The AMRAY directory was evaluated for Web Directory Reviews Org on Thursday, December 25, 2014.

The AMRAY directory has been in our top ten since it was first reviewed in the fourth quarter of 2013. At that time, it came in #5. So far in 2014, it was #6 in the first quarter, #5 in the second quarter, and #4 in the third quarter of this year.

Its Moz Domain Authority is 51/100, the Page Authority of its index page is 59/100, the Page MozRank is 5.82, and the Page MozTrust is 5.59. The Majestic Trust Flow is 47 and the Citation Flow is 46. The Alexa Traffic Rank of the AMRAY directory is 30,960.

There has been a slight change in the submission policies of the AMRAY directory since my last review, mostly to clarify the types of sites that may be accepted as a free submission, I believe. At this time, free submissions are accepted only for personal, educational, academic, technical, informational, not-for-profit, charities, government, and free for all sites only.

Business and commercial sites must submit using the directory's regular submission option, which is a one-time payment of $9.95. Paid submissions will be reviewed in from 48-96 hours.

Premium submissions are $29.00 per year or a one-time payment of $39.00. If accepted, premium submissions will be listed above regular submissions within the appropriate category.

AMRAY's submission guidelines are more specific than some directories, so I suggest reading them before submitting your site. For example, only top-level domains are considered, and the email address used must match the domain being submitted. Site description lengths are limited to two hundred characters.

Between quarters, there are generally some changes to the evaluation criteria used in Web Directory Reviews Org, so it is best to look at the criteria that was in use during any of the reviews published on this site, which is why the criteria for each quarter has been archived.

When reviewing a web directory, I evaluate it from the perspective of a web directory user, which I am, rather than that of a site submitter or SEO professional, which I also am from time to time.

The AMRAY directory will be evaluated in five areas, some weighted differently than others: aesthetics (10%), size (20%), intuitiveness (20%), quality (25%), and usefulness (25%). Additionally, I sometimes add up to five points for extra content.

Aesthetics - 8/10

The AMRAY directory has a symmetrical look. The design aspects of the page extend the width of the screen but the content section of its index page takes up only a small amount of vertical space, with everything centered on the screen.

Other than its "Single Singles" category, each of AMRAY's upper-level categories consist of two words connected by an ampersand and, missing only the ampersand, this does not detract from the symmetry of its main menu.

There is no advertising, except to AMRAY's own products or to other directories, which may be on its own network. Its internal pages are also attractive and well organized.

Size - 20/20

I use a program called Scrutiny to scan a directory domain prior to each review, but I limit my scan to 500,001 links, and AMRAY topped out at that number, so it gets full credit in this area of the review.

Intuitiveness - 16/20

Category and subcategory name choices and organization is clear enough that I don't believe people should have any trouble finding their way around the AMRAY directory.

However, as I've observed in past reviews, there are several categories with multiple pages of listings, indicating, to me, that its category structure is too shallow. The problem here is that users of the directory are unlikely to look beyond the first page. Of course, some categories are not so easily subcategorized but others are, and should be, in my opinion.

On the positive side, sites are not placed in inappropriate categories. Given that AMRAY's "People & Places" category does not serve the exact same purpose as regional categories in other directories, I can't say that there are sites in topical that should be moved to regional, as is so often the case in general web directories.

I do have a problem with that, though. Let's look, for example, at its People & Places > Hotels & Motels category. Because sites are not sorted geographically, as would generally be the case with a regional category, and because there are no geographical options within the directory, someone would have to page through fourteen pages of hotels and motels from throughout the world in order to determine whether the directory lists one from a specific area. As the directory grows, it can be anticipated that the number of pages here will grow exponentially.

By its nature, guest accommodations are one example of a site that needs to be listed geographically if it is to make any sense at all. If I am traveling to Savannah, Georgia, a hotel in Vancouver, British Columbia isn't going to do me any good. I could use the search feature, of course, but I would be aided there by longer site descriptions for the directory's search engine to utilize.

I have noticed that, as a rule, the directory includes the city and state (or province) of a site within the description, which helps.

I don't know what the sorting order is for sites within a category, but they are not arranged alphabetically.

Quality - 18/25

AMRAY uses a sentence fragment model in site descriptions, for the most part, although there are some full sentences in evidence, just as there are others that are far too brief.

To clarify the comments that I made above, I am not suggesting that the AMRAY directory is slack on quality. AMRAY has very tight quality controls, in that its editors and staff strictly enforce the standards of the directory. It is these standards that I am disagreeing with.

In that, AMRAY is not alone. Most of the directories in my top ten use a sentence fragment model for site descriptions and, while I may pontificate on the subject, a directory is quite clearly able to make it onto my top ten regardless.

In my opinion, a web directory is a website, and we generally expect textual content to be grammatically correct and to provide useful content. Site descriptions, then, should be reasonably descriptive of the business or organization, as well as the features of the website itself. As the very least, a site description should consist of two sentences, one describing the business, product or organization, and another describing the site.

Done correctly, a site description will inform directory users as to what might be expected from a website, allowing them to make an informed choice as to which sites to visit, and a well written site description will also serve as fodder for hungry search engine spiders, which helps both the directory and the sites that are listed within it.

I am not seeing promotional language, misspellings, or capitalization or punctuation errors within the AMRAY directory. I will also say, as I did the last time I reviewed this directory, that when I submit a site to the AMRAY directory, their editors generally edit the description that I submit and, though I may insist that mine is always better, I love that, because it indicates that the directory is not on autopilot, as are so many others.

I came across no empty categories, and the directory's server game me no trouble while I was scanning it.

Usefulness - 17/25

As I indicated in the last section of this review, more complete descriptions would be helpful as they would serve to better inform directory users.

Another thing that would help greatly is if the directory were to include category descriptions. Well written, uniquely authored category descriptions provide information for users who have taken the time to navigate to a particular category, they serve to help site submitters know whether or not they have chosen the most appropriate category to which to submit their site, and they become spider food as they are indexed by search engine spiders. Every web directory script that I am aware of includes category descriptions as a standard feature, yet many directories do not make use of it, and I think that's a shame.

Overly large categories work against the usefulness of the directory to an end user, who would be better served by a deeper taxonomy.

However, there is a large amount of content in the AMRAY directory, it is well organized, and the directory includes a working search feature.

Extra Content - 3

Since the last time I reviewed the AMRAY directory, they have made some changes to the detail pages of listed sites, adding options for a company logo, name, address and telephone number, as well as some other options. I believe that social media links were already included, but that is a feature not found in every directory.

While not purely of interest to directory users, a listing in the AMRAY directory includes several outgoing links to the listed site. There is a direct link on the category page, and more on the rating and details pages. The additional information provided on the details page will be of interest to directory users, as well.

There are other resources for webmasters and others, accessible through its index page, as well.

Overall Rating - 82%

Upon my evaluation of the AMRAY directory on Christmas Day, December 25, 2014, I have rated it at eighty-two percent.


I have submitted a few sites to the AMRAY directory, including another this evening, and I would submit others, except for the fact that many of my sites are regional in nature, and seemingly without an appropriate place within the directory. AMRAY has been around since 2000, and it has earned its place as one of the more reputable directories.


blog comments powered by Disqus