homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.94.228
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 62 message thread spans 3 pages: 62 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google and ODP
and odd couple
fabian




msg:488663
 6:37 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

(Trying to express some ideas in my never improved english, I'm sorry)

1) I think Google is fantastic, no doubt.
2) I think PageRank is a great tools for users. (Thinking as a user, as it must be done)
3) I think that the ODP efforts are incredible and
that this is a very remarkable non profit whole work.

But.....

Looking at the evident problems that ODP is having to get the directory updated, with extreme delays in listings, with add url forms that do not work, with an obvious need of new editors, (many categories without one), and they are NOT replying to most new editor's proposals, with email addresses giving permanent fatal errors, etc, etc, I really can't understand how Google can still having that strong dependence with ODP, which is clearly "pulling down" the overall Google quality.....

It looks to me like a gorgeous Rolls Royce using a VW Beetle carburator....

Can't Google organize it's own directory?
Can't Google help in any way to ODP to suit their actual severe problems?

Just my two cents of devaluated argentine peso.....

 

GrinninGordon




msg:488664
 7:34 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

fabian

ODP has two problems;

1) Its servers. Must have been a good salesman.

2) Its philosophy. You just can not have amateur editors that are free from political and selfish motivations. ODP needs to drop this in favor of a Zeal / Yahoo type approach where editors are hired, commercial sites charged to submit, and non-commercial added for free. It aint the engine, its the wobbly wheels and the dodgy gas it runs on.

viggen




msg:488665
 7:46 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well Google is commercial, and still it is way behind with the current ODP data.

steveb




msg:488666
 8:33 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

ODP is updating just fine, and every little Tom Dick and harry site using the RDF dump is too... except the Google Directory. There is no issue here. ODP is adding servers and changing with the times. Some folks have nervous breakdowns during a debugging process after an upgrade, but some people wear belt and suspenders so that is to be expected.

echo1573




msg:488667
 9:07 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

google is swaying larger and larger,its dancing is tempestuous!

Imaster




msg:488668
 9:34 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

IMHO,
- Google should buy out DMOZ,

- organize it properly,

- get off the red/yellow tags off most sites (just like it allowed penalized sites to appear again in its database). If not all, then perhaps truly authentic sites which have been banned.

- Many important sites are missing from the directory because any specific category is either not moderated or the editors don't believe in listing competitors sites.

- There should be one single rule book for all editors, irrespective of their status, power, and influence.

- There should be professional google editors involved to monitor all the activities of the volunteer editors.

- There should be a great deal of transperancy

If Google helps DMOZ with all these and more points, then DMOZ will be one great place to watch out for.

Some may disagree with me, but most will agree that it's not easy to get even an authentic site listed there.

Finally, I truly appreciate the hard work and great dedication that the dmoz editors have put into the directory to take it where it is. A little intervention from google would take it many steps higher.

nippi




msg:488669
 10:02 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have so many issues with DMOZ.

"non affiliated" editors who refuse to list a site in a category as they have a competitor site.(Happens -personally effected, even had a site removed from dmoz recently after it ranked well on google and editor(manages competitors site) saw fit to squash it... he edits the category in dmoz.

Dual listings in dmoz create huge search engine bonuses. Time and time again I see sites that have managed to wangle listing in two dmoz cats receive top billing in google or Lycos even thought site is shiite and incoming links low.

No editor means no listing, often the relevant category does not have 3 or more relevant unlisted sites so you can not even apply to be an editor succesfully.

Dmoz is total shiite

Morgan




msg:488670
 10:34 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

If the commercial directory way of running things is better, why wouldn't DMOZ detractors try to approach it with Google instead of trying to change DMOZ? Tell Google Zeal is so much better or whatever.

The fact is, Google chose DMOZ as its directory because it's good, DMOZ didn't force Google to use it. DMOZ has a philosophy that guides its operations, and there's no reason to change it. Change it why? Because so many people use it? Because it's the best and most popular? Or because some webmasters can't get in immediately?

If it's so bad, everybody will stop using it. But it's not.

mayday9




msg:488671
 10:47 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

here's an idea. A webmaster (with loads of time on his hands) should create a site about DMOZ flaws and editors abuse. dmozflaws.com or something. I bet such a site would easily get linked in webmaster resources if it trully was a good and objective source of information

Darko

Imaster




msg:488672
 10:50 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

here's an idea. A webmaster (with loads of time on his hands) should create a site about DMOZ flaws and editors abuse. dmozflaws.com or something. I bet such a site would easily get linked in webmaster resources if it trully was a good and objective source of information

Perhaps, but we have heard so much about all these stuff that it's not exciting any more. Now everything lies in the hands of Google, if they consider adopting dmoz, we will have a great community & directory there :)

echo1573




msg:488673
 10:53 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

i agree with Morgan!though DMOZ and GOOGLE in live,but they are different in character,DMOZ is DMOZ,GOOGLE is GOOGLE.

nippi




msg:488674
 10:54 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Point is abuse is both rampant and easy.

I can not be bothered fixing something that is so easily broken with so few checks in place.

Hard enough to get a site reviewed with so many editorless categories without bothering to complain about woeful admin practices of DMOZ.

How hard could it be to prevent duplicate listings? Or to set up an automatic report syste for why a site removed from DMOZ.

Perplexed




msg:488675
 10:57 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

And if DMOZ do not want to be taken over or adopted?

If everyone here thinks the ODP is such crap then why are you all so concerned about getting into it?

You all know as well as I do that the ODP is a basically sound directory who are having growth problems

I have absolutely no connection with them at all ( and I have a site waiting to be be listed just as many of you do )but for ***** sake cut them a little slack.

nippi




msg:488676
 11:02 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

an odp link is worht a lot to search engines

does not mean that their practices are sound

Imaster




msg:488677
 11:08 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

If everyone here thinks the ODP is such crap

Its not a crap, its a great directory with scope for further improvements as with all the directory.

then why are you all so concerned about getting into it?

Good question, but we all know that its affiliated with Google :)

Perplexed




msg:488678
 11:17 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

< then why are you all so concerned about getting into it?

Good question, but we all know that its affiliated with Google :) >

Is it? exactly what form does this affiliation take? Do google pay to use the ODP dump or do they just take it free like everyone else?

You could say that Google own much to the ODP but do the ODP owe Google anything?

( not being retorical.... I really dont know )

Imaster




msg:488679
 11:21 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is it? exactly what form does this affiliation take? Do google pay to use the ODP dump or do they just take it free like everyone else?
You could say that Google own much to the ODP but do the ODP owe Google anything?

( not being retorical.... I really dont know )

It doesn't pay, it uses it free like all other sites. You can learn more about its license here: [dmoz.org...]

Google does mention on its site that a link from dmoz helps :
[google.com...]

Google partners on the Web include Yahoo! and Netscape. If you are having difficulty getting listed in the Google index, you may want to consider submitting your site to either or both of these directories. You can submit to Yahoo! by visiting [docs.yahoo.com...] You can submit your site to Netscape's Open Directory Project (DMOZ) by visiting www.dmoz.org. Once your site is included in either of these directories, Google will often index your site within six to eight weeks.

nippi




msg:488680
 11:35 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've reported hepas of cases of abuse to dmoz

Never got a response.
Never made a difference.

In fact, I've never got a response from dmoz to anything.
Ever.

Regardless, this is not my point. In such an open forum(DMOZ), I would have expeced more checks and balances, not reliance on abuse reports and fair play.

People, do not play fair.

Why expect that DMOZ editors will? More and more dmoz is becoming a powerdul source of SE rankings. Why not EXPECT editors to be biased and prevent it, rather than wait for it to happen and only have a reporting system to combat it?

Perplexed




msg:488681
 11:44 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

O K, so lets have a look at this.

I cannot pretend to know the intimate history of the ODP but I guess it might go something like....

A couple of guys deside to set up a web directory to help catalogue the web and provide valuable information to surfers. Everything is going to be free, no advertising, and when it starts to get busy they start taking on volunteer editors.

Everything goes well and the ODP assumes an important position on the web. So much so that when Google come along they decide to make it the basis of their directory and search. ( not sure where netscape come into this historically )

Google grows and quickly becomes the most important search engine out there. Guys who set up the ODP are feeling quite chuffed that they were chosen, but suddenly getting into their nice directory becomes super important to the cut throat SEO industry. Everyone and their uncles want their sites listed even when they are not strictly entitled, preferably more than once.

It's easy to see where this is going.... Its going to exactly where the ODP is now.

Like I said guys... Cut them some slack. If your site isn't strictly cosha... dont wwste their time. If you want them to have more editors... get in there yourself. If you think they are corrupt... get in there and water the corruption down.

Basically, if you cant be bothered to improve it. Dont knock it.

nippi




msg:488682
 11:47 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

"No editor means no listing, often the relevant category does not have 3 or more relevant unlisted sites so you can not even apply to be an editor succesfully."

this is my problem in many cases.

No opportunity to water down.

Imaster




msg:488683
 11:48 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you think they are corrupt... get in there and water the corruption down.

Basically, if you cant be bothered to improve it. Dont knock it.

Why don't you try it out for yourself and share with us your experience :) We await hearing from you :)

kaled




msg:488684
 11:58 am on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that only purpose DMOZ serves is as a source of backlinks. How many users actually go to DMOZ when they are looking for something? I'm guessing but I'd say probably less than 1%.

The FACT that DMOZ is permanently out of date in many categories (and getting more so by the day) can only drag down the quality of the results from search engines that rely on it.

The time will come eventually when DMOZ is either made commercial or it dies altogether. I'd be happy to see it die.

Kaled.

nippi




msg:488685
 12:02 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

less than 1% by far

nippi




msg:488686
 12:07 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

OK

Except editors often are "there" but are not.
Editors up the tree don't act on anything other than direct requests, they ignore repeated attempts to lodge in a "lower branch" with no direct editor.

By your comments Victor I'm betting you are an edit all? Can I send you the list of URL's that have been ignored for at least 3 months?

Perplexed




msg:488687
 12:16 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

"The time will come eventually when DMOZ is either made commercial or it dies altogether. I'd be happy to see it die. "

And then Google will swop to another directory, lets call it fred-beatle, and then 12 months down the line we will be in the same place but with a longer name to type.

tobstar




msg:488688
 12:50 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

There are clearly two camps in this arguement. The people who think that DMOZ is an excellent resource and those who think that itís a total waste of time and space.

The problem is that DMOZ has a major part to play in the WWW. If it was simply a stand alone directory no would give a monkeys but the fact it supplies the directory for the biggest SE in the world means it damn important. And you simply canít argue with that. And you certainly shouldnít argue with the fact that the site doesnít work properly / as it should.

Here a little theoretical situation for you.

Lets say Google starts to take a minute to complete a search and sometimes didnít even load. Would users stand for this? I think not. The point is that we have to accept the fact DMOZ is the directory for Google but we donít have to like it.

For over two years now DMOZ say they KNOW of the problems and are implenting servers. In my opinion its got worse.

In a complaint to a head honcho at Google the response I got was "the engineers are looking into it". Great Iíll hold my breath then shall I?

In a more derogatory comment I think that most defenders of the ODP are probably editors and secondly they edit the Category that their sites are in. I'm not indicating favourtism but their cats probably have a decent turnaround time, unlike ANY that Iím sat in the queue for!

kaled




msg:488689
 1:35 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

There are clearly two camps in this arguement. The people who think that DMOZ is an excellent resource and those who think that itís a total waste of time and space.

It's not unusual for me - I'm in a third category. I think that DMOZ is worse that a waste of space. I think it actually harms search engine results in many categories.

Directories like DMOZ may have served a purpose once but I cannot see that they serve much of purpose now other than providing backlinks. However, if you are unable to get listed because a category has no editor (or one that is too busy to do anything) then DMOZ is actually working against you by putting you at a disadvantage compared to the established competition. It is also working against search engines that provide poorer results and working against users who see those poorer search results. If DMOZ vanished tomorrow, search results would probably improve in many categories.

I suspect that many of the people who use these directories most are in business and use them to help track the competition. Who, out of the general population, actually uses these directories? If DMOZ were uptodate, I would not have a problem with it since it would be providing a level playing field, but that is simply not the case and I very much doubt that it will improve in this regard.

So, to the supporters of DMOZ I ask this question - what purpose does it serve other than to provide backlinks? Suppose it used javascript links exclusively (and those links were ignored by serach engines) would anyone actually bother submitting to DMOZ? I don't think so.

Kaled.

TheRealTerry




msg:488690
 2:09 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

And people wonder why editors don't respond to emails...

Here's the scoop: DMOZ encourages editors to not answer all emails personally. Why? Because people get real nasty over something the editors are volunteering their free time to do (which is a real awful attitude to have guys) and on many occassions editors end up getting electronically stalked. These editors work hard, and you complain some cats don't have an editor? Well that's why they work hard! They have to handle their own cat and then work on the ones below them. If you have a problem with that, then stop whining and volunteer YOUR time to edit that category! How completely obnoxious can you be? You complain volunteer editors aren't jumping all over YOUR one listing when a cat has 80 unrevieweds because nobody else is volunteering to help?

Honestly, put a sock in it and step up to the plate and do your part instead of whining like a 2 year old if you are so concerned. If you have the time to post here about it, then you have the time to put some work in at DMOZ.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this attitude is ridiculous.

hughy1




msg:488691
 2:18 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google gives priority to dmoz because that is part of its contract with aol who bought dmoz and wanted to put it to use . Google made dmoz their directory the same time they started doing searches for aol. Is it better? I guess the theory that a human eye sees something and evaluates it is better than all the spam .If aol ever drops google then all of this priority with dmoz pages might change.The only thing is that google doesn't appear to be updating with the regularity as before , remember when once a month you could count on the google spider to have gone through your pages well , that's no more and alot of expired dmoz domains are back at the top in different categories.

John_Creed




msg:488692
 2:42 pm on Aug 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

It would be a good idea for Google to buy DMOZ. Or start its own directory. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

But to answer the question of why Google uses DMOZ; Well, because DMOZ is currently by FAR the best directory of websites on the internet.

2) Its philosophy. You just can not have amateur editors that are free from political and selfish motivations.

Have you tried becomming an editor and helping to improve the directory?

I think the philosophy is great.

ODP needs to drop this in favor of a Zeal / Yahoo type approach where editors are hired, commercial sites charged to submit, and non-commercial added for free.

Have you ever tried submitting a good site to Yahoo, which is 100% appropriate to a catagory - and by using the free submit option?

Yahoo doesn't list sites unless they pay. The Yahoo directory is an awful resource.

This 62 message thread spans 3 pages: 62 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved