I mean I wouldn't say that. THe thing about directories is that they SEO themselves simply by being structured the way they are. Yes, you have to put work into promoting the website, etc. But it's much more straight forward than all the alternatives.
Hi Tim, after more than a year still looking where I can access the directory course I bought?! Have contacted you various times about this by mail, here etc. Still no idea where the course has gone. Thx for your help. Eric
Agree on the authority mechanism and the inbound qualification point, which is the real argument here: a treatment centre asking to be listed has told you its budget and its intent in one action, and no follower count does that.
Where I would push is the claim that AI makes every directory more valuable. It splits the category rather than lifting it. Structured entity data is exactly what retrieval likes, which is why directories get read, and also exactly what an answer engine can restate without sending a click. The directories that keep their traffic are the ones holding a fact the model cannot synthesise from public sources: who verified this licence, on what date, and what happened at the last inspection. A list of businesses that exist elsewhere on the open web is summarisable. A list with a proprietary verification step attached to each row is a citation the model has to attribute.
So the number worth watching alongside the 6.5x is channel composition rather than total sessions. Split referrers into assistant traffic, classic organic, and direct, and track them separately over the next two quarters. If assistant referrals are flat while total grows, the growth is still coming from the old channel and the AI thesis is untested rather than proven. The leading indicator that it is working is the ratio of verified-field pageviews to plain listing pageviews, because that is where a crawler has a reason to cite you instead of absorb you.
Nice demo. So the challenge is not building a site, but getting traffic to the directory site to support the cpm, no?
I mean I wouldn't say that. THe thing about directories is that they SEO themselves simply by being structured the way they are. Yes, you have to put work into promoting the website, etc. But it's much more straight forward than all the alternatives.
Hi Tim, after more than a year still looking where I can access the directory course I bought?! Have contacted you various times about this by mail, here etc. Still no idea where the course has gone. Thx for your help. Eric
Hey Eric. Rebuilding it as the course wasn't really inline with how we can build now. I put a lot of it on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7I4MV24czLGENvLA1BXYTE9auG8bZE3b
What's your email? I'll get you $ back for the directory course.
Hey Tim, I was looking for course as well
"Dance, monkey, dance" lol
Agree on the authority mechanism and the inbound qualification point, which is the real argument here: a treatment centre asking to be listed has told you its budget and its intent in one action, and no follower count does that.
Where I would push is the claim that AI makes every directory more valuable. It splits the category rather than lifting it. Structured entity data is exactly what retrieval likes, which is why directories get read, and also exactly what an answer engine can restate without sending a click. The directories that keep their traffic are the ones holding a fact the model cannot synthesise from public sources: who verified this licence, on what date, and what happened at the last inspection. A list of businesses that exist elsewhere on the open web is summarisable. A list with a proprietary verification step attached to each row is a citation the model has to attribute.
So the number worth watching alongside the 6.5x is channel composition rather than total sessions. Split referrers into assistant traffic, classic organic, and direct, and track them separately over the next two quarters. If assistant referrals are flat while total grows, the growth is still coming from the old channel and the AI thesis is untested rather than proven. The leading indicator that it is working is the ratio of verified-field pageviews to plain listing pageviews, because that is where a crawler has a reason to cite you instead of absorb you.