On Friday, December 5, 2014, the Gimpsy web directory was reviewed for Web Directory Reviews Org.

I was going to review Directory@v7n at this time, but its server went down partway into my review, and it's still down today, so I am moving on to Gimpsy.

This isn't the first time that I have reviewed Gimpsy, but it has been over a year since I have reviewed the directory and, although it did not make it into my top ten at that time, it didn't rate poorly.

Gimpsy first appears in the Internet Archive on February 21, 2002, which makes it about twelve years and nine months old.

The Moz Domain Authority of the Gimpsy directory is 52/100, and the Page Authority of its home page is 60/100. The Page MozRank is 6.01 and the Page MozTrust is 5.68. Its Majestic Trust Flow is 60 and the Citation Flow is 46. Gimpsy's Alexa Traffic Rank is 102,124.

Gimpsy offers three submission options. Sites may be submitted to the directory for free, however its submission options warn of a very long delay before free submissions are reviewed. Newly accepted sites submitted through this option will be shown above existing sites for fifteen days, and submitters have free access to its Strongest Links program for thirty days.

Its Standard Promotion costs $29, with a review promised within thirty days. Accepted sites are promoted to a top position for thirty days, and the submitter is given free use of Strongest Links for ninety days. There is no refund if the site is declined.

For $49, Gimpsy's Premium Promotion promises a review within four days and, if accepted, it will be promoted to a top position for one hundred and eighty days. Free use of its Strongest Links feature for one hundred and eighty days is included. If a Premium Promotion submission is declined, $20 of the submission fee will be refunded. Its promotion options are explained in detail here.

Directories reviewed in Web Directory Reviews Org are evaluated in five areas: aesthetics (10%), size (20%), intuitiveness (20%), quality (25%), and usefulness (25%). Additionally, up to five additional points may be assigned for positive qualities of the directory that are not otherwise evaluated in this review.

For the purposes of my review, the directory will be evaluated from the perspective of a directory operator. In other words, if I were looking for something online, would I be able to find it through Gimpsy? What would be experience be?

Aesthetics - 8/10

Gimpsy has a simple, somewhat retro, look about it, but it's clean and it renders well on a mobile device.

Gimpsy's logo is attractive, and its main menu consists of five columns of twelve categories each, although it's not entirely accurate to describe them as categories, since Gimpsy works a bit differently than other directories. Each of its categories consist of one word, lending to the symmetry of the page. The entire page appears above the fold in all resolutions that I have tried.

Size - 20/20

In evaluating the size of a directory, I use a program called Scrutiny, which counts the number of links in the domain. Since Scrutiny doesn't differentiate between outgoing site listings and internal navigational and other links, this number tends to be much larger than the total number of listings. Every directory is evaluated in the same manner, however, so it's a good comparison.

To decrease the server load, as well as my time, I have Scrutiny set to stop at 500,001 links, considering any directory that has more than five hundred thousand links to be sufficiently large. Gimpsy topped out. Please see my evaluation criteria for this quarter in order to understand the scoring mechanism for this area of the assessment.

Intuitiveness - 15/20

In one sense, it is difficult for me to say that Gimpsy is intuitive because it works much differently than other web directories. Being familiar with standard web directories, I find it to be a little clumsy navigating the Gimpsy directory. Someone unfamiliar with other web directories may not have these problems, however.

Gimpsy's categories are designed to reflect actions that a directory user might wish to perform.

Above the main directory are the words, "I want to...," which are words that need to be kept in mind while navigating the directory.

For example, the first category is "Adopt," so if I were to click that one, the query I would be making is, "I want to... adopt." Clicking on it, I am presented with two choices: "Animal" and "Virtual Pet." When I click into the "Animal" subcategory, I am presented with sixteen site choices, consisting of kennels, pet shelters, and animal refuges.

The use of @links are also effectively brought into play. For example, If I click on the category to indicate that "I want to... Submit," I am given one choice, which is an @link identified as "Web Site," as in "I want to... submit web site." Clicking on it, I am directed to I want to > Market > web site > search engine submission, which is a subcategory that includes more than two hundred sites whose topics relate to web submission and marketing services. That's more than the average user will want to dig through, but it's an appropriate response.

Of course, another option allows the use of an on-site search feature.

Quality - 16/25

Gimpsy includes several help files, explaining the organization of its directory for users and site submitters.

I didn't come across any parts of the directory that appeared to be broken or non-working. It handled a scan by Scrutiny without trouble, and Scrutiny found only 220 bad links, many of which were not actually bad, so that is a very low percentage of bad links for such a large directory.

Site titles, in most cases, appear to be the actual titles of the listed sites, although there are some that use the domain name rather than the title. Description use a sentence fragment model, but devoid of promotional language, misspellings or capitalization errors. Descriptions, although brief, contain sufficient keywords for the site to be found on search.

I did not come across any empty categories, although there were some that were overly long, in that users cannot be expected to sift through more than two hundred links in any one category.

Usefulness - 20/25

There are plenty of sites listed in Gimpsy, and its organization is such that users should have little problem finding what they are looking for. Difficulties may include unfamiliarity with the directory's organizational structure, several overly large categories, and the manner in which sites are presented within a category.

I am not sure that that last part is actually a flaw, but the order in which sites are presented are monetary in nature, in that site owners bid for placement within the category.

There are no category descriptions, but then there are not categories per se, in that categories in Gimpsy are neither topical or geographical in nature.

Gimpsy renders very well in mobile devices.

Extra Content - 2

Registered users of the directory may access an internal discussion forum, and they may create and maintain a private collection of favorite Gimpsy sites.

Additionally, where Gimpsy may have lost a point in intuitiveness, due to its using a very different organizational structure, it will gain that point back here. Innovation is a good thing.

Overall Rating - 81%

Based on my assessment of the Gimpsy directory on Friday, December 5, 2014, I have given it a rating of eighty-one percent.


Gimpsy did much better during this assessment than it did the first time I reviewed it. These differences had more to do with changes in my assessment criteria than anything else, particularly in the evaluation of size. With a rating of 83%, it is on target for making it into our top ten. However it fares in the top ten, it’s one of the good directories.

Note: When initially published, I had recorded Gimpsy’s overall rating at 83%. However, this was a mathematical error that was corrected today. Gimpsy still did very well, but it’s score was 81%.


blog comments powered by Disqus