homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.220.79
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 146 message thread spans 5 pages: 146 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 > >     
Time for DMOZ to change
Googles reputation hangs in the balance.
RichTC




msg:474142
 12:00 pm on Nov 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

This post is why its time for the current situation with DMOZ and its relationship with Google to seriously change for the future good of the internet and Googles reputation.

1. itís a known factor that back links help a sites position in Google and a listing in DMOZ is a back link.
2. DMOZ feeds thousands of clone directory sites with its data hence a link in DMOZ means thousands of back links get created to your site.
3. A clone DMOZ directory is duplicate content anyway and surplus to requirements yet they feature on the net in their droves and frankly most of them need removing. DMOZ assists in getting more junk on the internet by feeding these useless directory sites with its data and at the same time they give more back links out to the sites featured. We only need one directory and thatís Yahoo as far as im concerned.
4. DMOZ has a percentage of corrupt editors out for their own cause, where you have big money keywords you get corruption. Google adwords are very expensive in some sectors, so assistance in moving up the Google serps for a website for certain keywords by having more anchor back links is an advantage and of significant financial value.
5. As Google is now a public company it should not be connected in anyway to any site that is possibly corrupt or has a percentage of corrupt staff. It should now break away from using DMOZ data.
6. DMOZ by its own submission cant cope with the editing job anyway and has thousands of categories that are out of date with dead links, incorrect descriptions not been updated and often a bias to the editors own or friends sites.
7. DMOZ is not in anyway regulated, it has no management structure as such that is publicly known and is not accountable in anyway for what it does.

Now as I see it because of the weight given to back links by Google an editor is in some cases indirectly getting a nice payoff as they can decide who they do or donít want in the category they edit. If a competitor comes to get listed they can simply ignore it, they can waffle around this factor as much as the editor likes but at the end of the day they decide.

Also, back links are highly valuable to a site especially in commercial areas. For a site to obtain as many ďOne WayĒ back links as DMOZ and its clones provide working without a DMOZ listing in its own right takes a long time and costs a site money as not all sites will give one way back links for free as DMOZ and its clones can.

As I see it, if you build a great site, you donít want some idiot copying it do you?, yet in the case of DMOZ they not only let you copy the data but they actively encourage it, why Ė back links of course!

Having now worked on various sites over the last five years and seen some get listed, some ignored, some taken out I have come to the conclusion that DMOZ has certain corrupt editors within it and that DMOZ can no longer cope with the size of the internet and the submissions as a result.

Google and DMOZ should now take the following action:-

1. Google should delete Page Rank on DMOZ all together, just grey bar it out on every page so that sites are not getting unfair page ranked back links
2. All clone DMOZ or related clone directory sites should be removed by Google from its index on the basis that they are duplicate content.
3. DMOZ should adopt a policy of no follow code on sites listed and insist that no other site should copy its data.
4. DMOZ should deal with all listing requests in order of when they were submitted. I.e. a site submitted on the 1st Jan 2004 should be looked at before a site submitted on the 1st Jan 2005.
5. If an editor finds a site not listed they think should be, it should be added to the same list to be reviewed in date order after the first one has been dealt with.
6. If the editor is turning a site down it should give reasons, not keep webmasters dangling and advise what the webmaster should do to improve their site in order to get listed.
7. DMOZ should be regulated and have a proper management line structure and the public should know who they are. They should be properly named and be fully accountable for their actions.
8. All data in DMOZ including editorís notes should be made wide open to the general public. Under the data protection act individuals have a right to know exactly what data and notes are made about them by companies. DMOZ clearly is in breach of the data protection act by being able to secretly write notes about sites which it keeps from the public view.

If DMOZ wants to gain any credibility it should adopt the above measures.

Meanwhile, if Google as a public company continues to use the DMOZ data and does not take action imo to clean up this relationship and the way it uses the DMOZ data, it will be a short matter of time until some serious corrupt allegations come to the surface which may ultimately damage Googleís reputation and its stock market value.

Its Time to act now...

 

helleborine




msg:474143
 1:55 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

You make many good points.

Unfortunately, practical considerations get in the way of your plan.

First and foremost, there aren't enough editors.

Commercial categories are flooded with submissions for doorway pages, mirrors, vanity URLs, etc. It takes considerable skill, time and web savvy to properly review even a single site.

There are also hordes of very poor editors that are not familiar with the directory structure and list sites in their category, when they belong to another. Many editors stuff descriptions with "hype," and I don't mean their own, but all.

Most categories are in a sorry state of neglect, rife with broken links, improperly categorized sites and deeplinks. Several more are devoid of any sites created after 2002.

Criteria for accepting new editors are capricious, even bizarre. Applications made with proper site suggestions, guideline compliant descriptions and perfect grammar are denied on the basis of unfounded suspicions by one particularly paranoid and self-important meta who assumes that anyone not declaring association with at least 5 websites is untruthful. Others will flatly refuse applicants declaring so many.

I agree that Google should cut off ties with dmoz. If more weight is attributed to dmoz listed websites, god help us all. If it were true, SERPs would tend to be static, and unevenly biased across topics.

Unlike you, I think it is hopeless. It cannot be fixed.

Let dmoz carry on, but let it not carry the day.

Lord Majestic




msg:474144
 2:32 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many people actually *use* DMOZ? I mean as a proportion of those who always use their favourite general purpose search engine? My guess that vast vast majority never use DMOZ or any other directory - SEs are fast and good at finding what I want, there is an easy toolbar and since I know for fact that any directory is inherently limited there is no point to search in them 99.9999% of time.

Yahoo's example illustrates clearly that days of human compiled directories are over - for a few years now. If Google dropped DMOZ tomorrow (and removed extra weights it appears to give to links from DMOZ), then how many people would suddenly lose interst in DMOZ?

trillianjedi




msg:474145
 2:34 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many people actually *use* DMOZ?

I do on a daily basis. It's an excellent directory, particularly for research. Way better than a search engine.

any directory is inherently limited there is no point to search in them 99.9999% of time.

I don't agree. Yesterday I was looking for some open-source software for a particular task. A search on dmoz found me 20 sites to go and look at, 5 of which in one category (it's description was sufficient to tell me what I needed was probably in there) offered exactly what I wanted, and the editors descriptions narrowed the exercise down to one click and I was downloading it.

That ain't something that's broken - that's something that's damn useful.

The use of dmoz by search engines is an entirely different issue (and the topic of this thread). I wouldn't care less if the SE's dropped it, but I would care if dmoz was lost for good.

TJ

Lord Majestic




msg:474146
 2:50 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I do on a daily basis.

Do you have evidence to suggest that at least 5% of people use DMOZ rather than Google? And I don't mean here pros like yourself - I doubt most (ordinary) people actually know DMOZ exists.

helleborine




msg:474147
 2:57 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't care less if the SE's dropped it, but I would care if dmoz was lost for good.

I second that.

I haven't seen any hard, convincing evidence that dmoz links have extra value. I hope they do not. They shouldn't.

trillianjedi




msg:474148
 3:02 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you have evidence to suggest that at least 5% of people use DMOZ rather than Google?

No, and I doubt it's as high as 5%, but does it matter?

Lots of people use dmoz. Lots of people would miss it if it no longer existed. That's my point.

The OP's point is that he feels the SE's should not give weight to it or its clones. That's a separate issue.

But let's not knock dmoz for the wrong reasons - it is, and can continue to be, a useful resource. The amount of people using it, and the overall benefit to the internet community, is irrelevant, unless you're footing the hosting bills for it.

TJ

Lord Majestic




msg:474149
 3:08 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

But let's not knock dmoz for the wrong reasons - it is, and can continue to be, a useful resource.

Indeed - DMOZ is valued highly by some, though I will dare to speculate that most interest generated by DMOZ now is due to its relationship with Google, ie: value of links from DMOZ for SEO purposes.

The question I raised was a bigger picture in which DMOZ can't possible be competitive with major search engines because humans will never do a good job of categorising billions of pages for billions of different queries: directories are a dieing breed in the age of algorithmic SEs.

hutcheson




msg:474150
 3:10 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ah, Rich, Rich, still pushing the "everyone must march to my drummer or the firing squads will be called out?"

You see, site suggestions aren't the be-all and end-all of the ODP, like you think they are (or should be? I really couldn't tell, because you seem so ignorant of the way editors really work). They are often the absolute worst source of good sites. And editors aren't "site suggestion processors" -- they are category builders. That's a very different thing altogether. One of the strengths of the ODP is that editors can (and do) focus on categories that are underrepresented, and on sources of URLs that are (in their judgment) likely to provide GOOD URLs.

Site suggestions are useful. Carefully used, they often provide good information on big-time spammers, which would otherwise slip in more often. But, when all is said and done, a site suggestion is no more (and usually less) than a Google search result, a link from a links page on a fan site, a URL from a business card or magazine ad, ... and there's no rational reason to generate any more response to it, than any of the other sources of links (or, for that matter, to an e-mailed Viagra advertisement!)

There's no practical reason either. We gave status reports on site submittals for a couple of years. The archives of that effort are still online. You can browse through them, and see how often the information was useful for any honest purpose. So your emotional curiosity, and my emotional desire to give information, are both irrelevant to any honest action either you or I might undertake. It was obvious that the big-time spammers tried to use status reports to see how we were detecting their spam -- you can see that also in the archives if you look at the sites being asked about, and the questions asked about them. That was another good reason not to give out the information -- it was useful for evildoers: spammers, scammers, con men, and pseudonymous pseudo-businesses, who were trying to figure out how we could tell them from businesses that really existed.

Think of the ODP as a service for surfers; think of Google search results as a service for surfers (I know, heresy, must be stamped out by fire and sword!) But the web is big, and your goons don't control it all. And that's OK.

But ... think for a moment! Think like a spammer (I know, a hard thing to do and a nasty thing to do to an honest mind!) Suppose the ODP announced that it was prioritizing submittals by date, and that as of today every suggestion would be reviewed between 8 and 9 months after it was made?

How many milliseconds would it be before a thousand someones (some in this forum, even!) went into the ODP and each made a thousand suggestions of deeplinks of their own page, for the sole purpose of "instantly reviewable ODP site suggestions" in 7 months' time? That would give the entire control of ODP priorities into the sleaziest spammers on the planet. Which may be what YOU want (I don't know whether you want to control or destroy it, or would take whichever you could get cheaper). But that is not what the people who build it want.

helleborine




msg:474151
 3:26 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

They are often the absolute worst source of good sites. And editors aren't "site suggestion processors" -- they are category builders.

That's a pretty picture. Editors as category builders.

Most categories are overseen by editors without any proper knowledge of the subject. They are edited from the top, if you will.

Example. One editor has a special knowledge of metal crafts. He works his way up the craft tree, and can now edit any craft from lacemaking to quilting. Can he be a category builder for lacemaking? No, he cannot. He can at best be a "site suggestion processor."

An overwhelming majority of deep categories have no editor at all, and are "processed" by editors that do not have the dedication to build categories.

Specialized categories are thus filled with unrepresentative links for antiquated sites, while new sites take up to 3 years to show up. For the surfer, a better alternative is often a link page within a topical website.

Search engines would be foolish to favor such haphazard material as that which is supplied by dmoz.

Rich offers many suggestions, but I believe that dmoz is forever hopeless as a search engine booster.

I am happy to hear that some people find it useful on days that the search feature works properly.

trillianjedi




msg:474152
 3:28 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

DMOZ can't possibly be competitive with major search engines

It isn't trying to.

TJ

helleborine




msg:474153
 3:31 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many milliseconds would it be before a thousand someones (some in this forum, even!) went into the ODP and each made a thousand suggestions of deeplinks of their own page, for the sole purpose of "instantly reviewable ODP site suggestions" in 7 months' time?

You are proving my point. The ODP is hopelessly unfixable.

If your main line of defense against spammers is a 3 year waiting list, one consequence that you might expect is that the ODP is utterly useless as a search engine booster.

But of course, there are surfers that prefer old websites, and they know they will find what they need in the dmoz directory. I am very happy for them all.

It isn't trying to. (compete with search engines)

That's right, it isn't. A separate question is: should the ODP database be considered more important than most by search engines

In my opinion, the answer is NO. Furthermore, I don't believe that anything can be done to fix the ODP in a way that would increase its value to search engines without spending considerable sums.

Lord Majestic




msg:474154
 3:44 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

It isn't trying to.

Here is what DMOZ says about itself (about page):

"The web continues to grow at staggering rates. Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet.

Instead of fighting the explosive growth of the Internet, the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. As the Internet grows, so do the number of net-citizens. These citizens can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content."

Clearly automated search engines scaled much better than DMOZ's concept which is limited not only by what humans do, but also by Google's curse - spammers and SEO alike want to be in DMOZ because its so valuable, this naturally puts editors it a position that I don't envy.

Looking at dates it appears that DMOZ was founded in 1998 - this was at the time when Yahoo was the king and directories in general were the main source of quality links, this was before Google became mainstream, but now with Google and even Yahoo dropping directory as its primary source for searches, it follows that DMOZ is just a surviving dinosaur (sp?), much like those few creatures related to the old age who still live in Australia.

trillianjedi




msg:474155
 4:06 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with everything the ODP says about itself.

Directories will never replace SE's (and hence they're not competing). They offer a supplemental means of finding information. I use google desktop search, but that doesn't stop me drilling down through my PC's file storage to find something. I use both. I don't want to lose either.

spammers and SEO alike want to be in DMOZ because its so valuable

That's an argument in favour of the SE's ignoring DMOZ and it's clones, it's not an argument against the existence of directories.

Do you want the ODP to die? Would it make a difference to your answer if the SE's ignored it's data and backlinks?

TJ

hutcheson




msg:474156
 4:10 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Helleborine, the problem that is unfixable is simply avoidable -- by the current approach which allows some sites to be listed within days after their suggestion, others to be listed before being suggested, and yet others to wait for years.

So it's not so much the OLD sites that get listed, but the INNOVATORS. That is, the ones that don't "target overcrowded niches" but create new ones (that is, force us to build new categories). And it's not the NEW sites that tend not to get listed, but the IMITATORS.

Of course, that's a statistical tendancy. The ODP, like any other schema, has biasses and shortcomings. Its justification is that those biasses and shortcomings are DIFFERENT from Google's.

There are obviously abundant opportunities on the web for webmaster promotion and website advertising -- you could say that those sites are biassed against information. Well, and so what? If you're interested in information, you can look elsewhere. The ODP is one such elsewhere.

As for whether 1% or 10% or 100% of the world uses the ODP, does it matter? If it is useless to you, would it matter to you if the rest of the world used it? If it is useful to you, would it matter to you if there was only one other person on the net who cared about it?

I know why I like it. I know why you might like it or be indifferent to it, just like any other site. But that you so obsessively don't like it -- I can't think of any reason that is not discreditable ... to you.

helleborine




msg:474157
 4:21 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

So it's not so much the OLD sites that get listed, but the INNOVATORS. That is, the ones that don't "target overcrowded niches" but create new ones (that is, force us to build new categories). And it's not the NEW sites that tend not to get listed, but the IMITATORS.

Perhaps true of sites that innovated 3 years ago. Sites that innovate today, will show up in dmoz 3 years from now.

You can put a cute spin on it, and claim that any website created after 2002 is probably a rip off of some earlier concept. If it offers you some comfort, I have no objection.

It is still a good reason for search engines not to rely on ODP data.

But that you so obsessively don't like it -- I can't think of any reason that is not iscreditable ... to you.

Conversely, I could say that your "obsessive" love and defense of the ODP is a discredit to you, if I ran out of cogent arguments and was left with nothing but ad hominem attacks. I would not, however, because that would be a discredit to me.

kevinpate




msg:474158
 4:35 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

we interupt the typical bash-a-rama that invades seemingly all threads relating to dmoz for this brief opinion column:

If every major SE decided to devalue links from dmoz and all clones, making ALL such links hardwired as zero credit, dmoz could possibly, even likely, grow stronger and grow faster in the months whcih followed such a decision.

Those seeing dmoz as their golden ticket would likely flee, either in disgust, sadness, anger, or perhaps even glee, totally convinced that dmoz was now dead and useless, and wholly unworth their time to make a submission or to attempt to finagle any other avenue toward a listing.

Those who are oddball enough to simply enjoy editing, or who edit because they feel it helps others learn about their hobby or area of passion, would have a more enjoyable editing experience, and more time to enjoy it.

Believe it or don't. It's not a point I'll argue. Simply put, I know these things to be true:
There are more non-commerce cats than commerce cats.
There are folks at dmoz who are there for non-commercial reasons, folks who have no interest in the commerce related cats at all.
dmoz doesn't need commerce cats to be a relevant resource.

We now return you to your irregularly scheduled dmoz bash-a-rama: Shreddin' in da Threadin' '05.

Lord Majestic




msg:474159
 4:43 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I use google desktop search, but that doesn't stop me drilling down through my PC's file storage to find something. I use both. I don't want to lose either.

In this case I have to confess that I use 100% directory only - good old Norton Commander makes it easy for me and no desktop search will be needed for me anytime soon.

However we have to remember context of directories here - not your or my disks, not yellow pages book, but Web: the difference is critical because there is far more data in the web than on my or yours disks combined, and believe me - I've got a lot of data.

Do you want the ODP to die? Would it make a difference to your answer if the SE's ignored it's data and backlinks?

I have purely academical interest in the subject - I prefer the market to decide who lives or dies, and if DMOZ has got its market then its fine by me. I'd say I feel more sympathetic to DMOZ than not since they listed a link to my site very quickly (which makes me believe that generally delays are not due to editors, but due to quality of site) and I used their data more than once.

Having said that I think directories in general and DMOZ in particular are in terminal decline insofar as Web search is concerned: 99.9% of my searches that I do could not have been possibly answered by DMOZ simply because they don't have this data.

thebob




msg:474160
 4:58 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

(which makes me believe that generally delays are not due to editors, but due to quality of site)

Biggest cause of delay is submitting to the wrong category. Acording to figures mentioned in certain ODP-editor-operated forum, submissions to the right category get listed four times faster than submissions to the wrong category.

Second cause of delay are user-supplied titles and descriptions that are so bad that no editor feels compelled to visit the URL to find out what the heck the site is about.

Of course, if the quality of the site is low, it will seem to wait forever, because it will never get listed...

jimnoble




msg:474161
 5:08 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Here's a real life situation that happened to me last night.

I live in the UK, one of my sons lives in New Zealand, and I want to send him a case of wine for Christmas. For economic reasons, it would be best to find a NZ based shipper.

The DMOZ NZ/../Shopping/Wine and Beer [dmoz.org] category quickly gave me a choice of several and the order was placed. I don't claim that the category is complete, but it did the job.

As an exercise for the reader, try to come up with a Google search string which would achieve a similar result, untainted by wine merchants selling NZ wine on other continents :-).

OTOH, if I want to track down a handbook for an obscure motherboard, it's Google every time.

hutcheson




msg:474162
 5:12 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Perhaps true of sites that innovated 3 years ago. Sites that innovate today, will show up in dmoz 3 years from now.

You're still assuming that robotic-assembly-line that doesn't exist (mo matter how badly Rich wants it to.) Since we DON'T line up suggestions and make new good ones wait until we've processed all the 2002-dated spam, we're free to list the current innovators immediately.

You can say what you want about what is discreditable. But I think, on fundamental moral grounds, that to obsessively hate a source of information that is useful to someone else, is to display a fundamental contempt for the people who find it useful, if not a fundamental desire to suppress the information altogether.

Anyone may find information useless -- and the RATIONAL reaction is to just ignore it. Anyone may find information incomplete (it always is!) -- and the RATIONAL reaction is to look elsewhere for closure. Anyone may find information inaccurate, and it is certainly good to try to correct it. (Unlike site suggestions, CORRECTION suggestions get an actual priority at the ODP, and are often fixed within hours.)

But what honorable motive is there for this kind of obsessive contempt for another information source (no matter how incomplete) and its users (no matter how few they are, and no matter how short they fall of your ideal of intellectualism)?

There can't be one.

Lord Majestic




msg:474163
 5:14 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

As an exercise for the reader, try to come up with a Google search string

How many searches do to perform per day and how many of them are via Google (or other algo SE) and how many are in DMOZ? I search a lot every day and I know for fact that DMOZ could not have answered most of my queries simply because they don't have big deep index.

steve40




msg:474164
 5:42 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi interesting thread

Personally I would like to see DMOZ survive as an independent authority which it was in the beginning my own fixes would be the following

1. No follow implemented on all external links
2. Under no circumstances should any site have more than 3 links included in DMOZ
2. All clones should pay for use of the dbase when using over xx number of catagories
3. Catagories given more weight by SE's not to much but enough to help the searcher find catagories in serps
4. I honestly believe DMOZ should be promoted much heavier through Press Releases etc. to inform joe surfers .
5. Submissions reviewed only in the order they were recieved and more open reasons for not including sites that are submitted and not accepted

I believe number 1 and 2 would have negative effect on the number of editors and would clean out some of the corruption that I am sure exists ( not sure of the ammount but the only 2 editors I have met personnally were editors only for their own gain and both offered quick inclusion )

Funding for more full time staff to help in monitoring and helping DMOZ to grow
Corruption has occured in DMOZ due to manipulation of G through BL's I see sites with 60 links to different pages on multiple catagories
Unlike many detractors who only point to negatives with DMOZ it is still the largest hand build directory of the WEB , and I hope it continues to exist for the surfer not the SEO
just my own 2 cents worth and just one of the many views of DMOZ

steve

helleborine




msg:474165
 5:43 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since we DON'T line up suggestions and make new good ones wait until we've processed all the 2002-dated spam, we're free to list the current innovators immediately.

But you do not. You do not, because, as I explained in my example, the metal craft fellow that climbed up the categories is overseeing the French lace category, which itself has no editor. He is not listing French lace innovators on his own at all, though he might, if he cares, do a good job with metal crafts.

. But I think, on fundamental moral grounds, that to obsessively hate a source of information that is useful to someone else, is to display a fundamental contempt for the people who find it useful, if not a fundamental desire to suppress the information altogether.

I am sorry that you interpret my statements as an "obssession" and "hate" - nothing could be farther from the truth.

Rich has suggested that Google distances itself further still from dmoz unless the ODP takes certain steps. My argument is that the ODP's deficiencies AS A RESOURCE FOR SEARCH ENGINES lie in the most fundamental aspects of its concept, and cannot be fixed as suggested, or in any other way, in a manner that would render it valuable to search engines.

I am in no way making statements regarding its usefulness to a certain brand of surfer. You are free to choose and I do not begrudge your preference for the ODP over search engines.

jimnoble




msg:474166
 5:47 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many searches do to perform per day
Up to a hundred, but I recognise that some quests are best served by a search engine and some by a directory. I was merely giving an example of the latter.
cbpayne




msg:474167
 8:12 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Time for DMOZ to change
sorry I am late to this thread, but should not the title of the thread have been:
Time for DMOZ to change, so it can better meet webmaster's SEO needs .... which is why most of the changes webmasters/SEO's want ain't going to happen.

Lord Majestic




msg:474168
 8:26 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Up to a hundred, but I recognise that some quests are best served by a search engine and some by a directory.

Some? Come on, seriosly, out of your hundred searches, how many of them done on algo SE and how many on DMOZ?

Probably the answer is 90%+ - because I can't see anyone searching DMOZ day in/day out, there is just not enough data there for it. Hence, a better word would be not "some", but "vast majority".

trillianjedi




msg:474169
 9:49 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Probably the answer is 90%+

In all honesty, I probably do 1 in 10 searches on dmoz.

there is just not enough data there for it.

You and I obviously do wildly different searches. I appreciate that but I don't think that I'm alone.

I do a lot of research on topics (particularly information for my own websites), for which I find that DMOZ slates the major engines for search quality and finding what I need.

I regularly drop a link in threads on WebmasterWorld to a dmoz category and get a "hadn't even thought to look there!" response from a member. 99% of the time they've got what they need from DMOZ and not a search engine.

That's as much about educating the user on how to look for something on the internet as it is about anything else.

I stand by my contention that it's a useful resource for a lot of people. You may not be included in that bracket, and I'm sure you're not alone either.

But it has its place.

Hence, a better word would be not "some", but "vast majority".

I agree with that. But 10% is still 10%, and that represents an incredible amount of searching.

TJ

RichTC




msg:474170
 12:19 am on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh Hutcheson, Hutcheson how i bow to your supremecy. What, with me being a mere web designer of some few hundred sites and you being an oracle on what should or should not be listed in a directory, is there anything more to say...

My dear DMOZ meta editing friend, you assume that the evil webmaster is here just to spam your directory site and if ANY kind of order was installed that spammers would be listing with you in their droves. Yet, you fail to realise that if the Google search engine gave your directory zero page rank and that the no follow code for back links was used and duplicate content clone sites were removed, no spammer would bother submitting to you because they would have no value in doing so!.

During the last five years the only reason why ANY site we have worked with wanted a listing in DMOZ was for the backlinks advantage. Its as simple as that. Look on the logs of any site doing over 500,000 visitors a month and you will be lucky to see 2 or 3 hits from visitors to the directory. Now im not knocking that, the webs big enough for all, what im pointing out is that DMOZ is recognised by the good and the bad of the webmaster world as a source of volumes of FREE backlinks which in turn help boost a sites position in the Google SERPS and thats why webmasters want to be included in DMOZ.

Now the point of this thread was not to knock you and your chums work on the directory (it takes all sorts)but was to point out that if certain changes were made this situation COULD be changed and improved for the future good of the internet. Some posters think its flogging a dead horse, but i like to think that DMOZ COULD be saved but only with a radical change.

That being said, i find it conclusive evidence (based on editors posts here) that you dont want to even look at change. For a start, between you and the other DMOZ editors that have entered this thread, none of you have mentioned even the no follow rule point. Fact is, as i see it, that many editors like the value of the dmoz listing and all its clone site backlinks and that is possibly why SOME of you, are editors of DMOZ - that is your pay off. Remove this advantage and you may not retain the editor support?

So to conclude, love or hate Google at least it can pride itself on the fact that it has no human intervention in its search facility and as a result it is difficult to be corrupted. Meanwhile DMOZ well and truely adds the corruption value back in - Human editing will do this. By cleaning up DMOZ by doing some of the suggested ideas and removing the backlink values you would at least end up with a directory that COULD provide much better value to the internet and would certainly get less spammers submitting (if that is genuinely your primary concern) due to the fact they would gain little commercial advantage.

As for me... well i stand by by Opening Post - Its time for DMOZ to change, Googles reputation hangs in the balance and i genuinely think it is a matter of time before all this comes crashing down if action is not taken soon.

dajeffster




msg:474171
 1:10 am on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm not following your argument, RichTC.

Google makes use of DMOZ, you think this damages Google's reputation so you want DMOZ to change so Google will not use it?

Why not just tell Google you want them to change, since your problem seems to be with choices they've made?

This 146 message thread spans 5 pages: 146 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 > >
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