Jasmine Directory

On February 2, 2013, I reviewed the Jasmine Directory, and it received sixty-three out of a possible one hundred points.
Web Directory Review of: Jasmine Directory

Established in 2009, Jasmine is one of the newer directories in the industry.

Aesthetics - 2/5

The main page of the Jasmine web directory is not unpleasant to look at, but neither is it striking.

A personal preference of mine is that the main page of a web directory shouldn't scroll. Recognizing that this is a personal preference, I try not to let this influence my assessment of a directory, but I generally make note of it.

The Jasmine web directory scrolls but it does so unobtrusively. The screen of its main page appears to be complete, including the logger, the header, the top-level category listings, and an editor's pick, all on the screen, without requiring horizontal scrolling.

The main page does scroll down another screen and a half at the resolution and monitor that I am using, adding mostly promotional material, as well as the footer.

To the left of each of its top-level categories, displayed in a two-column format, is a small graphic that represents the content within that category.

The existence of misspellings or typos within the body of the directory mars the aesthetics of the Jasmine directory.

For example, within its submission form, the word "address" is incorrectly spelled "adress". Additionally, somewhere within the body of the directory, "business" is spelled incorrectly as well, and I also noted some grammatical problems.

Taxonomy - 6/10

I haven't clicked over to compare the taxonomy of the Jasmine directory with all of the other web directories that I have seen, but it doesn't appear that it has copied its taxonomy from any other one directory, although there is a look of familiarity.

The category structure is intuitive. It is not very deep, but it's easy enough to follow as far as it goes.

Quality Control - 6/10

Some of the descriptions are very skimpy, and I came across one that began with a lower-case letter, but these appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Overall, descriptions are descriptive, without being overly promotional.

Although its category structure doesn't go very deep, site listings are placed in the appropriate categories.

Sentence fragments appear to be the editorial standard in the Jasmine web directory but, apart from my own personal preference for full sentences, I will have to admit that this is the standard throughout the industry, so unless they distract from being able to understand the description, I don't grade down for that. Unfortunately, some of the sentence fragments that I found in the Jasmine web directory were difficult to figure out.

Maintenance - 5/10

There are many empty categories in the Jasmine web directory, a fault that is somewhat minimized by the fact that a number in parentheses following each category name states the number of listings that can be found in each category, so users don't have to click into empty categories.

In one sense, the existence of an empty category may prompt web site owners to want to have their site listed there, whereas they are not as likely to request a listing in a category that does not exist.

In other words, if I have a web site selling shoes, and I don't find a shoe category, I am more likely to look elsewhere than to submit my site to a directory that doesn't even have a category for my product.

Nevertheless, it detracts from the experience of browsing a directory to find empty categories. Yes, I know; not very many people browse web directories anymore, but I will continue to review them as if they were intended to be used for something other than page rank, since I think that's what Google and the other search engines are looking for when they send their spiders out.

I found no dead links in the Jasmine directory.

Google Page Rank - 5/10

The Google Page Rank of the Jasmine directory's main page is a 4. For the most part, second-level categories have a GPR of 3, although one retained a GPR of 4. Most of the third-level categories that I clicked into had a GPR of zero, although some had a GPR of 1, and I found one third-level category with a GPR of 3.

I'll speak more of this later, under SEO Content, but I believe much of the reason for its internal GPR is that its subcategory pages have content other than web site listings. Spiders might nibble on web site listings but they'll come back for real food.

According to my assessment criteria, I am adding one point to the GPR of the directory's main page because its internal pages also have Google Page Rank.

Alexa Traffic Rank - 3/5

The Alexa Traffic Rank for the Jasmine web directory is 43,507.

SEO Ranking - 2/5

SEMRush Rank - 636,206, SEMRush Search Traffic - 348. Google is showing none of its pages being indexed in Google, but it shows up in Google SERPS, and the listing of the number of indexed pages has been acting up lately, so I am going to assume that is faulty.

On a search of "web directory", the Jasmine directory doesn't show up in the first ten pages of results from Google, Bing or Yahoo.

Directory Content - 3/10

There are not a lot of listed sites, as compared to some of the other better directories in the industry, but the others have had at least a few years on the Jasmine directory, which is one of the newer, but promising, web directories.

There are some quality sites listed in the directory that are not of the sort that are likely to have paid for a listing, so I do believe that the Jasmine staff has added quality listings to the directory, increasing its content and usefulness.

SEO Content - 10/10

This is an area in which the Jasmine directory excels. Beyond its first-level categories, each of its subcategories includes a sizable informational article on the category subject, including maps, graphics, and other images.

I have copied and pasted snippets of these articles into Google to see if they were unique, and they are, at least to the Internet.

Moreover, they are well-written articles, of the kind that puts the welcome mat out for search engine spiders, which increases the value of site listings within these categories. I am sure that this is why I found a third-level category with a Google Page Rank of 3, only one less than its main page.

The Jasmine web directory refers to this feature as "link baiting" and includes an article on the technique on one of its pages.

A blog is also included in the Jasmine directory, but the last blog posting was on October 16, 2012, almost four months ago.

Cost for Review - 9/10

The cost for site reviews in the Jasmine directory are quite reasonable. There are two levels of submissions, standard and express.

A standard listing costs $19.00, and that is a one-time fee, offering a lifetime listing, as long as the site meets the standards of the directory. Standard listings do not allow for deep links.

An express review costs $39.00, and that allows up to five additional deep links. Express listings are listed above the standard listings.

Reputable Practices - 10/10

I see nothing to suggest any misrepresentation or deceptive practices relating to the Jasmine directory.

Extra Credit - 2/10

The Jasmine directory includes a page of recently rejected sites, which includes the reasons why they had been rejected. I rather liked that, as well as the fact that they did not turn these listings into hyperlinks, which would have effectively given a second-level listing to a rejected site.

Overall Rating - 63/100

The Jasmine web directory earned sixty-three of a possible one hundred points.


Frankly, I was surprised when I added the points up for the Jasmine directory. Of the web directories that I have reviewed thus far, Jasmine has tied for number three, and not that far behind those that are currently in first and second place.

I was surprised because there are not a lot of listings in the Jasmine directory, and it could reasonably be argued that a web directory with a Google Page Rank of 4, that doesn't have many listings, isn't much of a web directory at all.

Nevertheless, according to the evaluation criteria that I am compelling myself to use during this first round of web directory reviews, the quantity of its content only counts for ten points, and none of the directories that I have looked at so far has had a GPR higher than 6.

That said, the Jasmine web directory is a relatively new player in the market, and it has had a good start. Its link-baiting technique is ingenious, and quite effective.

If the Jasmine directory were to continue doing what it has been doing, clean up some of the typos, and engage in a far greater effort in building up its directory content, I believe that it could be number one by any standards. It's already a player.


blog comments powered by Disqus