homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.38.30
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 52 ( 1 [2]     
Does Google recognize double listings in the Google directory?
kahuna

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 10:18 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Regarding link popularity which is a factor in Google, does Google recognize double listings in the ODP and filter or weight this as a benefit... in the ODP feeded sites......
In the ODP double listing are acceptable, and even multiple listings, what type of benefit does Google weight these multiple listings especially concerning link popularity.
Somebody had a really cool cgi up listed that showed all the zillions of multiple listings in ODP.

What does the group feel about the ODP feed (dump) towards the evaluations Google uses on these sites that use the dump.

[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 11:03 pm (utc) on Mar. 16, 2004]

 

SyntheticUpper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:44 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

The dichotomy is between

1) a SE that declares it wants to provide results by algo, created by humans, but without further intervention by humans once allowed to run

And

2) the need to feed its results with a human edited directory.

Sorry it wasn't made clearer.

It has always puzzled me.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:55 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

And yet if you can get your teenage nephew to add a link to your site on his home page, that should count, while ODP links are ignored?

I don't suggest they to be ignored. ODP links should count once. Once. Not once + Google directory + N unfiltered mirrors. I would assume this would be Google's preference as well, at least in regards to the non-Google mirrors.

Lately people have claimed ODP listings to have greater significance than mere links, and while I can't substantiate their claims, I don't discount them either. We saw a major shakeup this month about the time Google updated their directory. Its evident that mirrors are not being filtered. In principle, it should not matter whether the advantage is generally small. In some cases it is not, unless you consider a PR6 [webmasterworld.com] based solely on ODP insignificant.

Google often touts its impartiality...the democracy of link "voting," etc. Well if they've indirectly appointed ODP editors as representatives of this online democracy, then at best they are incompetent in their charge and at worst the fox is guarding the hen house. Reality is likely somewhere in between, with plentiful examples of both.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:56 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google "relies" on people of all types in that it assigns some value to linking from anyone's websites. You are whining about Google putting value on a resource that literally thousands of people "vote" as a quality resource.

We are comparing two sources of votes. One, the crawlable internet, we take for granted as flawed but accept its imperfections because we simply can't ignore it. The other, ODP, has obvious, demonstrable flaws and could be well and easily ignored. Because ODP is a subset of the internet, why not simply treat it as such, and no more of an authority than Joebob's Geocities MIDI-enhanced webpage?

flicker

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:05 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Because ODP is a subset of the internet, why not simply treat it as such,
>and no more of an authority than Joebob's Geocities MIDI-enhanced webpage?

GoogleGuy has stated that this is exactly what they do, and I don't see any reason to doubt his honesty on this. I haven't seen any sign that ODP links count more than other comparable links.

And I don't think links from ODP clones help you much at all, certainly not if you're in a halfway competitive field. The clone pages for commercial categories mostly have a PR of 1 or 2 with 50 other links on the page, if Google's counting them at all (which I'm not sure they do). If links from places like that are going to improve your rating, just think what the link from rfgdxm1's nephew could do for you. :-D

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:46 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

"no human intervention"

Sorry but the stuff posted here is so out there sometimes. All website linking has "human intervention". Hello? You are postulating something that is obviously untrue, to the point of being laughable.

Google has an algorithm that relies heavily on "human intervention" in all its aspects.

"Once."

This is just too silly. If I think a site is worth linking to, that link should count. If somebody else thinks a site is worth linking to, that vote should count too. This notion that only one link should count is otherwordly.

The reality is a bunch of people on the Internet, including Google, think that linking to the same sites that dmoz.org links to is a good idea. Those... are... votes. Get it? That is the whole point of people getting to vote. This idea that other people can't vote because you don't like what they vote for is fascistic, but even more so it misunderstands both the Internet and what a sensible algorithm *should* value.

If I happen to be an authority in my niche, and I make a page with links to what I consider the best sites in my niche, and other people agree that I am an authority and choose to add those same links to their sites, it would be moron search engine-ing to ignore those links -- even if some folks don't like who I link to.

Reality is so much more sensible than black helicopterism.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:55 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

>And I don't think links from ODP clones help you much at all, certainly not if you're in a halfway competitive field. The clone pages for commercial categories mostly have a PR of 1 or 2 with 50 other links on the page, if Google's counting them at all (which I'm not sure they do).

I have doubts that Google counts these clone links. It may be like guestbook links were a while back. While the guestbook pages showed their PR on the toolbar (as well they should), even though links on them were being ignored, Google did still show them with the link: command anyhow. GoogleGuy commented that since this was misleading people to think they were being counted, that Google was going to stop showing them. Google since has. Given that ODP clone links showing don't cause as much consternation as links showing from guestbook spammers, it may be Google doesn't count them in the algo, yet still shows them with the link: command. ODP clones are algorithmically trivial to spot, and their links ignored.

>If links from places like that are going to improve your rating, just think what the link from rfgdxm1's nephew could do for you. :-D

ROFL. Yeah, I can quickly teach my kin how to get their homepage PR to at least PR5 with little effort on their part. ;)

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:04 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Besides, GoogleGuy addressed much of this last year. Google counts the clones that people actually use (not sure if that is the exact quote). That amounts to maybe three or four clones besides the Google Directory.

This isn't something Google hasn't considered before. They weight these links to the degree Google thinks they merit. There is nothing mysterious involved.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:26 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Besides, GoogleGuy addressed much of this last year. Google counts the clones that people actually use (not sure if that is the exact quote). That amounts to maybe three or four clones besides the Google Directory.

I remember that GG post, and that is a fair characterization. Dunno exactly how many clones Google feels meet that standard; however this clearly means for the vast majority of clones, links on them are ignored.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 2:05 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

I've said this before and I'll try again. In my opinion, the biggest advantage of a dmoz listing is with the extra real estate the page gets in google serps. An average no dmoz listing page gets 4 lines. The average page with dmoz listing gets 6. It certainly looks to the average user to be some sort of premium listing.
And yes, a dmoz link should only count once.
And there should be a way to get in the Google Directory if you are on DMOZ's ex-editors list.

treeline

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 4:09 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

There are times when a human edited directory is much more useful than any search engine. Even with the inevitable incompleteness, at least all the sites are actually relevant and look logically related to a real eye. The spam is so deep on some subjects, and the descriptions so misleading in search engines that finding something straightforward isn't.

Human Beings. The antidote to computer abuse.

IITian

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 4:10 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

>And yes, a dmoz link should only count once.

It really counts once. Google directory link is counted once, for each of the sites cloning portions of DMOZ, links are counted once.

Say I like all sites in a DMOZ category. Either I could link to that category from my site (say from PR6 homepage) giving PR boost to that category and as a result to all the sites listed there,

or

I could create a new page on my site with the content exatly taken from that DMOZ category (within its TOS) linked from my PR6 homepage.

Should Google care how I give my vote of confidence to DMOZ? No, according to their basic original algo.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 4:55 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

The reality is a bunch of people on the Internet, including Google, think that linking to the same sites that dmoz.org links to is a good idea. Those... are... votes. Get it? That is the whole point of people getting to vote. This idea that other people can't vote because you don't like what they vote for is fascistic, but even more so it misunderstands both the Internet and what a sensible algorithm *should* value.

If I happen to be an authority in my niche, and I make a page with links to what I consider the best sites in my niche, and other people agree that I am an authority and choose to add those same links to their sites, it would be moron search engine-ing to ignore those links -- even if some folks don't like who I link to.

These statements show a basic ignorance of the situation.

If someone throws up a DMOZ mirror, they generally aren't saying, "Hey, DMOZ is the bestest darn human-edited directory on the web, and I want to support it by hosting an exact copy for which I expect neither gratitude nor compensation!" No. I hate to knock them off the ivory tower you put them on, but most are trying to profiteer from it in some strange way. God knows what good it will do them, but I suppose for their purposes they're just lucky the ODP makes their data freely available. These are the same genuises who thought the world needed 800 online copies of the CIA World Factbook. Not only do they not much care about the contents or quality of the ODP, they haven't exactly made reasoned decisions to include the sites it links to, so to call those links "votes" is a bit of a stretch. If they wanted to "vote" for the ODP, they should just link to the directory itself, not leech off of it.

Meanwhile, the folks who decided to link to the very same sites you listed in your niche directory have made a reasoned decision about a topic they have specific knowledge of.

These are very much different situations and should not be equated.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 8:24 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of a dmoz listing is with the extra real estate the page gets in google serps. An average no dmoz listing page gets 4 lines. The average page with dmoz listing gets 6.

Powdork - a couple of hours ago, I would have agreed with you. Now that G have rolled out the new look, the directory listing on the SERPS under the site is gone (at least it has for know). (The Directory is still there under <more> on the home page)

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:17 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

"These statements show a basic ignorance of the situation."

Dolemite you need to take a step back and take another look at the situation. Now you are complaining about somebody who just "throws up" a dmoz clone (that nobody will ever see)? A minute ago you were complaining about a mega-company (Google) that quite deliberately puts up an important clone.

Sorry, but you just don't have a grasp of the situation. Some very few sites (Google, Excite, AOL/Netscape, maybe a couple others) put up dmoz clones that people use to some degree, and they do it because they see it as valuable. These pseduo-geniuses who put up clones to get rich (!) have their clones ignored by Google.

Now where is the problem, precisely? Why can't Google and Excite cast votes? Since Google ignores the huge mass of clones, why do you care about them?

SyntheticUpper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:22 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

steve,

you totally misunderstood my previous post, regarding 'human intervention' - it was perfectly clear. Maybe a step back yourself?

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 3:55 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi cbpayne,
I was just coming by to mention that. is Google still using Directory descriptions when snippets aren't available?

I should also mention.. :) :) :)

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 9:46 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dolemite you need to take a step back and take another look at the situation. Now you are complaining about somebody who just "throws up" a dmoz clone (that nobody will ever see)? A minute ago you were complaining about a mega-company (Google) that quite deliberately puts up an important clone.

I complain about both because both, in my view, should be treated as any other mirror of any other website that gets de-indexed once determined to be a mirror. This is what [I assume] Google tries to do with most of the non-Google ODP mirrors, they're just doing a piss-poor job of it so far.

Sorry, but you just don't have a grasp of the situation. Some very few sites (Google, Excite, AOL/Netscape, maybe a couple others) put up dmoz clones that people use to some degree, and they do it because they see it as valuable. These pseduo-geniuses who put up clones to get rich (!) have their clones ignored by Google.

Now where is the problem, precisely? Why can't Google and Excite cast votes? Since Google ignores the huge mass of clones, why do you care about them?

They don't ignore the clones nearly well enough. Take another look at this search [webmasterworld.com]. For each of those ODP clones that show up in the index, backlinks are being counted. They often don't show up in backlink searches because of PR, but 150+ links from separate domains is a very nice boost, regardless of passed PR.

For the very same reasons Brin and Page cited in 1998 and because absolutely anybody can (and usually do) put up an ODP clone and do so without thought or consideration as to the quality of the directory, they should make filtering the mirrors a priority. I know I've benefitted from their weakness in this area; I've got a few mirrors that have cropped up in my backlinks, but I'd much rather they get this right and not allow a few malcontented editors a potentially huge influence on rankings.

This is not organic linking any more than buying text links. I know if Google could negate that influence on rankings they'd do it, and in some cases they already are.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 10:07 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

SyntheticUpper, I didn't misunderstand your post. I just pointed out that looking at one tree and ignoring the forest will cause you to draw some pretty misguided conclusions.

Dolemite, what part of "ignore" escapes you here?

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:56 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dolemite, what part of "ignore" escapes you here?

The part that implies 150 mirrors is a suitable margin of error.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:14 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why are 150 copies of the ODP any worse than 150 copies of spamazon? or Vstore vspam? or hotelnow? or inexpedia? or Project Gutenberg? or, as you say, the CIA compendium of fact, fiction, and all-round good night-time reading? The fact is, it's fairly simple to tweak a template to hide similarities in the actual content from any automatic mirror-checker. And there are a lot of people with nothing better to do with their lives than try to profit by copying someone else's work, and forcibly obtruding their own version in front of innocent surfers.

In the face of enough deliberately malicious subverters, any kind of social order breaks down -- and that's basically what any search engine faces. Hence the value and importance of an independent human check on websites.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:34 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The part that implies 150 mirrors is a suitable margin of error."

I don't think you understand the issue. Like with guestbooks, finding text on a page is entirely different than assigning algorithmic value to link pop or anchor text.

But regardless of that it is trivial. In fact, in a world where people regularly make tens of thousands of pages for anchor text, the effect of 150 PR1 or PR0 pages would be beyond trivial to consider.

But this trivial stuff has spun off the topic. The answer to the tread question is Google counts links from its Directory.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:56 am on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Like with guestbooks, finding text on a page is entirely different than assigning algorithmic value to link pop or anchor text.

Its entirely easier. Many of the indexed mirrors use the exact attribution code provided by the ODP. If those hundreds of Ph.D's can't even filter for that, then they better start cashing in their stock options before someone finds out how clueless they are.

But regardless of that it is trivial. In fact, in a world where people regularly make tens of thousands of pages for anchor text, the effect of 150 PR1 or PR0 pages would be beyond trivial to consider.

ODP listings are not trivial. I'd sure take a PR6 [webmasterworld.com] before even starting to do link development. My sense of the current algorithm is that those 150 links from different domains might be more valuable than a typical text link purchase of a few thousand pages on a PR6 site. In any case, we can agree to disagree about that, but its indisputable that Google isn't doing the job to filter mirrors.

This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 52 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
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