homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.174.90
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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]

 

GoogleGuy

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:13 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

We can process the RDF file and count the number of listings just as well as someone's CGI script can. I'd concentrate more on getting quality links and not obsess about trying to lots and lots of ODP links.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:22 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google is on record -- repeatedly -- as claiming that ODP links are not treated in any way specially as affecting page rank. That means all links in all dmoz.org pages (categories) are spidered and weighed just like links on yahoo.com or (geocities.com!) pages. It also means licensees that can be recognized as serving mirror pages won't show up in the search results. Of course, many licensees -- including directory.google.com -- can't be recognized as mirrors that way.

Obviously, Google's search results on many informational topics are lightyears beyond anyone else's, simply because the algorithm makes effective use of large hub sites like the ODP (and Yahoo). Also obviously, Google could do more with the ODP data: my guess is that Hilltop (or whatever it is) gains its main benefit on massively-spammed queries primarily by recognizing and heavily weighting links from non-incestuous hubs.

IITian

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:09 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

GG
I'd concentrate more on getting quality links and not obsess about trying to lots and lots of ODP links.

Does it means ODP links are not considered to be quality links? What are quality links - links from .edu and .gov? What else?

kahuna

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 8:06 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi GG... yes most
most assuredly building quality links is important. After a couple of weeks
of investigating and the extreme number of websites that use the RDF from the ODP
and are included in the index, I have concluded they are nothing less than
spamming the index of Google, aside from just being affiliate type sites
shoving advertising into the users face.
Considering the extensive restructuring of G since the Florida update et al
emphasizing the "information" of the internet as opposed to the SEO advertising
methods, I would think that the use of the RDF from the ODP
would be considered nothing less than spam.
So how do we detect ODP RDFs... all RDF are suppose to carry a copyright notice,
and most often have at the bottom "become an editor" or similar linking back to
ODP.... that in itself would indicate a spam site built off of ODP.

Best regards GG... hope you are enjoying the free time with out the 'rents around :-))

Cheers and thanks for all the work you help out the gang here.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 10:38 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

The fact that DMOZ mirrors (especially Google's own) end up multiplying the weight of that initial link is one of the more compelling points among the list of reasons why Google should not continue its special relationship with the ODP/DMOZ.

Here's a search on a random phrase picked from an ODP listing:

[google.com...]

151 results. What was that about a filter?

Folks around here have been squawking about DMOZ listings being the big secret to ranking well lately, and while I don't quite buy into that, the mere appearance of impropriety or favoritism is a convincing enough reason to sever ties with the organization in question.

The big question I have is, "what does Google get out of their relationship with the ODP?" It seems entirely one-sided to me. Its such a poor resource that whatever influence it has will only degrade the quality of the Google index. Meanwhile the concept that it will help your ranking (which Google can't fully deny) has promoted it to an extent that's probably kept it from the quiet death it deserves.

The whole idea of a good search engine is that it makes directories obsolete. Despite what you think about the quality of today's search engines, its clear that the ODP became obsolete long ago.

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 10:52 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

>The fact that DMOZ mirrors (especially Google's own) end up multiplying the weight of that initial link is one of the more compelling points among the list of reasons why Google should not continue its special relationship with the ODP/DMOZ.

Google has no special relationship with the ODP. Google does use ODP data for its own directory, but this isn't due to any "special relationship". I can download a copy of the latest RDF dump from dmoz.org and put up an ODP clone on my website if I want to. A site may get a small PR boost from the link from the Google directory, but this isn't really all that material.

>The whole idea of a good search engine is that it makes directories obsolete. Despite what you think about the quality of today's search engines, its clear that the ODP became obsolete long ago.

My sites do extremely well in search engines, yet my main site has got over 60 hits from dmoz.org and clones. Thus as there are people using the ODP and clones to find sites, it isn't obsolete.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:31 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you think of search results as divided into the very competitive, normal, esotoric, and downright obscure, it's easy to see that the influence of human-refereed directories varies by category.

In the competitive (which is where most regulars here focus), nothing can save the results from being 99% spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam. And it's easy to see why the doorway affiliatemeisters are perturbed, concerned, and even angry at anything that stands out to a human eye. But it's petty and shortsighted to focus on the ODP, since all directories have that effect. And in any case, the real competition here is paid inclusion.

In the normal searches, directories have a slightly beneficial effect.

In the esoteric searches, the directories make the difference between high-quality results and zillions of spamazon-spamfiliate pages. (This is where volunteer ODP editors tend to hang out, and it shows -- and since it shoes, they tend to focus here.) This also explains why webmarketroids are frustrated at the apparent indifference of the volunteers, and the volunteers, seeing the difference they make where a difference can be made, are indifferent to the frustration.

In the downright obscure searches, the search engines do all right by themselves. Only the psychopathically vicious spamsters are optimizing for keyword sets with only a few dozen hits (and there are fortunately very few of them.)

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:34 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google has no special relationship with the ODP. Google does use ODP data for its own directory, but this isn't due to any "special relationship".

Google uses ODP data in a highly-PR-weighted directory which violates Google's policy of not indexing or counting backlinks from duplicate content.

If I'm not mistaken, Google has helped fund the ODP.

Google uses ODP descriptions in SERPs.

What exactly qualifies as a "special relationship?" Do they need a *** love child?

My sites do extremely well in search engines, yet my main site has got over 60 hits from dmoz.org and clones. Thus as there are people using the ODP and clones to find sites, it isn't obsolete.

60 hits? Maybe you should load balance some dual Opterons to handle all that traffic. ;)

Honestly, people do some strange things. I know a guy who's filled a 3-car garage with 8-tracks. I think we can all agree they're obsolete, and there isn't even a multi-billion dollar, soon-to-IPO company promoting them.

[edited by: eelixduppy at 9:52 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2009]

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:57 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

>If I'm not mistaken, Google has helped fund the ODP.

Not that I am aware of. As for your other examples, that isn't a special relationship, as that term would imply that somehow the ODP has some sort of deal with Google. They don't. As for Google counting backlinks from their ODP clone, and using the ODP descriptions in SERPs, presumably Google believes that it makes business sense to do so. I would guess the reason being is Google considers the ODP to be a good quality resource. You may disagree with that, but then again you aren't in charge of running Google. ;)

steveb

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:04 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The whole idea of a good search engine is that it makes directories obsolete."

If that is your idea of what a search engine is, don't give up your plumbers license.

"The fact that DMOZ mirrors (especially Google's own) end up multiplying the weight of that initial link is one of the more compelling points among the list of reasons why Google should not continue its special relationship with the ODP/DMOZ."

Aside from this sentence not making sense on its face, it reflects a pretty poor understanding of how the Internet works and how it should work. Dmoz is by far the highest quality respource on the Internet, even if it could be lots better. Google chooses to have a relationship with it because it is a good idea.

Face it, Google values good sites; and Google values the judgment of good sites... which just po's affiliate spammers, template peddlers and piffle purveyors. In this case, Google is also valuing their own judgment.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:14 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'll see if I can find any documentation of the funding. I know that Netscape/AOL had given them some money in the past, but now that Netscape is no more, that source is gone.

Obviously we disagree as to what constitutes a "special relationship." I disagree that they need some kind of "deal." The ODP is not for-profit business entity, so there's no need for a deal, but clearly there is a kind of understanding. For example, the ODP has the following attribution requirement:

Attribution Requirement. As a material condition of this Open Directory License, you must provide the below applicable attribution statements on (1) all copies of the Open Directory, in whole or in part, and derivative works thereof which are either distributed (internally or otherwise) or published (made available on the Internet and/or internally over any internal network/intranet or otherwise), whether distributed or published electronically, on hard copy media or by any other means, and (2) on any program/web page from which you directly link to/access any information contained within the Open Directory, in whole or in part, or any derivative work thereof:

And yet, Google uses ODP data as the "snippet" for ODP listed sites without attribution. Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but you're describing Google as just another customer of the ODP product, when I don't think that's a fair characterization.

For those who aren't aware and FWIW, we should note that rfgdxm1 is an ODP editor.

Powdork

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:14 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

what does Google get out of their relationship with the ODP?
They get the the best directory on the planet to which they then add their own unique spin (rerank by pr). Then they offer it to you, the surfer, with those cute little green ads along the side.
cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:38 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>And yet, Google uses ODP data as the "snippet"
>for ODP listed sites without attribution

Google is using the appropriate attribution.

All funding for ODP comes from AOL/Netscape

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 12:45 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The whole idea of a good search engine is that it makes directories obsolete."

If that is your idea of what a search engine is, don't give up your plumbers license.

steveb,

That isn't my assertion, though I don't disagree. This is from "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine":

Human maintained lists cover popular topics effectively but are subjective, expensive to build and maintain, slow to improve, and cannot cover all esoteric topics.
...
We have built a large-scale search engine which addresses many of the problems of existing systems

Dmoz is by far the highest quality respource [sic] on the Internet, even if it could be lots better.

Highest quality resource on the internet? By far? That's quite a far-reaching statement, are you sure you don't want to qualify that somehow? I would hesitate to use such strong language about a single thing from such a large set of things.

And even if you might call ODP the best non-specific, volunteer-edited, online directory, that doesn't mean this directory is of any use to a search engine.

Face it, Google values good sites; and Google values the judgment of good sites... which just po's affiliate spammers, template peddlers and piffle purveyors.

Unfortunately, too many of these folks have become editors or otherwise found their way into the directory.

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:00 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>They get the the best directory on the planet to which they then add their own unique spin (rerank by pr). Then they offer it to you, the surfer, with those cute little green ads along the side.

THAT is an excellent point. ODP data is free to Google. They repackage it, with Adwords on the page. There really are folks who use the Google directory. If Google got rid of it, they'd lose Adword revenue. For Google, getting rid of the directory would be bad for the bottom line.

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:04 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google is using the appropriate attribution.

All funding for ODP comes from AOL/Netscape

Could you please elaborate if you have specific knowledge of these issues, cbpayne?

AFAICT, Google's use would be encompassed by "any program/web page from which you directly link to/access any information contained within the Open Directory, in whole or in part, or any derivative work thereof." That use requires attribution according to the ODP License [dmoz.org], unless a separate agreement has been established.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:23 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior editors have repeatedly stated in several forums that the resourcing of ODP comes from AOL/NEtscape - 2 (or 3?) staff, technical support, servers etc.

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 1:34 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>AFAICT, Google's use would be encompassed by "any program/web page from which you directly link to/access any information contained within the Open Directory, in whole or in part, or any derivative work thereof." That use requires attribution according to the ODP License, unless a separate agreement has been established.

That ODP description appears under a link to the Google Directory category the site is listed in. On that page the attribution can be found. I suspect either those in charge of the ODP consider this sufficient attribution, or at least such a gray area it isn't worth making an issue over.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 6:00 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dolemite, welcome to planet earth. Please convey our greetings to your species. the patron of the ODP can be found out by typing a sekret password based on the domain (dmoz.org) and path (/help/geninfo.html) into your browser address field.

Netscape has gone underground as a division of AOL to hide from the Gates of Mordor (not to mention the Ballmers and Allens), and providing content to AOL (via the ODP) is one of its (remaining) activities.

Google doesn't have a special deal with the ODP, at least that's what the ODP editor-in-chief tells us to tell all the alien visitors. The ODP is, of course, older than Google: and the first three major portals to use the ODP were all NOT Google.

Oh, sorry, now we have to kill you.

div01

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 4:07 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

> If I'm not mistaken, Google has helped fund the ODP.

I don't know about that but ODP's parent will be getting some Google preferred shares at what should be a mighty good price!

thumpcyc

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 6:40 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Quick Question, Close to on Subject.

When Google is presented with two DMOZ listings in a regional/state/city category, and its proper "shopping" category, with two different descriptions, after all the dust has settled, and Google is done with the updating of the G Directory & The updating the directory descriptions for the SERPS, Which Category & Description will be displayed in the G SERPs? Will it be the cat and description with the higher PR in the G Dir?

Ok, so it was not so short a question, it could have a short answer ;-)
Thanks,
Thumpcyc

Dolemite

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 9:21 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

what does Google get out of their relationship with the ODP?

They get the the best directory on the planet to which they then add their own unique spin (rerank by pr). Then they offer it to you, the surfer, with those cute little green ads along the side.

Sorry, what I should have said is, "what does Google get out of ODP that benefits the user?"

Page and Brin clearly identified the weaknesses of ODP-style directories in 1998, and little has changed. Yes, Google must feel they have a reason for using its data as they do and allowing it to influence rankings to the extent that it does. I know that point remains in question, but would any of us say no to an extra 151 backlinks from separate domains?

My sense in this situation is that Google lacks the proper perspective to see how the ODP weakens their position as an impartial resource. I'm not claiming my perspective is much clearer, but I'd say this is a rare case where the average webmaster's viewpoint may be as lucid as any. The fact is, I've had no trouble getting sites listed after some follow-up and I've even had a site listed that I never submitted. Unfortunately, too many editors interject their self-interest and biases into their work, they don't stay current or proactively add good resources, and many just don't seem to be doing the job at all. Rankings shouldn't depend on these people, to any extent. Google's inability to adequately filter the mirrors only exacerbates the problem and amplifies its effect.

Clearly this needs to change, and the simplest way to accomplish this is for Google to sever all ties with the ODP, cease the use of its data, and improve the detection of mirrors.

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 9:46 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Rankings shouldn't depend on these people, to any extent.

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? That makes no sense. The flaw in your logic is you greatly exaggerate the relevance of ODP links in Google rankings. Truth is that often a link on your nephew's home page will be more valuable to an ODP link for Google rankings. Most ODP categories (particularly commercial ones, which is what most reading here care about) typically have low PR, and lots of links on the page to dilute PR transferred. While with your nephew his home page has few links. And let's not mention you can get your nephew to link with the exact keyword laden anchor text of your choice, while the ODP will use the official name of your site.

steveb

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 10:53 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dolemite, you aren't even being close to reasonable here. 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. To be blunt, no one cares if you think it isn't. Some people think it is, and so Google judges that value and weights it in their algorithm. The dmoz clones are simply more votes from more people. There isn't anything even close to dmoz in terms of value on the Internet, even if it is flawed. Only a moron search engine would ignore it, and of course none do.

Clearly what needs to change is your view that other people should not be allowed to vote.

SyntheticUpper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:00 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Steveb,

Google claims to admire algos - no human intervention.

They use DMOZ - full human intervention, with problems to boot.

This is a dichotomy, always has been. And to point this out is perfectly reasonable.

[edited by: SyntheticUpper at 11:05 pm (utc) on Mar. 28, 2004]

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:04 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>If DMOZ carried Adwords, Google might take it more seriously

Maybe the category editor can get paid from the Adwords shown in 'their' category :-) ... but then they would have to split it with the metas and editalls ... then there might be corruption ... then...

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:15 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>They use DMOZ - full human intervention, with problems to boot.

And how does this differ from Google counting links on the home page of webmasterworld.com? Brett can link to any site that he wants on that PR7 page, for any reason. Or, no reason at all. The ODP actually has rules for editors listing sites, and editors that don't follow the rules can be booted by the metas or staff. Whereas Brett can add links on this site based on a whim.

SyntheticUpper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:18 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dichotomy is between point 1, and point 2, not within point 2.

rfgdxm1

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



 
Msg#: 22681 posted 11:24 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Dichotomy is between point 1, and point 2, not within point 2.

So you are aguing that Google should assign no relevance to both links on dmoz.org, and also links on webmasterworld.com?

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