| 12:43 pm on Sep 29, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A fairly minor occurrence of link text. In other words, if you are getting beat by link text on Dmoz, you need to get busy and get some links yourself. Alot of people here don't consider a dmoz entry even worthwhile.
| 12:52 pm on Sep 29, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well the site in question is beating off some reasonable competition without once using the search phrase on its site anywhere at all.
My site is PR6 and is optimised towards this keyphrase. The site in question is PR3 and has no seo applied.
Yep, time to get some proper backlinks then.
| 5:10 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Well the site in question is beating off some reasonable competition without once using the search phrase on its site anywhere at all. |
My site is PR6 and is optimised towards this keyphrase. The site in question is PR3 and has no seo applied.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Google takes third-party descriptions of a page (link text) more seriously than first-party descriptions (keyword stuffing). Ranking by third-party opinion is the whole point of Google.
The "problem" isn't with Google. It's that you've misunderstood the Tao of Google. They're doing exactly what they mean to do.
| 6:38 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Too much weight on DMOZ/Google link-text |
This is a bit silly
No matter what change google makes to their algorithm, someone thinks that it is some sort of stupid change. But then lots of people start abusing the change, so google has to change it again.
You ignored a factor in your SEO and it happens to be a highly ranked factor right now. Consider it a handy wake up call, showing you a weakness.
By the way, are you sure that it is because the it is anchor text on DMOZ/Google, or is it just anchor text that happens in this case to be on the two directories?
Do you have *any* links to you with "used widgets" as the anchor text? Do they have additional links with that anchor text?
| 7:19 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|So I looked at their backlinks using google |
It's probably worth remembering that this doesn't show all backlinks ... just those of PR4 and over
| 12:50 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Their URL is widgetexchange.com but in DMOZ the link-text is used widgets. Seems a bit silly. |
DMOZ anchor text is by page title, not URL.
Just get some anchor text inbounds. Very easy to solve.
| 1:03 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dmoz link text is more by business title, if not then site title, if not then page title. If you've keyword-stuffed your page title then dmoz won't pick that up and use it. If your business is called Widgets Inc but your site title is called Buy Widgets Here then Widgets Inc would be the title used by dmoz.
| 1:24 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
alltheweb and lately altavista link: searches, etc. are far better than Google.
|A lot of people here don't consider a dmoz entry even worthwhile. |
Unfortunately, a dmoz entry is VERY VERY VERY worthwhile. Google gives far too much weight to such entries IMHO but while this is true a dmoz entry is invaluable. However, getting listed in some categories is just plain impossible and unless you are an editor, the exact description of your entry may bare little resemblance to the description you submit.
| 1:56 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That's usually because the editors are the only ones who read the style guidelines (helpfully provided at dmoz.org/guidelines).
A typical submission is:
Widgets Inc - Widget Supplies
Widgets Inc provides the leading widget supply service with widgets for sale, opportunities to buy widgets and options including red widgets, blue widgets and green widgets.
Until you actually see a dmoz unreviewed queue (how I'd like to post one here for illustrative purposes), it's difficult to appreciate quite how infrequently you can list a site with the submitted title and description. :(
| 2:10 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The bias, as I understand the rules, is to follow page title where possible.
I would allow a title such as:-
Widget Supplies by Widgets inc.
But each editor is different and mileage will vary.
| 2:40 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Unfortunately, a dmoz entry is VERY VERY VERY worthwhile. Google gives far too much weight to such entries IMHO |
Not to mention the fact that a good number of other directories are clones of DMOZ (not least Google's own directory)
So a DMOZ entry can turn into a number a useful links over time with no extra effort :)
| 5:33 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From the dmoz guidelines:
|Do give the official name of the site as the title. Generally, the title will be obvious and prominently displayed on the site. ....................... |
So "Widget Supplies by Widgets inc." does not conform to the guidelines as Widgets Inc. is the name of the business and Widget Supplies is a superfluous keyphrase. The correct title would be simply Widgets Inc.
Anyway, back on topic... ;)
[[b]edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:53 am (utc) on Oct. 4, 2003]
[edit reason] excessive quoting of external source [/edit]
| 5:52 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah but what about showing us that unreviewed queue. Can we pick a cat?;)
| 5:54 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The correct title would be simply Widgets Inc. |
OK, little bit of editing for me to do then.
| 9:10 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
from the url [google.com ]
|Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. |
Given that DMOZ is so highly rated by Google and that inclusion/exclusion of a site from DMOZ is entirely down to human editors, the claim by Google above is absolute nonsense.
| 9:29 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nope. It isn't tampering with the Google results. There is a difference between manipulating the data going in and tampering with the output.
| 9:33 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kaled -- please give a practical demonstration: actually tamper with an actual result by manipulating DMOZ.
| 9:45 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ this and DMOZ that.
The last time I checked (earlier this week) submitting a site to DMOZ is still impossible.
| 10:05 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It is now (and has been for several days) possible to submit a site.
Victor- This absolutely does happen. If an editor for any reason, changes your link text, it can have a dramatic efffect on your ranking for that search phrase. Many sites have a dmoz link, the accompanying Google directory link, and the clones that google counts, but little else. Or they could have lots of links but few with that link text. The majority of the time the link text should be changed. But at any given time there are some 10,000 fine folks out there with editorial privileges. You would have to be naive to think there aren't some that act on personal motives from time to time. And of course, if you would like a link to the site partially devoted to my personal example, I would be happy to sticky you.
| 10:18 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|please give a practical demonstration: actually tamper with an actual result by manipulating DMOZ |
Currently, there are three products available on my website. The one listed in DMOZ appears much higher in search results than the others. All three have comparable numbers of backlinks excluding DMOZ (and clones).
I have submitted both other products repeatedly without success.
Within the TOS, that is the best example I can give. Given that I am not a DMOZ editor I cannot tamper with results, however, were I a DMOZ editor who also was selling competing products I most definitely could tamper with Google results simply by not listing competing sites. Perhaps this happens and perhaps is doesn't but Google's claim that human tampering is difficult is nonsense because they give too much credit to a single human-edited directory.
A child could understand this.
| 10:49 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"A child could understand this."
Maybe not some adults though. Contending that if you took your website offline, or changed the anchor text you link to other sites, is "tampering" with Google is laughable.
| 11:23 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>A fairly minor occurrence of link text. In other words, if you are getting beat by link text on Dmoz, you need to get busy and get some links yourself.
Right. If I create a new site which sells fuzzy blue widgets, and call it "rfgdxm's Fuzzy Blue Widget Sales" in the H1 tag on top of the home page, and use that name consistently throughout the site, then that should be the anchor text for the link. And, likely other sites linking to me will use that exact anchor text, so no big whoopty. Should be really easy, given that with link swaps I can usually get the anchor text I want so long as I get the same from the other webmaster. Quit whining, and get links to your site with the anchor text you want.
| 11:27 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Given that DMOZ is so highly rated by Google and that inclusion/exclusion of a site from DMOZ is entirely down to human editors, the claim by Google above is absolute nonsense.
And anyone with enough money can buy high PR links *easily*. I'd suspect for a million dollars a year Brett will sell a link on the home page of Webmasterworld. Human tampering of Google SERPs is trivial if you have the money to buy links.
| 12:51 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google's claim that human tampering is difficult is nonsense because they give too much credit to a single human-edited directory. |
Corporate claims in general do not brim with verisimilitude; they are strategic. Ubiquitous one way repetition defeats the mumbled controversy. You deserve a shake today.
However, when it comes to self-policing, dmoz is 1984 on steroids. Everything that happens is obvious to everyone who bothers to look. The meta editors look at what their editors do. Dmoz editors have to defend decisions as they make them. It's certainly not a perfect volunteer organization, but it impresses the heck out of me.
| 3:23 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yonnermark - your assumption is correct, I pointed this out awhile ago DMOZ editors and others asked what I was smoking.
I saw one of my competitors go from page 3 to spot #1 from dmoz link text and from page 15 on a very competitive key works phrase to page 3, just after the dmoz listing with the precious keywords in the text.
It also helped him that he was cloaking. Do this check this guys google cache, see what comes up. If nothing comes up, as I see with some cloakers then yeah hes cloaking.
In addition, check the actual link text at DMOZ like this >> www.site.com << now click on it and if you end up on a page like this www.site.com/main2.com then the guy is redirecting from his cloaked page (www.site.com) to his presentation page www.site.com/main2.com
If its one thing I cant stand its a cloaker! Which is atleast 50% of the people in this forum, at anyrate. They make these cloaked page full of Candy for the Googlebot, then hide it like little tricky sobs... I rather make Google candy and let my visitors use it for information. When your selling a product the more information the better, this is a confidense builder for the customer, why hide it, make use of your keyword optimizations, be creative.
And when ever google decides they are against cloaking you will still be in the serps, and the sobs will be bankrupt : )
Also go to alltheweb and altavista and check the guys backlinks see whats up study them and figure out what hes doing. My guess hes cloaking too.
I actually have my main DMOZ listing sitting on the DMOZ waiting for Google to pick up the weekly dump, my text is simply awesome, and cant wait to see how well it makes my site rank. Its been there a month, so hopefully anyday now.
| 9:26 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The point about the title guidelines (reproduced earlier in this thread) is that there's actually not much flexibility over what the title (aka link text) in dmoz should be.
Take WebmasterWorld as an example - the two possible options are WebmasterWorld (homepage title tag, "subscribe to WebmasterWorld") or WebmasterWorld.com (logo). Every dmoz editor should come to the same conclusion. Brett may wish to benefit from the word webmaster in the link anchor text - to do so then he would simply have to change the name of the site to Webmaster World, modifying the site title, text and logo accordingly.
Description text is far more variable since there are many valid ways to describe a site. However, this is not much of an issue as the description text is not part of the link.
There shouldn't be much of a concept of 'a favourable title' or 'an unfavourable title' - it's up to you to call your site or business whatever you like and that will generally be reflected in your dmoz listing.
| 11:09 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My DMOZ listing description is ok for content but is very poor with respect to grammar and style. The title (which becomes anchor text) includes just the company name and product name but not the product type (ie keywords). This is true for most other entries in the same category, however, some do clearly contain keywords in the title. If Google is biassed heavily towards anchor text, then clearly a single DMOZ editor has the power to significantly change Google results.
Just checked, fallen from 5th to 8th on main keyword search but there are only three unique competing products above me. Result duplication on Google really is shocking at the moment! However, the same thing happened a few weeks ago and then I was back up after a couple of days.
| 11:52 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Human tampering of Google SERPs is trivial if you have the money to buy links |
Tampering with page titles and site content can also have an effect on Google SERPs. And if you get a free link with just the right anchor text ... this isn't tampering?
Just trying to work out how "tampering" varies from SEO ... ;)
| 12:18 pm on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> how "tampering" varies from SEO
My best guess is that you don't need an SEO (firm) to do it.
| This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: 52 (  2 ) > > |