For years, the advice was simple:
“If you want visibility, build a website.”
That advice ignores a brutal reality:
Google has limited space — and most websites will never make the cut.
In today’s internet, discovery is not guaranteed. It’s competed for. And central repositories are structurally better positioned to win that fight.
Here’s why.
1. Google Has Very Few Slots — Everyone Else Is Invisible
Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth.
When someone “googles” something, they see:
Around 10 organic results per page
Often fewer due to ads, maps, featured snippets, and “People also ask”
Rarely anything beyond page one
Page two might as well not exist.
Now think about this:
Thousands of schools
Tens of thousands of courses
Hundreds of institutions per city
Mathematically, most websites cannot appear.
Central repositories compress many options into a single high-ranking result. One slot. Many institutions. Guaranteed visibility inside that slot.
That’s not cheating the system.
That’s understanding it.
2. Discovery Is About Comparison, Not Branding
People don’t search Google to admire your website.
They search to answer questions like:
“Best schools in Nairobi”
“Colleges offering nursing”
“TVET institutions near me”
“Universities with January intake”
A standalone website can’t answer these queries honestly without talking about competitors.
A central repository can.
Google prefers pages that satisfy search intent fully, not pages that self-promote. Aggregation wins because it’s useful.
3. Google Prefers Platforms Over Isolated Sites
Search engines favor:
Structured data
Internal linking
High engagement
Frequent updates
Topical authority
Central repositories naturally accumulate all of this.
A single website has to earn authority from zero.
A repository builds it at scale.
That’s why directories, marketplaces, and aggregators consistently outrank the very websites they list.
It’s not bias.
It’s efficiency.
4. Most Websites Are Technically Underpowered
Let’s be honest again.
Most organizations:
Don’t optimize SEO properly
Don’t understand schema or indexing
Don’t update content consistently
Don’t analyze search behavior
Don’t even know which pages are ranking
Central repositories absorb that complexity.
Institutions manage content, not technology.
And that’s exactly how it should be.
5. Central Repositories Reduce Friction and Increase Conversions
Every standalone website:
Has a different layout
Different navigation
Different terminology
Different application process
Users get tired.
Repositories standardize everything:
Same filters
Same structure
Same expectations
Less confusion. More action.
This is why:
Booking.com beats hotel websites
LinkedIn beats personal CV sites
Marketplaces beat independent stores
Education is not exempt. It’s just slower to adapt.
6. Trust Is Borrowed Through Aggregation
A new website starts unknown.
A platform:
Looks familiar
Feels established
Signals legitimacy
Reduces perceived risk
People trust ecosystems more than isolated voices.
Central repositories let institutions borrow trust instead of spending years trying to manufacture it.
7. Websites Still Matter — But They’re Not Enough
This isn’t an anti-website argument.
It’s a pro-reality one.
The winning model is:
Website for ownership, depth, and branding
Central repository for discovery, comparison, and reach
Think of Google as a funnel with very few entry points.
If your website is not in those few slots, it’s invisible.
Repositories turn one slot into many opportunities.
Final Thought
Google is not a level playing field.
It’s a crowded room with a small stage.
Central repositories don’t fight for more space — they use the space better.
If your website exists alone, it’s not competing with other websites.
It’s competing with platforms designed for how search actually works.
And platforms usually win.