| 1:53 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
LOL, :) congrats delphian Eventually things tend to work out.
So what did you do, what did you write about? What unique spin did you put on whatever got listed to make it attractive to the editor who reviewed it? Got any tips for anyone else trying to figure out what it takes to get in?
| 2:15 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Ok, how long does Google and Yahoo take to update their feeds of dmoz? |
The RDF dump, and G directory update, etc, can take a while, but G and Y are crawling the ODP on a regular basis, so the backlink worth should kick in fairly soon. But, of course, everything crawls DMOZ on a regular basis, so you can expect to start appearing in many scraper sites in the very near future... ;-)
Congrats, man. Well done. Now, aim for the Y directory.
| 2:17 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I was listed in about 40 days.
| 4:03 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I didn't think threads about individual sites were allowed.
| 4:23 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A very vital clue there for anyone else trying to get in:
> (quite original content on the page that got listed though, go figure huh? ;-) )
|Adversity Sure Fire|
| 4:24 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Its very good news and i am very happy that you finally got DMOZ listing...
I am trying from the long time to get listed but still have to wait...
Can you tell me any point which may help to get listed finally...
| 4:54 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I actually don't think any of my submiting to DMOZ had any effect on me getting listed. The page that got listed was a subpage, only recently added to my site about a month ago. I was quite shocked when I searched DMOZ and found my subpage in a category I never thought about submiting to. There was no tricks involved, I wasnt even thinking about DMOZ when I created the page, just seemed like a cool thing to provide for my visitors. Nobody else was providing it in the local area.
Sorry If posting about my experience was against the rules, just very excited.
| 4:57 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Posting your experience is not against the rules, specific keywords and URL drops are strongly discouraged.
| 6:37 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I wasnt even thinking about DMOZ when I created the page, just seemed like a cool thing to provide for my visitors.
Now the secret's out, and there's no way to kill you all.
I hate it when that happens.
| 5:33 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess I can expect all the sites I've created without thinking about DMOZ to suddenly appear in their index one of these years.
Gee, I hope not. I'd prefer not to be associated with that directory.
| 6:43 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> don't think any of my submiting to DMOZ had any
> effect on me getting listed.
I wouldn't bet against that thought, not even a penny.
I don't keep score, but as a pure guesstimate I imagine I've added more sites based on coming across them on my own than I've added from submissions. Of course, I don't edit any significant commerce cats, and well, surprise, surprise, submissions are only slightly higher than a non-existent level in the corner of the ODP where I rest my stave.
| 6:57 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good for you for getting listed, delphinian, and the witty post!
| 8:49 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If the sites are good enough to add value to a category, then yes - there is a chance an editor will find and list them.
|I guess I can expect all the sites I've created without thinking about DMOZ to suddenly appear in their index one of these years. |
| 1:33 am on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Posting your experience is not against the rules |
His "experience"? Did you read the opening post? He announced getting a listing for no reason he can figure and no particularly unique effort he can describe.
| 1:58 am on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> He announced getting a listing for no reason he can figure and no particularly unique effort he can describe.
Get a life! So many of us post all the time about things we can't figure (although we're putting in all the effort we can). Go hide in a cupboard if you can't understand why delphian is happy.
Good on ya, delphian, even if you don't have a clue why you've made it.
| 1:11 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'll bet that we list several hundred sites per day that were never submitted by their owners.
I'll bet we have listed tens of thousands of sites whose owners have no idea that they are even listed.
| 1:33 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|He announced getting a listing for no reason he can figure and no particularly unique effort he can describe. |
Which serves as a reminder to webmasters that dmoz listings do sometimes happen by their own volition.
Threads like this which are complimentary to dmoz do help balance out the dmoz-bashing sessions which pop up from time to time.
The excitement of the OP is irrelevant to that (good for you delphian), let him share his moment - it's an important aspect of what communities like WebmasterWorld are all about.
| 2:03 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm happy for anyone that can get into DMOZ. I'm still trying to get my main website in. Still waiting.
| 2:08 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Which serves as a reminder to webmasters that dmoz listings do sometimes happen by their own volition.
Not only does this happen, it likely is very common in some categories. If a webmaster has dreams of getting rich selling widgets on the Net, odds are very high he'll submitted his site to the ODP because that is standard advice on every "SEO for Dummies" sites. However, if some amateur puts up a website about her favorite musical band, she probably hasn't even considered SEO, or read the "SEO for Dummies" websites. Given the vast majority of people on the Net aren't even aware of the ODP, odds an amateur who puts up a website about her favorite musical band doesn't even know the URL dmoz.org to be able to submit her site there. As such a lot of cats where amateur sites are listed would be near empty if editors didn't search around for potential sites to add.
| 2:40 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hope I'm not being off-topic, and I'm sure it's been noted before, but I was just thinking about something. Google prides itself on being completely algorithm-based, with no human editing interference whatsoever (except perhaps for manual pulls in response to DMCA complaints).
Yet it relies heavily on the human-edited DMOZ, almost to the point that DMOZ is Google's backbone it seems sometimes, so much so that the 2-sentence blurb Google displays for my site is not taken from meta tags or other site content, but straight from DMOZ (mangled English and all, written by a totally unreachable Singaporean editor).
Google sez there's no human intervention, then heavily relies on human intervention, via 2nd party proxy.
| 6:27 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it's been noted before: in fact, it's a common combination of two common misapprehensions.
First, there's a difference between Google search, (which is, as you say, algorithmic) and Google directory. Google directory depends entirely on the ODP (the data dump), Google search ranking does not use the data dump at all, and give dmoz.org the same algorithmic treatment as any other site.
So saying that "Google" depends on the ODP is really mixing cedar apples and pineapples.
Secondly, the relationship between two different approaches to indexing the web is complementary, not competitive. If you're used to thinking of the world in zero-sum terms (someone who used their directory DIDN'T USE MY SEARCH and therefore deprived me of advertising revenue), this is something you'll miss. But look at it from the consumer point of view, and the world looks completely different. Now it's all about freedom and choices, and being free to choose the best way to do what you want to do. It would be really really stupid for Google to have two sites, each using EXACTLY THE SAME web indexing information! No, the whole point of using the ODP is that its methods and results and advantages are so different from what Google gets from other sources.
This principle doesn't just apply to the ODP. Now Google is basically offering phone directories: a database of phone numbers indexed by address: is that not a basic contradiction to their web services (since it doesn't even index websites!)? Or is it another, complementary service?
Don't think of Google as a search engine. Don't think of them as a phone book. Don't think of them as a directory. That's not how they think of themselves. Think of them as the world's most efficient provider of access to truly massive databases. Think of them as looking for databases to provide access to; think of them as looking for more different methods of effectively accessing those databases. The ODP and the Yellow Pages are (by Google's standards) tiny databases that might make it easier for someone, somewhere, to access information. Therefore they're good grist for the Google mills.