homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.77.156
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 > >     
Getting Listed in DMOZ
Difficult, Difficult, Difficult
dwebb01




msg:486160
 8:01 pm on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi there,
I am new here, glad to join such a wide range of intelligent people. I have been building websites for a couple of years, and now I am trying to become a better marketer. One of my biggest issues is Google PR. I though it would help to get into DMOZ, but what a pain. Either my site gets denied, or there is not an editor for a category, so I never hear anything. Anyone have any suggestions to building PR using Directory other then DMOZ, and any great tips for getting into DMOZ?

 

Eltiti




msg:486190
 1:19 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

There are maybe ~12 sites in the level of my category

I suspect you mean that 12 sites are currently listed in that category. However, there may be many more waiting in the queue for the category!

Lorel




msg:486191
 1:40 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)


Oh, I thought that only the status requests had been discontinued...

I stand corrected :o) but for those of us waiting for over a year to see several sites accepted it might as well be closed.

pcgamez




msg:486192
 2:12 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Eltiti - Sorry, I thought that was clear. I am quite aware that there are probably a thousand sites in the queue. I'd be happy to do it, but their application process is such a hugh pita that it is not worth it.

Jane_Doe




msg:486193
 3:14 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

There are lots of directories out there besides DMOZ. DMOZ listings are always a plus, but there are lots of other ways to good links.

Rossv1




msg:486194
 4:28 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I also have a quality, on topic site that has been waiting 3 years for a listing. No 404's, clean design, no pops, very few ads...and also very useful for its category. I gave up trying and moved on.

Eltiti




msg:486195
 9:22 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

for those of us waiting for over a year to see several sites accepted it might as well be closed.

Actually, when RZ still informed people about the status of their site suggestion, that did not influence the "processing" of these suggestions at all.

Editors have stated here that DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters; well, RZ is/was not a "speed listing service"! ;-)

Eltiti




msg:486196
 9:43 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Pcgamez: sorry, I misunderstood. Non-editors do (or should) not know how many sites are waiting to be reviewed, and it is a common error to assume that cats with few sites have short queues. (Hint: in some categories, only a dozen "real" suppliers exist --but they have about a gazillion affiliates...)

As for the difficulty of the application:

1) Find a cat that interests you, at the "appropriate" level for a new editor
2) Find three sites that would best fit in that cat but are not yet listed there
3) Create a "suggestion" for each of these sites that follows the Guidelines (summarized: title = official company name, URL = domain root, description without hype) and is free of errors
4) Be honest about (all of) your affiliations

Now, becoming the editor of the category where you would like your site to be listed may not always be possible --cf. 1). In that case, apply for another cat --at a lower level, or related to one of your hobbies, or...-- and you may well "get in". Then, if you do a really good job in the initial cat, you can ask for additional privileges!

A problem with many applicants is that they are only (or primarily) driven by a desire to list their own site, which is not the "ideal" motivation from ODP's POV...

Eltiti




msg:486197
 9:46 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I gave up trying and moved on.

Actually, that is (always) the right thing to do; there is no need for "trying"!

Suggest the site once, in the right category, and move on. Someone will eventually look at the suggestion and, if the site meets the criteria for inclusion, list it. (If not, not.)

tigger




msg:486198
 9:51 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>There are lots of directories out there besides DMOZ. DMOZ listings are always a plus, but there are lots of other ways to good links.

yep I gave up a long time ago, much better links and directories out their - as a side joke the last site I submitted took 2 years to get listed

RichTC




msg:486199
 1:50 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would agree that their are much better links available from other sites per link however, when you take into account all the mirror directory sites and clones etc that feed of the DMOZ junk i would say that a potential of 4000 back links a site per listing is possible hence its a dam usefull link to you!.

So if a site gets say 3 to 5 listings in DMOZ thats 12,000 to 20,000 back links. (now before anyone says 1 listing per site i have found several with a lot more! including subdomains!)

Google should count DMOZ as one link and all those clones should be removed as duplicate content on the net, or at least links on them be discounted!

The way i see it is that its time now for Google as its a public company to pull the plug on DMOZ or at least stop powering its directory with it. I would rather see google charge £1000 a listing in its directory than see it continue to feed off this biased directory.

DMOZ is full of corruption imo, editors editing their own cats and conveniently missing off competitors, editors messing with titles to ensure that competitor sites listed dont get anchor links, editors removing sites if the competitor is getting to big. Sorry but its a real problem!

Now before anyone connected with DMOZ reading this thread shouts "we are not all corrupt", i say the genuine editors are very thin on the ground. Where big money is involved you have corruption and some of the big keyword money sections in DMOZ suffer as a result - the directory is not in anyway regulated its a closed directory club - im amazed the metta editors havent got themselves a funny handshake sorted out yet!.

As i say google should drop all connections with it - its days are numbered its just a shame Google is still giving it priority.

Jane_Doe




msg:486200
 3:39 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google should count DMOZ as one link and all those clones should be removed as duplicate content on the net, or at least links on them be discounted!

If you go to the Google forum, I think that is exactly what they are trying to do. I lot of the DMOZ clone directories have gotten nuked over the last few months.

There are probably thousands of directories out there, many of them free, so with a little effort and a nice site, you can often get hundreds of free links even without a DMOZ listing.

Eltiti




msg:486201
 5:33 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

DMOZ is full of corruption imo

How were your well-docmented abuse reports handled?

editors editing their own cats

Yes, they do tend to do that (as opposed to editing in cats where they don't have access)...

Other, more cynical comments will have to wait for now --dinner's ready.

RichTC




msg:486202
 10:02 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Eltiti,

I look forward to your detailed reply.

In the meantime, who is in charge at DMOZ, who is at the top of the tree? Those editors in rz the majority of the time, are they at the top? Who regulates DMOZ?

Who can anyone truely complain to and get an unbiased 100% free judgement?

Sorry but as far as i can tell its a closed club, the way SOME editors treat webmasters is very poor, as mentioned here some do act as some kind of all powerfull God and have a bad attitude with a form of arrogance not seen elsewhere on the internet,or anywhere else for that matter, which is amazing considering they claim to be volunteering their time for the fun of it.

Sorry but if you genuinely enjoy doing something i.e. editing and you want to do it for free, because you love it so much, in order to help a growing project, normally you don’t act like an idiot quoting comments like some of the ones I have seen in RZ (in metaphors ) and go around treating loads of webmasters and would be editors like dirt. Normally you are nice about it because you ENJOY it!

As I say its time to pull the plug on it imo, some a small percentage of editors may well be working for the good of the internet (and you may well be one of them and you may well be genuinely making a difference) but sorry imo the rest are not doing something for nothing, they are indirectly controlling / influencing Google serps by approving or declining WHO THEY WANT in THEIR sector.

It would be interesting to see if DMOZ had a future and was so valuable as a directory with such quality editors if Google stopped using its data and discounted all links from clone dmoz directory sites to ZERO – Which is what it should do as a public company.

Sorry, but no one and I mean no one should be able to influence in even the smallest way if a website (someone’s business) ranks as a result of back links and lets face it bottom line this is what DMOZ is currently doing and this is why many, many webmasters want to either get listed and cant or get removed for no reason and why editors like the ones in rz act as they do.

With click rates as high as they currently are in Google and climbing the DMOZ problem can only get worse from here in relation to commercial sites imo

g1smd




msg:486203
 10:14 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> It would be interesting to see if DMOZ had a future and was so valuable as a directory with such quality editors if Google stopped using its data <<

Whether or not Google uses the data, the ODP will continue to grow at ~1000 sites per day. Without the "Google focus" by submitters perhaps the flood of low quality suggestions would all but dry up. To ODP editors that could only be a good thing.

Wikipedia, the Gutenburg Project, Sourceforge, and other large projects do not need Google to survive, and neither would the ODP.

>> Sorry, but no one and I mean no one should be able to influence in even the smallest way if a website (someone’s business) ranks as a result of back links <<

Every website that does or does not link to another website is having an effect on your ranking. Your ranking would also improve if whitehouse.gov gave you a link you know!

flicker




msg:486204
 11:41 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>As I say its time to pull the plug on it imo

You don't normally get the option of deleting other people's websites that you don't like, regardless of whether they're competitors, directories that don't list your site, or just some website with a horrifically awful color scheme; but you certainly don't have to use it. Why not just boycott it? Really, if you don't like the ODP and don't think it's valuable and think it's only getting less and less useful, then just don't use it and don't submit your site or your clients' sites to it and go patronize another directory. Why waste time with angsty rants? Let your fingers do the voting. *shrug*

RichTC




msg:486205
 1:21 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

flicker,

You see this is the sort of responce that DMOZ editors use ie along the lines of "if you dont like the directory dont use it" - If only it was that easy.

The sad facts are that currently Google rates this directory, uses it to power its own google directory and as Googles entire concept is based on links, sites listed in DMOZ and its related clone directory sites provide massive backlink numbers. ie a back link advantage from the offset for any site listed in DMOZ.

On a personal level, i dont use the DMOZ directory, i see little point in it because search is so good now from the main three players. Client sites that are listed in DMOZ see little traffic numbers from it anyway but a client site needs to be in it, just for the backlink advantage imo and this is why Google needs to detatch from it

cbpayne




msg:486206
 1:38 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

this is why Google needs to detatch from it

I hope I am not breaking WebmasterWorld TOS by posting this quote which is omething I wrote in another forum:
Apart from the Google Directory, we really have no idea what weight Google give to a DMOZ listing - opinions vary from "its just a link" to "can't get ranked without it". Judging by all the bashing that goes on, DMOZ must be important. Judging by the desperat lengths some go it to get listings (or multiple listings), it must be important. Judging by all the criticisms, it must be important ..

Google are a big company, they will have a lot of staff devoted to the search algorithm and quality control of search results. If they do or do not give an extra weight to a DMOZ listing or not, they will know exactly what effect turning the DMOZ knob in either direction on the algorithm will have on the "global" quality of search results. If they do give extra weight to a DMOZ listing (and I have no idea if they do), then it will be because their search engineers have determined its beneficial to do so as it improves the global quality of the search results.

Google will or will not keep using DMOZ as long as it has a global positive effect on the search results and we know they are forever testing algorithm tweaks and I think we can assume that his might include DMOZ (or maybe their clone of DMOZ). No amount of DMOZ bashing and wishful thinking in forums or articles or claims (without evidence) about corruption or campaigns to get Google to drop DMOZ (how many have been attempted now?) will work - Google will trust their own testing.

At the height of the DMOZ bashing 9-12 months ago, rather than drop DMOZ, Google did the opposite! They started using the DMOZ site descriptions in the search results in some circumstances. Again some of the bashers were up in arms about this and wanted to campaign to get Google to stop it (since when has any campaign changed Google - remeber the jew watch issue?) ... Google are a big company, they monitor search quality, click thrus etc etc. In their testing they obviously reached the conclusion that better quality search results were provided to the user if the DMOZ description was used rather than the "misleading" SEO manipulated ones....

Google will drop DMOZ the minute their testing shows it no longer provides a benefit to the Google user.


Google won't "drop" DMOZ because of disgruntled webmasters complaining that DMOZ is not meeting their SEO needs ---- thats all the more reason for them to keep "using' DMOZ!

RichTC




msg:486207
 2:08 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

G1smd

"Every website that does or does not link to another website is having an effect on your ranking. Your ranking would also improve if whitehouse.gov gave you a link you know"

Yes, i agree (a link from the whitehouse would be good for any site) but all things being equal a webmaster of a widget site that has the same number of links as another widget site in its category is going to rank a dam sight higher in Google from the flood of EXTRA backlinks that DMOZ and its clones provide than the sites that are not listed - This is the point. And if the editor of that sector is favouring their own sites (who wouldnt) they have a significant advantage.

On a personal level, i dont use the DMOZ directory, i see little point in it because search is so good now from the main three players. Client sites that are listed in DMOZ see little traffic numbers from it anyway but a client site needs to be in it, just for the backlink advantage imo and this is why Google needs to detatch from it and why webmasters desperately want sites listed whilst this situation continues.

Based on the backlink advantage only i suggest to all clients they apply for a listing. In the majority of cases its the clients in the commercial big money keywords that have the most hasstle with DMOZ.

You notice that Yahoo doesnt have the same listing problems and three year waiting list etc, etc and some sites in, some out, do what we do attitude, get round to it if we feel like it etc, etc - No? this is because it has no bias. You pay your money, join the que and when its your turn you get served.

Cbpayne,

Good reply, agree that on the face of it Google is not going to drop it which imo is a shame. I dont see this as "DMOZ bashing" this threads about getting into DMOZ and this is what webmasters are up against. I tell it as i see if from sites trying to get in - i dont agree with it because i see so many superb sites that dont get listed often for reasons outside of their control.

I.e lets say im an editor of widget section, i have a widget section site myself doing ok its commercial, keywords are $1 a click, ive got my own site well covered in the directory lets say twice (or being very naughty three times but shhhhh lets not say). Along comes widget1 to get listed who could be a threat to me?, first of all i think, ohhh i see the listing he can wait at the back of the que (well for three years at least, until ive moved on?)after pushing i reply " its in the pool awaiting review" or " Cant say when if or ever, but everythings OK because its waiting the review" then webmaster of widget1 gets fed up and sends me a few emails pushing me, or worse some other straight editor is passing on the details about widget1s site - i think i dont want him in the directory but im getting hastle so i decide to write some secret notes saying i suspect widget1 of spamming, so leave it for now, and that will put paid to widget1 - widget1 gives up waiting.

Now ok, call me cynical but the way i see it is that this is a problem at DMOZ and why a public company like Google needs to detach from any site that "Could be controlling or have potential editors that are corrupt.

flicker




msg:486208
 3:37 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I mention this every time it comes up, but a lot of people don't seem to understand it: it is _impossible_ for one editor to "block" a competitor's site just by not reviewing it himself. The submission automatically appears in the inbox of every other editor all the way up that tree. So a site submitted to Shopping/Automotive/Widgets/Blue would still be in the inbox of all the Widgets, Automotive, and Shopping editors. The Blue Automotive Widgets editor would have no way of blocking them from seeing it without deleting the submission himself, which would then go into his permanent record and be easy to track.

An editor who joined the ODP and then ignored your site wouldn't be doing anything any more detrimental to you than if he or she had never joined the ODP in the first place, in other words. Your site would still be just as likely to be added as it would have been if that editor had never been born. Fractionally more likely, in fact, since whatever sites they *did* edit would be off the stack of all the other editors who might approve your submission.

I really think the SEO value of an ODP link is vastly overrated, though. I don't think Google counts links from ODP clones at all. I think it counts the dmoz.org one and the Google directory one and that's it. So the ODP link has the value of two links rather than one. Well, okay. But most of the categories have a PR of about 4 or something. If two PR4 links is going to make a difference for your site, it's in big trouble anyway. The Google people say over and over there's no special weight given to ODP links in particular, so if they're worth anything more than usual to Google, it must just be because the pages are well-themed or something. *shrug*

skibum




msg:486209
 3:44 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seems like we just go round in circles here, but Dmoz just isn't a commercial listing service. It is doubtful tht it ever will be.

ODP predates Google's domination of the web. The ODP was building a human edited web directory long before anyone really cared about Google rankings (most likely) without any consideration of how it might affect rankings in the search engine that would come to dominate the web. The focus was on doing a better job than Yahoo!

Google and any other websites are free to use ODP results (or not) and if no other website used ODP listings, I'd be willing to bet that ODP would continue on as they did before Google dominated. ODP wasn't started to influence Google results and if it stopped influencing Google results, ODP would continue on.

Sorry, but no one and I mean no one should be able to influence in even the smallest way if a website (someone’s business) ranks as a result of back links and lets face it bottom line this is what DMOZ is currently doing and this is why many, many webmasters want to either get listed and cant or get removed for no reason and why editors like the ones in rz act as they do.

No comment on RZ, but as far as being able to influence how someone's business ranks as a result of backlinks, can't every single site on the web influence that?

Until search engines stop incorporating link popularity in the algo, can't any site on the web can influence where another site ranks by linking or not?

gpmgroup




msg:486210
 9:45 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I mention this every time it comes up, but a lot of people don't seem to understand it: it is _impossible_ for one editor to "block" a competitor's site just by not reviewing it himself.

What happens if an Editor moves a site to an inappropriate category? One which it is never likely to be listed for?

g1smd




msg:486211
 10:28 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Someone will move it back.

If a "pattern" of such things is spotted (and it can be looked at within seconds, simply by looking at the entire log for the editor) then that editor isn't likely to have access for very much longer.

g1smd




msg:486212
 10:29 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Heh, RichTC I didn't like your website, so I asked your host to delete it. Sure you won't mind.

Rosalind




msg:486213
 10:35 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

With regard to approval times, a lot of directories tell you how many sites are in the queue, and roughly how long it will take for a listing. That information at a category level would be very useful from DMOZ.

If estimates were available for listing times in each of the major categories, and maybe one level down, that would help answer some questions.

nzmatt




msg:486214
 10:40 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, I agree Rosalind.

The Directory is very opaque and very frustrating for webmasters.

I think it tops the internet for dissatisfaction and bad experience. I wish this wasn't the case, but it simply is...

g1smd




msg:486215
 11:01 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> With regard to approval times, a lot of directories tell you how many sites are in the queue, <<

Over at that other forum, what we found was that when we told people that there were 5 sites awaiting review in a category, that people would then bug us every month as to "why has it not been done" - as they perceived that with "only 5 sites" that that must mean that they will be "reviewed very soon", when in fact that isn't the case at all. So, number of sites suggested is no indication as to how many are listable, and when any may be listed.

>> and roughly how long it will take for a listing. <<

That is impossible to answer. Each editor edits what they edit. No-one, not even the editor themself, could tell you what category or site they are going to edit tomorrow, let alone next week, or next month. You are asking for data that is simply unavailable to anyone - not even other editors know!

>> That information at a category level would be very useful from DMOZ. <<

Useful for what? When your site is listed, it is listed. Until that time it is awaiting review. If you are waiting for a rejection so that you can resubmit as soon as it is rejected then you are working to the wrong plan.

>> If estimates were available for listing times in each of the major categories, and maybe one level down, that would help answer some questions. <<

We have given that information many times and it serves no purpose. If you really push for an answer then all I can say is that review may be done in a couple of days, or it may take a couple of years. Some categories are edited several times per week, and some are reviewed once per year. On average (and this average is meaningless in any context that you think it might have meaning) a category is visited by an editor every 6 to 8 months.

victor




msg:486216
 11:06 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

99.9% of that information is publicly available, Rosalind.

To get the list of all sites that are eligible for listing in the ODP, simply:

1. get a list of all sites in the world
2. remove those that do not meet the (very public) ODP guidelines for inclusion.

The concept of "queue" does not really apply -- all the sites that pass the above two tests are eligible for inclusion. Where they get included is part of the task of an ODP editor.

If you could come up with such a list, it would be a great help to many ODP editors. So please do.

I second g1smd over RichTC's website. That site is of no use to me and it may be being used to promote my competitors, so I'll be asking Google to sever any connection with it immediately.

g1smd




msg:486217
 11:11 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> The Directory is very opaque and very frustrating for webmasters. <<

This is because the directory does not offer any service to webmasters (beyond submitting a suggestion).

The directory is focussed on building category pages from links found wherever they happen to be found, using each editor to focus on the topic that they find valuable to build upon at any one time.

Their actions add more than half a million sites per year; but no editor is following the progress of any one site.

nzmatt




msg:486218
 11:19 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of my sites has been waiting for over a year. I have tried 6 times to become an editor in an area that has seen no significant change in a year and has no editor. I have been rejected immediately every time, except the last, where I have received no reply in well over 6 weeks.

I am helpless. I am frustrated. I create content. The Directory merely lists it. I'm sure webmasters have some sort of importance in this relationship.

victor




msg:486219
 11:28 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

nzmatt: it may help if there was a forum where you could publish your half-dozen editor applications and seek feedback on them.

As far as I know, no such forum exists; and WMW explicitly isn't such a place.

Perhaps you could create one for yourself and others in a similar postition.

Leosghost




msg:486220
 11:28 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

As someone who is not an editor ..and has never applied to be one ( as I do not think that for now I could devote sufficient time to it to do the job well ) ..But who has submitted various sites ..all have been included ..the first one I ever submitted was approved in just 48 hrs ..and by someone who is a direct competitor.. and whom I out rank for every keyword that either of us and the other 600 or so specialists in this niche target ( actually his site is so far down ...I think he doesn't know or care about SEO )...I think that it's safe to say that accusations of corruption being rife at the DMOZ are wildy over blown and smack entirely of sour grapes and total misunderstanding of it's "raison d'etre"..

Having been approved I did actually contact the cat editor who approved me within the 48 hrs from submission to thank him..his editor name is also more or less the name of his site ...

The site which I had submitted was amaturely done ( was my very very first ) lousliy done SEO ( keyword spam etc ) ..loads of flash ..even anigifs on page one ..average page size excluding images over 100 kb ( was a long long time ago ;-)..in short a horror ( and it didn't validate either ) ...
But it was and still is ( albiet cleaned of all the bells and whistles ) ..a well written ressource of accurate information and explanation , help , tutorials etc ( not link outs ) on it's subject ( one which I know very well )..over 500 pages of such ..

He replied that basically because he considered it to be "a well written ressource of accurate information and explanation , help , tutorials etc ( not link outs ) on it's subject " he included it ..he said that in his opinion thats what he was editing to encourage ..."sites that obviously knew what they were talking about" ...

I think he has the right attitude ...

To the dmoz editors here ..I think you are getting it just about right ..even more so when it's unpaid ..

( BTW I have argued long and hard and vehemently with some of the editors who post here on other fora on other subjects ..so certainly don't always see eye to eye with individuals whom I know to be amongst them ...To those who want the back link potential that can accrue from a DMOZ listing ..it's not what it was for ..isn't what it is for ..we don't get in as of right ..they are under no obligation to improve your backlinks ..and if "G" didn't care or dropped back links you would n't give a **** for dmoz ...but they might just list you anyway if they thought you were worth it ...get the dollar signs out of your eyes ..sometimes ;-)

[edited by: Leosghost at 11:31 am (utc) on Sep. 28, 2005]

This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 > >
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