| 4:14 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, you can do well without an ODP entry.
A link from dmoz.org is just like a link from anywhere else. However, many sites don't have any decent links other than from dmoz.org, so that link to important to them even though Google doesn't give it extra weighting.
| 4:20 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks, that's what I figured, but I was getting worried, because the drop for my non-DMOZ sites was so abrupt and that was the main difference between the sites that were doing well on google and the ones that weren't. I'll continue to try to get into DMOZ but spend more time getting more quality links in.
| 4:25 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One thing to consider is that although the link from dmoz may have the same weight in terms of anchor text and PR transfer as any other link, there is something far more important to dmoz.
That important part is that a link from dmoz clearly defines your site's category. Google ranking is heavily dependent on topic related links now. The dmoz link provides a highly relevant, on topic, one way link. It can't get better than that.
| 4:36 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree that a DMOZ listing is great, but every time I spend ages finding the most appropriate category for my sites there's no blinking editor. So the whole thing ends up being bull****.
I find it so disappointing that such an inelegant resource with such a flawed business model can basically make or break sites with smaller budgets ... mom and pop etc.
What's the point of them trying to keep it free if it's crippling their ability to deliver?
| 4:48 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I gave up getting a link from DMOZ about one and half year ago.
Some of my sites are sill doing OK even after a few rough updates WITHOUT DMOZ links.
So, if you can get decent links from somewhere else, don't stick to DMOZ too much.
| 4:55 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You sound frustated by your experience with the ODP.
So you can probably imagine equally well the frustation that comes from this:
No matter how many times OPD editors make the point that every category has at least 200 people who can edit in it someone will always repeat the mis-information that certain categories have no editors.
It's mis-infornmation, and suggests the person repeating it has litlle understanding of the OPD
Read some of the FAQs and discussions over at the site that cannot be mentioned on WMW, clear your head of misinformation, and perhaps it will improve the prospects of finding the best way to get your sites listed on the OPD.
| 5:00 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For long term viability it's important to receive a good quantity of quality inbounds- and not just from the same site. Don't sweat about getting into dmoz and concentrate on building a great site and cultivating those links.
Doomed without DMOZ? Nah. You can do quite well without dmoz.
| 5:05 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A lot of people misunderstand the point behind the ODP... I'm hoping that now that Google is devaluing their own mirror of the ODP, this misconception will taper off. In a nutshell, the ODP is a directory, not a website listing service; and so its customers are those who use the directory, not webmasters who submit sites; and so the goal is to list as many good sites as we can every day, not to get our submissions queue down to zero. I know that's unwelcome news to many, but with the Google coupling gone now it should be easier to see the ODP as simply one link from a prestigious site--not unlike winning an award from a "best of the web" site, always nice, hardly essential, not an appropriate goal for every website out there.
My personal feeling is that an ODP listing is useful for some types of sites much more than others. If you are author Robin Roe, for example, and you have a website about your own work, you'll find there's a crowded and largrly useless field of Amazon affiliate links to your book, sites supposedly full of "Robin Roe quotes" and "Robin Roe book reviews" and "Author Robin Roe" which have nothing to do with you and are simply mass-produced spam pages driving people to a quotes site, a bookseller that doesn't even carry your book, and a search page. What a mess! However, none of these sites have ANY on-topic links to them, so if the ODP links to your site and a New York Times review of your book and a poem of yours from the New Republic, those three sites will jump to the top of a search for your name; the ODP category itself will likely be found by many searchers; and hits straight from the ODP itself may even be valuable, since librarian sorts often use directories. When I work in Literature categories, I can see my work having an effect in making content sites more accessible to people trying to learn about those authors. It's very satisfying.
On the other hand, if you're Nora Noe's SEO Shop, I don't know that a listing in Web_Design_and_Development would help you at all. It's a PR5 page with 569 links on it. Does Google even bother spidering that many? Will it have any PR benefit for you even if it does? Is there anyone in the universe who finds an SEO company by paging through the alphabet in a directory, and would they ever reach N if they did? And besides, doesn't every competent SEO company in existence already have at least a hundred links from other places pointed to their site? How could one link from this page EVER propel you above one of your competitors? Work in a category like this almost seems fruitless to me as an editor; it won't help to categorize the web in useful ways, it won't make anything more accessible to anyone. All processing the unreviewed queue in these categories will do is please webmasters--and not even because it helps interested people find their sites more easily, just because they *believe* it's useful somehow, or maybe they like to point out the listing to their clients. Obviously, this isn't our goal.
If submissions to some large and supersaturated commercial categories seem to move like molasses in the ODP while submissions to regional, informational, niche shopping, and topical categories seem to whizz through, maybe it's because there are other editors who feel, as I do, that working on the latter kind of categories is directly improving the Internet whereas the former sometimes has the feel of pushing a boulder uselessly up the hill over and over again. If I spent an hour sorting through submissions by web designers beginning with N (almost all of which are invidious spam) and end up publishing Nora's site, the odds of anyone who's looking for her site connecting with it as a result of my work are small. All my hard work probably hasn't even benefited Nora at all, and certainly hasn't benefited anyone else. Is it any wonder I choose to spend that time listing 20 sites like Robin Roe's instead? I am, after all, a volunteer. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't want to have a positive effect.
| 5:23 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Some people like the ODP, others don't. Some people think that Google should give dmoz.org links a boost, others don't. rover's asking whether there is some kind of DMoz boost in Google.
finer9, an official response? I don't remember reading any but I have looked into Google's treatment of links a fair bit and I haven't seen any signs of sites being doomed without DMoz.
As martinibuster says, "Nah".
| 5:25 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy has expressly stated that there is no special treatment of DMOZ links. I see no reason to doubt his honesty on that.
| 5:27 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You dont need a dmoz link to rank well in Google.
Ok its great if you can get in but we all know how difficult it can be and some people get stressed out believing it to be a vital component. It isnt.
You can compete even in bear pit industries without a dmoz link. Stick to basic google freindly seo (if there is there such a thing nowadays), stick to workable linking strategies and dont sweat about dmoz.
| 5:30 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a site in the absolute opposite situation - in DMOZ, PR6 yet almost NO Google traffic. Oh well, yet another generalization...
| 5:32 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Hmmm...have you tried volunteering to edit a category? |
Hmmm...either I miss something but as far as I know I have better chance winning the lotto than getting to be a dmoz editor.
Besides, ODP is a dying directory. At this age and time, the system still maintains a semi-draconian-dictatorship with 'no appeal' process...
Which means 'the listing' is a 'final' subjective opinion of the editor.
Hmmm...maybe, I should delete my competition because it is affiliated to something while I maintain my own affiliate site.
Rules? What rules? Staff @ dmoz.org is non-existence perhaps just created as email black hole.
Too much importance given to ODP that it is more becoming a magnet to Editors who have conflicting personal interest on the category they edit.
Google should drop ODP and maintain its own directory. They have the resources to police and develop a quality directory.
As far as I'm concern, DMOZ is doomed!
| 5:41 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|They have the resources to police and develop a quality directory. |
But who cares?
Do lots and lots of people use the directory? Is it integral to Google's strategy in the long-term? No, and probably not.
For some reason, webmasters get upset about the DMOZ. They worry and worry and yell that it is a dictatorship and complain and **** and moan.
What you fail to realize is that the DMOZ is there for the pleasure of a bunch of editors that like categorizing the web as a hobby. That's it. It's not there for you, it's not there for me, and it's not there for Google. This is the reality of the situation, and it won't change. Stop complaining.
I think it was HughMungus in a thread last week that said something like "I used to worry about this, but then realized I was spending too much time worrying about things that affected me only peripherally and not enough time building businesses."
Go build your business. The only thing a DMOZ link is worth to you is PR. Go out there, find the PR of the cat you think you should be in, and go buy a link of equal or greater PR. Problem solved.
| 5:57 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks very much for all of these insights. I always assumed that Google would give some extra weight to DMOZ because the site needs to get through a human review process to get included in DMOZ, but I also have to think that Google understands that it has some very serious limitations as were pointed out here.
I think the majority of the ODP editors do a great job, but I think even the good ODP editors would admit there are some that are unusually harsh. Just reading a sampling of the editor posts at their forum will quickly confirm this for anyone.
I'll still try to get my sites on DMOZ, but I won't waste a lot of time or extra worry about it with regard to its impact on my Google SERPS.
| 6:00 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a domain that's #1 in Google for its most important keyphrase. It has a toolbar PR of 6, and it's listed in DMOZ.
I have another domain that's #1 in Google for its most competitive keyphrase. It has a toolbar PR of 6, and it is NOT listed in DMOZ.
What do I conclude? That a DMOZ listing doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help all that much either.
| 6:00 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>GoogleGuy has expressly stated that there is no special treatment of DMOZ links. I see no reason to doubt his honesty on that.
ROFLMAO ... Yea he tells some real whoppers some times. That was one of the biggest whoppers that I remember reading in quite a while.
| 6:08 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|That was one of the biggest whoppers that I remember reading in quite a while. |
Can you disprove it? If so, I (and a lot of other people here) would like to see the proof.
| 6:11 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What you fail to realize is that the DMOZ is there for the pleasure of a bunch of editors that like categorizing the web as a hobby. |
you forgot something and whether you like it or not...editors are there to advance their own site interest as well.
because whether you care or not as long as Google and other SEs factor ODP in their algo there would be always financial interest riding in the ODP listing.
If suddenly ODP losses its importance and ignored by SEs, do you think webmasters would even talk about ODP?
Get a grip the 'hobby mantra' is outdated. If ODP is really serious about the hobby crap then it should stop promoting itself by disallowing spiders and discontinuing the ODP dump.
But of course, you want the whole world to see your 'hobby directory'.
By the mere act of distributing the ODP result is an acceptance that ODP is not a hobby directory.
| 6:13 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm glad pro-ODP people took the time to reply in such detail to my dismissive post. Thank you.
Sure I've read the guidelines and the help files.
I think it comes down to budget quite a lot with regard to the importance of an ODP listing. If a site has a reasonable budget then time can be spent finding alternative resources to cover the PR gain that's so handy. But if a small 'mom and pop' site (which are the ones I get so frustrated for) can't get an ODP listing and their web designer is running a few directory submissions for them but can't justify spending a lot of time on the project because they're not a fat-cat SEO with a mega-bucks salary then it can really harm that site. Every single link requests really counts for a lot in these situations.
These sort of sites have value, and the business that owns the site has value, and the service of the web designer who doubles up as SEO has value. It's a whole level of the market, online and offline, a whole swathe of the web sites that make up the whole. Just because they've got a little budget doesn't mean they're not good.
| 6:14 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>What do I conclude? That a DMOZ listing doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help all that much either.
In a pigs eye. It is already common knowledge that DMOZ is the way to the top in Google now and about the only way to get past the mom and pop filter. There is also a very thriving market reselling defunct DMOZ listed sites because of this non-sense.
| 6:24 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|editors are there to advance their own site interest as well. |
As an editor, and a capitalist, I can say "Yes sir, that is correct."
A lot of high-paid executives take up golf as a hobby, too.
|because whether you care or not as long as Google and other SEs factor ODP in their algo there would be always financial interest riding in the ODP listing. |
No, this happens for the same reason that some SEOers still sell meta-tag analysis for SEO.
The DMOZ thing gets started because people see the directory listing show up in SERPs. They investigate, and wonder where it comes from. Then, they find that the Google Directory is seeded by the ODP. They see one thing that they don't have, assume that's the reason they're at #30 instead of #1, and start screaming: OH MY GOD! THE NUMBER ONE SITE IN THE SERP HAS AN ODP LISTING. THAT'S HOW THEY GOT TO THE TOP! I NEED TO DO THAT! I CAN'T DO THAT! THEY WON'T ACCEPT ME! DMOZ IS EVIL! AHHH. #@^$#^$#^#$^#$^
And the (real, good, with no motive, unlike me) DMOZ editors saying "leave me alone, it's a hobby" is nonsense? Ha!
|Every single link requests really counts for a lot in these situations. |
Why not consider black arts? Blog spam, referrer spam, guestbook spam. Good way to get 1500 links in less than a day.
Don't want to do that? Well, then, it sucks. Most mom and pops can't afford to run a superbowl commercial, either.
|It is already common knowledge that DMOZ is the way to the top in Google now and about the only way to get past the mom and pop filter. |
Prove it. Don't show me quotes, show me evidence. Show me statistics and numbers. Because I can prove the opposite.
[edited by: bakedjake at 6:30 pm (utc) on April 9, 2004]
| 6:29 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Don't show me quotes, show me evidence. Show me statistics and numbers.
Blow hard huh.
| 6:33 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you know me, you know I talk a lot. :)
Other than that, I'm just tired of the misinformation, stupidity, and downright ignorance on this topic.
A link is a link is a link.
| 6:34 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not an adequate answer. If you're going to make an assertion be prepared to back it up.
bakedjake is a well known professional who is highly regarded in the industry. He's not blowing smoke. He's telling you the way things are.
| 6:37 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> already common knowledge that DMOZ is the way to the top in Google now
Just as it's common knowledge that search engine success comes from META keywords (but only if you use commas) and submiting to 10,000 search engines? :-)
There is correlation between ODP inclusion and Google ranking, just as there's correlation between market cap and Google ranking, between age of site and Google ranking and between length of domain and Google ranking.
Correlation does not imply causality.
> and about the only way to get past the mom and pop filter
| 6:39 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Correlation does not imply causality. |
Thanks, Calum, for saying what I was trying to say in one sentence. ;-)
| 6:44 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|In a pigs eye. It is already common knowledge that DMOZ is the way to the top in Google now and about the only way to get past the mom and pop filter. |
Dang. I wonder how long I'll be able to keep the #1 ranking for my mom-and-pop site that isn't listed in DMOZ? :-)
| 6:53 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Conversely, I demand top position for my site that is in DMOZ. A pox on the non-DMOZ listed sites hogging all the top results in that ultra-competitive webhosting category. ;)
| This 88 message thread spans 3 pages: 88 (  2 3 ) > > |