What's the minimum amount of listings you'd expect to see on a resource site?

[Edwin]

I'm curious what you feel would be the minimum number of listings that would make for a "good" resource website i.e. a website dedicated to presenting resources on a particular topic.

For example, if we're talking about a website that lists SEO tools, how many listings does it need to have as a minimum to appear credible to you?

 

[Edwin]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking in terms of articles at all. More a curated list of highly relevant links, with "capsule descriptions" of each one. In old-fashioned terms, a "directory"

 

[Brassneck]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking in terms of articles at all. More a curated list of highly relevant links, with "capsule descriptions" of each one. In old-fashioned terms, a "directory"

Guess it must depend on how focused the directory is. I imagine that highly selective, high quality and absolutely relevant is the absolute minimum and should be supported by as much unique text as possible.

Have you a project in mind? Might be easier to advise on a particular circumstance?

 

[Edwin]

Have you a project in mind? Might be easier to advise on a particular circumstance?

Not one I can talk about at the moment. It's that rare "stealth" project (and incidentally it will involve a .com not a UK domain if it ever happens)

I appreciate that it's harder without specifics, I'm just trying to get a rough feel for things.

 

[WealdDomains]

Edwin,

I think it depends on the topic : product, service, geolocation, etc, but it's a balance between quality and quantity.

The greater the sprinkling of links to big names with big reputations (BBC, NHS, government, John Lewis, B&Q, Google, Amazon, M&S, TfL, etc) the fewer the actual number of links should matter.

Taking the SEO example, two simple links to Matt Cutts and searchengineland.com should be far more valuable than dozens of directory entries along the lines of edwinswonderfulseo.biz or optimisedfortonbridgebydavid.org.uk .

A Kent directory that focused on Paddock Wood, Herne Bay, Biddenden and Dymchurch but didn't include entries for businesses in Maidstone, Canterbury, Dover, Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells would lack credibility while one covering the latter would be sufficiently robust to be forgiven for omitting the former.

With my geodomains, I try to cover off links to the local BBC, the local council, the local tourism body and the local BBC travel news site and some national generics like English Heritage and the National Trust, plus maybe a couple of local newspapers and local tourist attractions. Beyond that, I think it's OK to stretch to the quantity angle of more obscure sites ... but only once the qualitative credible links are in place.

I think it goes back to the basic argument that content matters : I think that links to credible big players are the bare minimum.

David