Kingish.com It's a way of life

In the SEO world there seems to be a popular view that links directories are bad news for the health of a site. At least, that's the distinct impression I was left with after attending the Search Engine Strategies conference in London last week.

That really confuses me. It goes against my experience having used them on sites recently (a PR 4 site and a PR 6 site).

I am aware that link-farms and such like are very bad news, and that a lot of people abuse links directories (using them simply as a way of generating reciprocal links). But why should that by itself be a reason to assume that all links directories are penalised in the search engines?

I believe that if you have a good reason to use a links directory (ie, it benefits your users), then use one. Seriously.

I have found that a they can be beneficial to users as a (valid) resource, and to the site owner as a good revenue stream (think link-based advertising such as Adsense).

The benefit to users is obvious. A well constructed directory of related sites adds value to your own site, allowing users to more easily continue their browsing beyond your site. If the directory is anything approaching comprehensive then it can form a knowledge base. If it only presents valuable sites to the user (regardless of whether the site in question links back), and these sites are in appropriate categories, they can provide real value.

So, are link directories really bad for your site? Do the main search engines penalise sites with link directories?

I would bet that they do. But I would suggest that this is not always the case. For me, it's more about how you use them that counts.