| 12:25 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm getting 9. Does this cache?
| 12:38 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not that I don't think PR 10 is deserved by DMOZ ... but I am more curious about the possibility that perhaps G needed to replace Y's "previous PR value" in order to balance their data base (in respect to all web sites across the board) and repair the damage done by the drop in PR created by Y's devaluation?
Did anyone follow that? :)
| 12:46 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see DMOZ at 10 aswell.
| 12:48 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
what datacenter you ppl using for your toolbar?
| 2:00 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just got 7/10 for [dmoz.com...] and 6/10 for [dmoz.com...]
I don't hardwire, I just use whatever DNS resolves to.
| 2:02 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm getting 9. Does this cache? |
They have 2 servers for the visitor side or maybe 3, I forget now. I will have to check that out.
| 2:11 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ used to be a 10 more than a year ago, and I'm pretty sure it going back to a 10 is in large part due to much much better crawling and cacheing of DMOZ this time around. Gone (I think) are all the ancient page caches from August that had been hanging around.
343,000 backlinks. I think that is up about 45,000 or so (but that is just from memory).
| 4:18 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is the first PR10 I've ever saw, apart from Google... I don't surf with G bar on though.
| 5:04 am on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
blaze, it's dmoz.ORG.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 4:41 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Interesting: 5700 links to www.dmoz.com.
| 6:10 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>This is the first PR10 I've ever saw, apart from Google
Here's a few that fluctuate:
I think if you search for http it used to list the high PR pages. Not sure if this is still the case.
| 6:15 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
dmoz.com is a valid address, so links to there are okay - it is just not the "main" one.
Btw: Quite some time ago, there was even a PR of 11, which was obviously manually assigned to dmoz and google. So it is not "first time ever" :-)
| 6:43 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I linked to dmoz.org earlier this month from one of my sites, maybe thats got something to do with it :)
| 8:06 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If Google cared about their users, they'd make DMOZ have a page rank of 12.
| 2:50 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The constant cheerleading for dmoz on this thread is pathetic.
| 6:08 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah. Call out the pom-pon girls to break the monotony. ;)
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 8:19 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> constant cheerleading for dmoz on this thread
I see something that might be regarded as "cheerleading" in messages #1 and #15 and perhaps a very tiny bit in #3. When a huge website with many incoming links raises its PR from 9 to 10 you should not be surprised that two people express enthusiasm and one person expresses respect. You could diminish your personal problems with that by simply staying away from a thread with a title like the present one.
| 10:33 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When a huge website with many incoming links raises its PR from 9 to 10 you should not be surprised that two people express enthusiasm and one person expresses respect. |
That would not be an issue if it were really coming from dmoz users. What I find distasteful is plugging your site on forums for your own benefit. Clearly those posting here are dmoz editors or staff. Other sites are not allowed to promote their web sites because it is against the policies of webmasterworld. Why should you be able to get away with it.
| 10:50 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Other sites are not allowed to promote their web sites because it is against the policies of webmasterworld. Why should you be able to get away with it. |
Lemme see... probably because it is the largest human edited directory on the web and SE's like Yahoo, Google, and yes even smaller engines like Gigablast can be mentioned along with other SE's and directories. This is not personal promotion of one's site (which is against TOS).
| 11:12 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Clearly those posting here are dmoz editors or staff
Actually, as far as I know neither Conroy, Liane, or LizardGroupie are editors at the ODP. Could be wrong about that, but it doesn't look to me like the ones who tipped their hats are editors.
| 11:26 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Although I recognise certain editors in this thread, they are not the ones doing the cheerleading. (I have my own regularly changing theories about the identity of Lizardgroupie...;)
But anyway, the topic of DMOZ PageRank is a legitimate one for a webmaster forum, since it is one of the widest linking mechanisms on the web and therefore has an important and far-reaching influence (even though many editors prefer to turn a blind eye to this). If partial trees don't get spidered properly, then that has a cascading effect on the algo sums for many websites - especially for those who are not as au fait with link popularity as most of the members of this forum.
<include rfgdxm1's usual post about nephew's website being better than ODP here />
Although there may be other and better ways to promote your business or interest, when DMOZ sneezes a lot of Mom and Pop sites catch a cold.
| 11:36 am on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dmoz used to be a pr10 about a year or so ago.
| 2:33 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Itís a nice pat on the back to the editors who have busted their butts for so long. Itís a thankless job and they most certainly deserve a PR 10.
| 6:39 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The entire directory content has been converted to UTF-8 over the last few months. After converting 4 MILLION entries, there were about 20 000 encoding errors and glitches remaining, and all but the last few hundred have been fixed by hand or by running selective scripts in the last couple of weeks. Expect spidering of the ODP to improve a little more now, as well as usage of the RDF files produced from the end of the month onwards to be easier to handle too. A lot of work has gone into the conversion, and there are just a few glitches here and there to correct.
| 12:43 am on Apr 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|<include rfgdxm1's usual post about nephew's website being better than ODP here> |
Maybe his nephew linked to dmoz.org ;)
| 5:07 pm on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ensure it stays PR10 by linking to the site :)
| 5:59 pm on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Not that I don't think PR 10 is deserved by DMOZ |
Let's get the record straight! I am not a cheerleader and prefaced my comment with the above in an effort to head off yet another nauseatingly boring thread full of pot shots against the DMOZ. To be truthful, what I think or don't think about the DMOZ could fit into a thimble. I simply don't think about it very often.
I am not a DMOZ editor, never have been and likely never will be. The DMOZ web site and editors serve a purpose and considering that all is done voluntarily, I think they do a respectable job. Yes, we all know it has its problems ... now can we move on?
The point I was trying to make was that I felt the PR 10 was rather suspect considering the timing of the drop in Yahoo's PR and what that drop would do to all sites ... world wide and Google's PR database.
The ramifications of lowering Yahoo's PR are staggering and it is my own personal belief that Google had to "somehow" fill the void. DMOZ was a handy option. :)
| 6:23 pm on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Iím not a DMOZ editor as well; Iím a Skaffe partner and own WoW Directory. I donít think the so called cheerleading was done by DMOZ editors. Just by individuals who respect the efforts and accomplishments of DMOZ.
| 6:33 pm on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It certainly had an effect on one of my old test-bed sites. When dmoz went to PR10, because my test site is listed only one level down in dmoz, the home page became PR8 and the links page went to PR7. Apart from running adsense I haven't really touched it for ages - just goes to show - you can get what you want but not always where you want it!
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |