. That niche? Knitting. Seriously. Well, knit me a black hat. The irony is they didn’t have go black at all to get what they were after.  They had content, brand, history. They had what they needed to dominate their space without touching the paid side of the street. But the temptation was either too great, or they didn’t know what they were doing was risky.

Take some proactive steps

Since most sites have been through a few vendors by now, it can be hard to know exactly what’s out there that could be doing you harm. Think of an old house that’s been added on to several times over the years. That wiring in the basement is a code violation today, but was considered perfectly safe when it was first done.

If your site is among those that’s either seen an unusual change in position, or been touched by multiple SEO/SEM vendors or consultants, you may want to take a closer look at the inbound links pointing at your site.  You’ll need to look deeper than what a link: search will give you, and deeper than the 1,000 links Yahoo site explorer will show you.

And don’t panic if you discover that years ago, before your time, someone engaged in a paid link fest for your site. Those links probably aren’t affecting you at all in either direction. If you’ll sleep better getting the opinion of a linking expert, hire one for an “inbound link health checkup”. These shouldn’t be expensive if your expert has a clue and knows what to look for.  Remember, though, one man’s dirty link is often another man’s clean link, and once you start poking at a beehive, bees come out.  See Spotting Unnatural Linking Patterns.

Whether those bees will sting you or not is another question.

One of my link builders recently had the brilliant idea of putting together and sending out a questionnaire designed to gather information how the other link builders in our agency perform their daily link building tasks. We’ve always worked on the assumption that each link builder will naturally be drawn to using certain specific tools and techniques. We’ve also found that overall, our clients benefit from working with link builders who all do things a little bit differently from everyone else. If someone gets stuck, so to speak, there are many other favored methods that can be tried.

The results of this survey were extremely enlightening for me, as I realized that the majority of my link builders were having difficulties in one major area: discovery of ideal linking partners. Considering link building is all they do every day, I can’t imagine that this is a problem that’s limited to my agency. That’s why in today’s column, we’ll talk a bit about the major methods we use in our discovery phase for clients.

Now, a caveat: while I do believe that it is your content that will encourage people to link to you in most cases, I do not believe that any link building campaign needs to ignore the actual, intentional pursuit of quality links. Therefore, as you can see, discovery is a very, very big deal. There are many good ways to conduct discovery, but there is really no one right way. That, I believe, is why the majority of my staff identified discovery as an area in which they’d like to improve. We simply have not given them any absolutes, as we don’t feel that there really are any.

Methods of link discovery

We identified 6 major methods of discovery: random searches, relevant searches, directories, blogrolls, referrals, and other. It’s interesting to note that the vast majority of our link builders use a combination of random and relevant searches as their main method of discovery.

1. Random searches. Random link searches are not exactly what they sound like. We call this a random method, but it should be noted that only the method is random…the topic for the search is not, as we don’t want to find sites that are irrelevant. You can find particularly interesting sites geared towards a very specific interest, by using an organic thought process in which you have no major agenda. This all sounds very New Age but it has led us to some of our best inbound links.
   
   

   I’ll give you an example for this one, since it’s the only method that isn’t exactly what it sounds like. When working for a site that sells punk rock concert videos, we may search for “punk videos” to start with, then we’ll see a long-tailed search phrase somewhere down in the SERPs on page 3, so we’ll then type that phrase in, then click on the first result, see something on the site’s homepage that triggers an idea, and we’ll end up on a fan site that is devoted to the music of Stiff Little Fingers.

   We see that this site seeks to list all online stores that happen to sell Stiff Little Fingers items, and our client has one of these sites. Therefore, it’s a great place to get a link, and it was a somewhat random method of discovery. It’s also relevant but we still go about it in a slightly more haphazard way.




2. Relevant searches. These are exactly what they sound like. If the client sells clothes, we’re going to do some searches for clothes, clothing, apparel, women’s tops, men’s coats, and so on. We may not drill down and get as long-tailed to the extent that we would during a random search, however. This method is a bit more structured, and we might use keyword suggestions from a variety of sources in order to search this way.

   Many clients come to us with keywords of their own, which we’ll use, along with keywords generated from the usual suspects (Wordtracker, Google Adwords, etc.)

   In addition, don’t forget that niche and vertical search engines exist. My personal favorite is Able Grape, which is a wine search engine. The results returned by a niche search engine can be much more tailored to your topic, but if you’re going to use one, make sure you understand how the search should be conducted. Otherwise, you may not get the results that you want.




3. Directories. Sometimes-maligned, the good ones serve a purpose for anyone seeking quality sites. Link builders are no different. We try to concentrate on the more well-known and higher-quality directories, but we don’t ignore niche or local directories.




4. Blogrolls. These are useful at times, especially if you find good blogs that are out there for the sake of promoting good content. The great thing about high-quality blogs is that they’re built by people who have a serious interest in their niche, and they tend to attract other like-minded people who will hopefully take part in the community. Some people eschew blogs, thinking they’re worthless, but we’ve found that they tend to be very, very good for traffic, if you’re careful. If someone takes his or her blog seriously, the blogroll will most likely contain other quality sites.




5. Referrals. These happen for us both online and offline. The online referrals are occasionally offered to us, but we’ve found that many serious bloggers in a niche know other serious bloggers in that niche and most of them don’t mind being asked for referrals. Offline, it’s easy to see how you can get a referral from casual conversation with someone. You’re waiting in line and start chatting with a lady about what you both do for a living (or at least we do this in the South) and it turns out that she has a neighbor who has a son who runs a website that’s in the same niche as one of your clients. You get the name, find the site, and make the contact.




6. Other link discovery methods. Last, and probably least according to our survey, there is the category of Other. For the purposes of this piece, and our survey, the category of Other meant anything that was not specifically defined, but the answers for this one were all different variations of Google Advanced Operator Queries. Another route I recently noticed, was Ann Smarty’s great piece on how to do non-SERPs searching, so I’ll add that to our arsenal.

To conclude, in case you’re still awake, discovery of quality linking partners is a lot trickier than you might think. There are a variety of ways in which this can be done, with none of them being the perfect way to find the perfect site that will link to you. However, as with many things, a balanced approach will probably serve you best. If you have any discovery methods that we haven’t covered, please feel free to leave them in the comments.

Extensive backlink prospecting and qualification, even with automated research processes and crawlers, can take days. Creating highly-linkable content can take even longer. Because of this significant investment, we often recommend conducting your organic link building outreach in a way that maximizes conversion rates, grows relationships with both linkers and link decliners, and ensures that any future link building campaigns are faster, easier and more effective.

Here’s how in five steps:

1. Identify link prospects suitable for outreach
2. Gather information and tools for link building outreach
3. Craft effective link building outreach emails
4. Manage the 4 possible responses: Accepts, Declines, Counters and Ignores
5. Add value to future outreach efforts: 17 trackable data points

Step 1. Identify link prospects suitable for outreach

We assume at this point that you’ve already prospected and qualified a list of link opportunities for your site. Not every link prospect on that list will be suitable for such extensive link building outreach as described below. Directories, for example, are one type of link opportunity that typically don’t require specialized outreach or negotiation. Here are six examples of link opportunities that require more finesse.

Requesting resource additions to previously-published lists and roundups

Finding lists and roundups related to your subject matter can be as simple as adding the word “list” or “roundup” to your link prospecting queries. If you’re building links to a new Twitter-related app, you should have no problem finding previously published lists written by folks who may add your site. If you’ve written some highly-linkable content, we hope you paid attention to the content already mentioned on lists and roundups pages. Now, when you reach out to these prospects you have a much higher likelihood of earning a link.

Suggesting new, alternative page for now-dead links

Using a broken-link finding tool you may be lucky enough to discover a formerly valuable page of content that was widely linked, but has since gone dead, out of date or now contains only affiliate links. If this formerly useful page contained relevant content that your target market would find useful, it makes sense to research, rewrite and reach out to folks who linked to similar content.

Requesting that company mentions become live links

If your company or organization is written about frequently, then consider making a link request to sites that mention you favorably but don’t link. Majestic SEO data can help you to identify the pages on which your site or company is mentioned, but not currently linked to.

Inclusion in actively curated resource aggregations

In the days before the Yahoo directory (and long before Google) individuals curated lists of links (such as library resource pages) that helped users find their way into deeper knowledge of a hobby, industry or practice. Some of these folks remain, still actively curating and aggregating the best information in their space, and typically all from one page. If your industry is blessed with such curators, then it’s worthwhile seeking links for high quality, highly-linkable content.

Seeking mention in upcoming industry coverage/story roundups

If the media (bloggers, industry news sites, etc) in your market consistently point to new resources, then outreach can prove highly-valuable. Look especially for bloggers who create roundups of latest news and resources.

Identify upcoming information needs

While conducting outreach, especially linkable-content outreach to industry media, it’s wise to ask them about any upcoming info needs they may have. This runs the gamut from potential data needs for analytical verticals, expert input/executive access for news sites, to guest posts for high-traffic, high-trust, highly-relevant blogs. If you haven’t yet created highly-linkable content, this approach can help you begin building great links if you have sought-after expertise in your organization.

Step 2. Gather information and tools for link building outreach

Preparation is key to an efficient outreach campaign. Though the level of outreach customization we recommend makes automation impossible, there are many bits and pieces of information you can gather that will help you streamline your process.

The link building outreach worksheet

A link building outreach worksheet (you can download one here to use as a template) is the second-most valuable outcome of a link building campaign, placed just after the links themselves. By capturing appropriate and relevant data, you can make all your future efforts more effective. This worksheet should include the following items:

• Qualified link prospects suitable for high-touch outreach – Add your link prospects to column one in the Link Building Outreach Worksheet (linked above).
• Title + URL(s) you’re building links to – Having these handy, all in one place, means you don’t have to scramble for them when you’re crafting your outreach pieces. It might occur to you that a given prospect may be interested in more than one piece of content. Keep them in one place for the duration of a campaign for easy reference.
• List of potential link offers - Can you offer highly-linkable content? Data? White papers? Expert access? Free tools? Offers in this article refer to anything you’re trying to exchange for links. Some offers, such as data or access to executive insight may not involve your current URLs. Some offers may not involve URLs that your client/boss initially requested you build links to. Brainstorm as many offers as possible before you begin outreach so that you can be flexible and even spontaneous while writing your outreach.
• A range of ideal keywords for anchor text – Know your ideal anchor text keywords and use them when describing your offers. Request that people use them, but only if you’ve developed rapport that makes the request appropriate. In unpaid, organic link building asking for specific keyword anchor text can be like adding a favor on top of a favor. Sometimes you just have to be happy with what you get. That said, it’s worth knowing and using your anchor text in your outreach. In those rare, high-control situations, use anchor text that aligns both with the content on the page and the page on your site you’re linking to. If you sell electronics and you’re requesting a link on a page about iPods, link to your iPod page with iPod in the link text.
• Descriptive snippets of the core value/benefit of URLs – Go into the outreach phase with a bulleted list of the core value/benefit of your offers. This is not for you to copy and paste, but rather to guide and inspire you when writing your individual outreach emails. This enables you to better align your requests with the values you perceive in the folks you’re writing to.
• Contact info and qualifications for internal experts – If you’re a go-getter, well positioned in your company and/or have gotten proper authority, then having contact info for your organization’s internal experts and executives can make outreach for links much more fruitful. Make sure all the names are spelled correctly and that you do indeed have the correct contact information.
• Working knowledge of company history and key founders – Sometimes a basic knowledge of company history and its key founders can help you to craft stronger outreach emails. This might be something you recognize you need after a couple hours of outreach. Have it handy and be ready to work it into your outreach to better demonstrate your organization’s authority and link-worthiness. For example, knowing that your organization’s CEO founded and still chairs a notable industry association could be compelling information to include in your outreach.
• Preparedness to identify needs not expressed in your current range of link offers – You can’t really stockpile this, but remember that link building combines equal parts prep work, perspiration and perspicacity. Preparing for sudden insights can be as simple as the “notes” column in your outreach worksheet. Sometimes it can mean adding a long-shot request in the form of short P.S. such as “hey would you guys be open to a guest post?” There’s something about being in the thick of an outreach campaign that opens the creative mind to other possibilities and potential opportunities. Make sure you watch for and capture any patterns or trends as you revisit and act on your link opportunities.

Step 3. Crafting link building outreach emails

Your email brings all the pieces together, preferably with a dose of value proposition, customization and spontaneous observation. There are several “moving parts” in email outreach such as the email address you send from, subject line and opening line of the email. Tracking and optimizing these parts can lead to higher link acquisition rates.

Link outreach subject lines

Email marketing has studied the science of subject lines since the beginning of the tactic. In link building outreach, first pay attention to email subject lines that compulsively make you open them. Then think about conveying the core benefit of your link offer in the subject. Further, consider whether or not it makes sense to carefully include your anchor text to pre-seed the potential linker’s thinking. For example, while conducting outreach in a media space with lots of blogs and numerous weekly resource roundups, we included variations on “Great Roundup Material.” But only to bloggers who actually published roundups, as demonstrated by site: searches or just a quick ctrl+f of the home page. We also recommend tracking subject lines in case you can discern a lift in eventual conversions when using certain words or offers. For a bit more about subject lines, check out Subject Line Best Practices and Crafting a Must-Read Email Subject Line.

Using customized opening lines

Sincere compliments. Relevant, insightful observations. Sincere gratitude for the work they put into their site. New ideas. Tech-error discoveries. Shared personal experiences. Questions. There are many paths to a powerful opening line for your link building outreach email. To keep things focused, I typically lean on observations that relate to the core value of the URL I’m requesting links to. If seeking links to a resource piece on saving money, I’d admire the money-saving prowess exhibited by other content pieces on the site, then transition to the request based on shared value. For deeper perspective on opening lines, go and read Opening The Sale.

Demonstrating value

What benefit will adding your link bring to their visitors? This is the key question that any publisher will ask. First and foremost, think about conveying your URL’s value in terms of saving time or saving money; illustrate how your URL does either or both. Other benefits can include having early information, becoming more thorough and resource-inclusive, so visitors have a better sense of all their options, and providing a novel or extreme experience worthy of a brief break from work. Values to your link publisher might include the perception of affiliation, building the perception of “connections,” and your potential for distribution and linking reciprocation if it makes sense. Bear in mind that there is much to leverage in any link building outreach campaign.

Our link building outreach roundup below contains several links to resources on the actual outreach email. We highly recommend you read them all.

Step 4. Managing the 4 possible responses

We’ve identified four primary outcomes for any link request: accepts, declines, counters and ignores. The value in identifying these outcomes upfront is that you can prepare for them.

Accepts offer ways to grow the relationship

We hope that you view a link as just the beginning of a relationship. Here are some ideas on growing link relationships from initial accepts. Please add any others you have found effective to the comment section below.

• Send a thank you for linking email
• Ask about any content/information needs
• Ask about any what distribution help they may need
• Request an interview with their resident expert
• Request a review
• Offer them a subscription to your newsletter, blog feed or twitter account
• Subscribe to their newsletter, blog feed and/or twitter account
• A simple: How do you think my/our knowledge could help?

Declines: ways to grow beyond the “No”

A no, that is, an emailed response in which someone rejects your request, is fairly rare. They’re valuable though because they show that someone actually considered your request and then further offered you the consideration to respond. Your job now is to learn how to grow this no into a future yes in a way that doesn’t irk your rejector. We suggest:

• Keep a gracious, scientifically curious mindset
• Identify their objection
• Learn what content they WOULD link to, but keep questions short and sweet
• Gently seek a commitment: “So if I/we do XYZ, you would link to it if/when we add it to our site?”

If you can learn what content they would link to, congratulations – now you have a content idea for your next blog post!

Counters are rare, but be prepared

Counters, in which your link prospects state what they require in order for you to earn a link from them, are even more rare than a “no.” However, they do happen. Cash and reciprocal links are fairly common counters. Be prepared with other offers such as coupons, discount codes for their readers, products for review, etc, and be ready to approach your client or boss to negotiate for this particular link if it’s worth it.

Ignores: know when to say when

An ignore can mean many different things. Maybe your subject line isn’t as effective as it could be. Maybe your prospect is on vacation. Maybe you pitched your URL ineffectively. For whatever reason, you got no response. When following up with an ignore, we always make sure to write a new comment or observation in the opening. In some cases, we mention who else has linked or tweeted the URL as a way to indicate that others found it valuable. If it’s an especially juicy link, then sometimes we may look for other contact info on the site. Tread lightly, though: if they’re deliberately ignoring you, you may be spamming them!

Step 5. Add value to future outreach efforts: 17 trackable data points

Second to the links you earn from outreach, the data you gather and retain delivers you the most recurring value in any link building campaign. Track relentlessly, especially on large-scale outreach projects, and you’ll find that each successive outreach campaign you conduct will be that much easier. We’ve identified 17 trackable data points and include these in our Link Building Outreach Worksheet. There are more, but these should help get you started.

1. Targeted Hostname/Link Page
2. Contact’s Name
3. Email Address
4. Date of 1st Contact
5. Date of Follow Up
6. Link Placed? Y/N
7. URL of Placed Link
8. Date Link Placed
9. Linked URL
10. Anchor Text Used
11. Site Type
12. Email Subject Line
13. Opening Line
14. Offer Made
15. Growing the Relationship
16. Twitter Address
17. Notes

Bonus tips for advanced link outreach

For those of you who made it this far, why not take your link building outreach a little further? Here are some additional tools and resources to check out before embarking on your next outreach campaign.

Relationship management applications

There are a number of emerging link building relationship management tools emerging. Here are all the companies (to our knowledge) in this exciting space. We have not yet extensively tested any of them in our link building outreach, despite our enthusiasm.

• BuzzStream
• Raven
• SearchReturn
• BuzzGain

15 more link building outreach articles

We consider the following articles and resources to be required reading. There are enough situational tips and nuanced suggestions in the links below to inform link request pros and newbies alike.

• Divide and Conquer: Creating and Managing Your Link Campaign
• What Your Link Request Should Contain and Why
• The Perfect Link Request
• The Perfect Link Request Email Template
• The Best Link Request Email Yet
• Bad Link Requests: Get Your Targeting Right
• A Resource Guide to Writing Quality Link Requests
• The Do’s & Don’ts in Link Request Emails
• How NOT to Request a Link Via Email
• Link Building Etiquette
• How to Request a Link Without Sounding Like a Spammer
• Why your link exchange request failed (and what you can do instead)
• Email is Still the Key to a Successful Link Building Campaign
• Good SEO: How to Request Links From Picky Sites
• How Getting a Link is Like Picking up a Woman

If you follow me here or on the Link Spiel, you know I am a loyal fan and staunch supporter of using directories to secure links. After reading last week’s Elephant in the Link Building Living Room, I wanted to present a different point-of-view as I don’t feel the directory industry or the link builders using them were presented in a positive light. To suggest all link builders sell useless submission services or the directories are white elephants is inaccurate and insulting. I have a much different view and would like to show how using the directories can be a smart part of your link building mix.

Before I begin…

If you’ve spent any time in/around the SEO industry, you know there are hundreds, if not thousands of small directories online; most of these sites lack editorial guidelines, were created to host AdSense and network links. I think it’s important to draw a distinction between these sites and the responsible, well run directories that I and most link builders I know, use.

What is a directory?

In short, a directory is a collection of websites categorized by subject and/or geographic location. Human reviewers determine what source will be added and also maintain the directory and it’s structure.  While there are hundreds if not thousands of general directories online, only four stand out as heavy hitters:

• The World Wide Web Virtual Library (VLIB created in 1991)
• The Yahoo! Directory (1994)
• Best of the Web (BOTW 1994) and the
• Open Directory Project (ODP/DMOZ 1998)

If we check their PageRank scores, we’ll see each of these directories sports a greater than average meter of green. Even if it’s only half right, the toolbar tells us Google thinks well of these pages.

It is difficult to get a site listed with the DMOZ and VLIB, but it’s not impossible if you have an authority resource and follow their guidelines. Even if you’re unsuccessful in getting in, these directories are excellent research sources and can be mined for link partners. For example, when I look at the links on  this page of the VLIB and click on the Gardening category, I can find no less than five niche directories listed in the first 20 links shown. If I owned a gardening site, these would be great directories to be listed in from an algorithmic and traffic standpoint.

Yahoo! and BOTW are both paid inclusion with expensive review fees, but that cost is part of what keeps the junk sites out of their indexes. Each employs human reviewers to look at the sites submitted and determine which category they should be placed in. This process of being scrutinized to determine acceptance is known as editorial review, and is why these and other directories are respected algorithmically by the search engines.

Are directories white elephants?

In my opinion, there are 15 good general directories (includes the big four) worth submitting to, and those include sites such as JoeAnt, Business, Dirjournal, MassiveLinks, RubberStamped, Illumirate, among others. Here’s what I use to qualify a directory as “good”:

• minimal/no AdSense on category pages
• no site wide links
• has full contact information available
• internal pages indexed and cached frequently

If you argue most directories display low to mid-range PageRank scores I’ll agree, but also point out while their meter of green may be low, it is more a result of their function, not their quality. Directories are hubs and hubs are one-half of the authority equation, a factor incorporated in both the PageRank and TrustRank algorithms. Keep in mind how PageRank scores are determined and the fact directories are designed to link out, not in.

Directory submission tactics as a business model

If you owned a business on Main Street and wanted to promote it to the community, it’s doubtful you’d use just one advertising method to get your message across. You’d probably begin with the basic, less expensive options such as buying ads in the Yellow Pages, your local newspaper and ValuPak mailers. Eventually you’ll move up and buy radio, television and sponsorship opportunities which will help make you a dominant presence in your community.

This scatter gun approach to building a credible reputation can be done online as well. I advocate using directory links in the first wave of linking as a way to jump start your linking program. Granted, they’re not algorithmic giants, but directory links will pass link popularity and add to your overall back link profile.

Bottom line? If you understand the editorial significance of  directory links  and the role they can play as part of your link building mix, you’ll see the positives outweigh the negatives. For as long as Google hosts DMOZ, for as long as Yahoo! and VLIB survive, for as long as BOTW provides a solid search vehicle and supports IM  charities, and especially for as long as the directories don’t contribute to the pinking of the Web, I will support them and recommend you do the same.

The Wikipedia entry for “Elephant in the room” reads that it is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there might be concerning themselves with relatively small and even irrelevant matters, compared to the looming big one. To build upon that, one must also understand the meaning of the term “white elephant“.

Does link building have any white elephants? Is there an entire herd? Let’s agree that this is an opinion piece, and nothing is sacred. I’ll go first.

The most obvious link building white elephant is paid links. They are bad, right? Yes. Bad, bad, bad. Nobody talks about doing it, yet it seems like everybody does it, and it still works although it isn’t supposed to (and it really shouldn’t). But the bots can’t spot them all, and competitors are doing it, so everybody does it and doesn’t discuss it, except at the trade show bar after midnight in slurred shamed admissions to cute trade show booth reps in tight company t-shirts.

Next white elephant? The Pagerank toolbar. Nobody believes it. It’s always behind. It isn’t the true score Google uses, and it is meaningless.  Really? Then remove it from your browser. Go ahead. I dare you. I think we all stare at the Pagerank toolbar as pages load, like it’s a one-armed bandit about to stop spinning. Joker, JOKER, J O K E R!!!  Pagerank 7. Buy one? No. Buy Two! One with anchor text, one without.

Up next, the Directory white elephant. It’s a white elephant in reverse. Hundreds of companies still sell useless directory submission services.  How can this be happening? I know how. Link builders with clients have numbers to make to keep those clients. What’s the fastest way to meeting them? Vetted authority targets? Hardly. Link-o-Bingo.com? Bingo . I hope these directories are sending thank you notes to Google every Christmas. No toolbar, no business model.

The last elephant in the room? SEO Information Overload. Good lord, I’ve pruned my Twitter follow list but no matter what I do I can’t get below 75 people who I feel I absolutely must follow. If each of them tweet a link to just one article, blog post, or news item each day, that’s 75 things I have to read to keep current, 425 per week, 1,700 per month. And that’s just Twitter. Factor in the feeds, blogs, blogs with feeds, feeds with blogs, podcasts, vodcasts, videos, discussion posts, email and actual paid work, and there is simply way too much SEO information being produced. We pay lip service to it even as we make it worse, saying “yeah, way too much”, on our own SEO blogs, but we remain in a permanent state of anxiety over it, and like trying to live on three hours of sleep, we crash and burn by the end of the week.  I used to try and solve this by emailing myself the truly read-worthy stuff, thinking it will be handy in my inbox, in a special folder I made for it. I never opened that folder once.  I think I should launch a service where all I do is take the top 5% of everything I read each week and put links to them into your inbox, with my comments for what to do about it. Seriously. What would you pay to have an expert prune the weeds away for you so all you have to read is the flowers? If it’s enough to make it worth it, I’ll do it.

Related note

The “white elephant” term also applies to link building. A white elephant is a spectacular thing which is more trouble than it is worth, or has outlived its usefulness to the person who has it (Yahoo directory anyone?). While the item may be useful to others, its current owner would usually be glad to be rid of it.

Those are what I currently see for elephants in the  link building room, some of which are also very white. I know there are more.

What should you do, as a polite and plucky link builder, if some of your inbound links just aren’t up to snuff? Do you risk alienating a well-meaning webmaster by pointing out that he’s linked to an old page that no longer exists? That he’s spelled your company’s name incorrectly, or, even worse, your URL? Do you ask for a link where your site is mentioned, even if it’s an unfavorable mention? How will making changes to your existing inbounds affect your site in the future?

If it’s broken, why fix it?

Current inbound link analysis often gets overlooked in the promotion of new content and the quest for new links. Most people simply don’t have time to poke around in the dark recesses of their inbound link profiles, even though they should. As you may know, the biggest issue with making any sort of changes to your current inbound link profile is the risk that you take in sending out signals that something fishy is going on. After all, why would a three year old link suddenly change from your home page to a new landing page? If the content that the original link was on has itself not changed in two full years, how weird will it look when it’s suddenly updated?

If you’re changing inbound links that have previously been pointing to 404s, that should be ok. If Google can easily identify links going to 404 pages, and we know that they can based on the information in the Google Webmaster Tools, then they should logically be able to determine that a link change to a non-404 page has now been made and is thus ok. You could of course throw in some 301 redirects here, but why not just contact the webmaster of the site that has the incorrect link and ask for it to be changed? Point it out nicely, of course.

Pumping up your link profile

What about if you see a link pointing to a page that really isn’t the best page for the anchor text/content? Maybe you started your site with just a few pages, and everyone linked to your home page, but now you have hundreds of pages of great content and there are links that could go to more relevant sections? Well, if that’s the case, you have to decide whether it’s worth the effort to contact the site owners and point them to the more relevant page. That can take a lot of time and, after all, nothing’s broken.

Depending upon whether your deep link profile is any good or not (and with many sites it’s not, sadly) you may want to simply shoot an email to the webmaster, alerting him or her to the more relevant page, and say by the way, thanks so much for the link. If a link still goes to the same basic URL but goes to a different page on the site, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Common linking advice will tell you to look for mentions of your site/company that do not currently link to you, and ask for a link. I think that’s sound advice. It’s a very natural thing to link to a site or company that you’re mentioning, but not everyone has always done it, so if you can, ask the webmaster to add in the link for you. Most will, from my experience. If the anchor text matches the link URL, again, I can’t see why this would produce any negative effects.

Not all links are created equal

However, what if you find a negative mention of your site or company? View it as not only a chance to get a link, but also a chance to make amends, something that always tends to be good press. If the mention has to do with something you can fix, by all means contact the person who wrote it and try to work it out. This type of situation isn’t limited to major corporations who do bad things. Many people, for whatever reason, will become upset with you and blog about it. They’ll get on Twitter and call you out (and also blog about it) so it can easily become a public relations nightmare for you.

The other day when I was at Starbucks, a customer wearing a suit asked to speak to the manager so that he could complain about someone who had been in the same Starbucks the previous day, and seemed to not like men in suits. Yes, I am serious. There’s always someone who’s going to get upset about something. If you see a mention that you can somehow change to make it better for you, take the chance and do it. All that can happen is that the person says no. And maybe blog about it…

In summary, yes, by all means check out your inbounds, and if they don’t look as great as they could look, take some time (or make your intern do it) and reach out to those people who have been gracious enough to link to you, and nicely ask for the change that you want. If it’s not going to happen, at least you’ve made an effort, and you’ve again made contact with someone who has somehow been affected by your site and what you represent. If that isn’t interacting with your community, then I don’t know what is.