Jasmine Directory

Upon my evaluation of the Jasmine Directory on November 29, 2013, I have rated it at seventy-eight percent.


Every quarter, Web Directory Reviews Org evaluates and rates twenty web directories, ten of which were in the top ten from the previous quarter. Jasmine Directory has been in our top ten each quarter this year, ranking number eight during the first quarter, number three in the second quarter, and number four in the third quarter.

So far, there have been some changes or tweaking made to the review criteria between each quarter. As compared to the third quarter, the most significant change that has been made to the criteria for the fourth quarter being a greater reliance in Scrutiny, a program that scans the directory and determines the number of links, as well as the number of links that are bad. Because of this, a directory with a large number of outgoing links is likely to do better in the Content region of our assessment than in previous quarters, where the amount of content was estimated.

Our web directory evaluations are conducted through the perspective of a potential directory user rather than from the standpoint of a site submitter or search engine optimization professional. Before we get to the review, however, I will offer some information about the SEO potential of the directory.

Jasmine Directory is a relative newcomer in the web directory industry, yet it has come a long way in just a few years. Jasmine first appears in the Internet Archive on June 5, 2009. Its index page has a Google PageRank of four, while its second-level pages have a PageRank of three, and its third-level pages range from zero to two.

Its Moz Domain Authority is 61/100, and the Page Authority of its index page is 67/100. Its Alexa Traffic Rank is 13,458. Jasmine Directory has had 169 Google+ clicks, 21 Facebook likes, 12 Twitter tweets, and 22 StumbleUpon stumbies.

Submissions to the directory are fee-based. Its regular fees are $19.00 for the review of a standard fee, and $39.00 for an express review. Sites that are listed as standard sites cannot include deep links, and will appear below express listings in a category. Express listings may include up to five additional deep links. Both standard and express submissions are one-time fees, and RSS and Twitter feeds may be added, along with business addresses, a phone number, and fax.

Special offers are made from time to time. For example for seven days, over the Thanksgiving season, Jasmine Directory is offering a forty percent discount, for seven days only.

As for the portion of the review that counts for our evaluation and rating, we will be examining five general areas of assessment, those being aesthetics (10%), content (25%), intuitiveness (20%), quality (20%), and usefulness (25%). Additionally, I allow myself to add up to five additional points for any merits of the directory that are not satisfactory addressed within these five areas, although I do this sparingly. Our full criteria is published to this site, along with the criteria from previous quarters.

Aesthetics - 9/10

When I first reviewed Jasmine Directory, back in February of this year, I liked the overall look and feel of the directory, but there were some misspellings and grammar problems that marred its appearance. These have all been corrected, as far as I can see, and the directory looks very nice.

Its header uses a blue denim background, and mostly white text, while the remainder of the directory uses white, anti-flash white, and a light gray, for a background, with blue and black text. Its color choices contrast nicely, and the text is easy on the eyes.

With the exception of its Regional category, each of Jasmine's top-level categories consist of two words separated by an ampersand. It's not a major issue, but the symmetry of its main menu would be enhanced if its Regional tree are to use the same naming scheme.

Jasmine Directory's index page requires horizontal scrolling in order to access all of its content, but its main menu is all accessible without scrolling, so that's not a large issue, or any issue at all, really.

There is no advertising, other than to its own services and programs.

It is in its internal pages that Jasmine Directory excels. Each of its internal category pages well written, unique, informative, and attractively presented articles as category descriptions, each with an image of photograph. Additionally, wherever a related article exists, a synopsis and link to that article is also included.

Content - 17/25

Since I last reviewed Jasmine Directory in September, 2013, the directory has added 7,348 links to its database, according to Scrutiny, which I used to scan the directory this morning. This includes navigational and other internal links, but this is nevertheless a significant increase in the amount of content.

Still, Jasmine Directory has only 23,123 links, which is very much on the low end of the top directories that I have assessed. But Jasmine is also the youngest of our top ten directories, I believe.

Looking through the directory, I can see that much of the increase has been to Jasmine's regional tree, which was badly needed. Although its regional tree is still rather sparse, it has been greatly improved. Looking through the sites that were most recently added to the directory, I can see nearly all of them have to do with ecology or forensics; since it is unlikely that Jasmine received a spat of paid submissions from the forensics and ecology industries, I will conclude that this has come from the directory staff seeding its categories for content.

Intuitiveness - 18/20

Jasmine Directory's category and subcategory name choices are sensible ones, so no one should have any trouble navigating the directory. Additionally, the fully informative category descriptions utilized by the directory should assist directory users and site submitters alike.

Several of its categories are in need of subcategorization, as directory users are not well served by multiple pages of site listings.

On thing that I hadn't noticed in previous reviews is that Jasmine's index page includes an alternative menu. Accessible by clicking the arrows to the right or left of the main menu, an interactive regional map, and a section highlighting the directory's most popular categories, are available. That's a nice touch.

Quality 16/20

The bulk of site descriptions found in Jasmine Directory use the sentence fragment model, but the majority of them are reasonably descriptive, but there are still quite a few that are on the skimpy side.

Site titles are comprised, almost entirely, of the actual title of the sites being listed, which was not the case the last time I reviewed Jasmine Directory.

Additionally, after scanning the entire directory, Scrutiny found only 206 links that it identified as bad, and several of these were not actually bad, so that is a very low percentage of bad links.

Usefulness - 18/25

Jasmine Directory's topical categories have enough listings to be useful, although further subcategorization of some of its topical categories would be an improvement. Although still very sparse, its regional categories have improved considerably in the past couple of months.

As mentioned, Jasmine's category descriptions are about the best I've seen, comparable only to the R-TT Directory, adding considerable useful content beyond the directory's outgoing links. Jasmine also includes an active blog, which discusses a number of issues related to the directory industry, and other topics. I also find its page of rejected sites to be helpful, as it lists sites that were not accepted into the directory, and gives the reason why.

Overall Rating - 78%

Upon my evaluation of the Jasmine Directory on November 29, 2013, I have rated it at seventy-eight percent.


If I had an assessment area covering the most improved directory, Jasmine Directory would gain extra points because, while it remains small, as compared to directories that have been around for a decade longer, Jasmine is rapidly improving, both in the amount of content that it holds and in the quality of that content. What it lacks in content, it goes a long way toward making up in quality.


blog comments powered by Disqus