| 10:29 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|About 5% of the sites listed don't even exist anymore. |
This is not Google's fault.
|Alot of "this category needs an editor". |
This completely irrelevant to Google's algo.
|Alot of tripod, geocities type sites. |
This is some of the better information on the net..I can't see why you would think this is bad?
|I can't get in myself, but i know my site is better than most in my category. |
Why can't you get in? Is there a problem? Help me out here.
|I think Google is the best SE in the world, but don't understand the relationship with DMOZ. |
This sounds like a disguised complaint against DMOZ...or am I reading you wrong.
|Much less emphasis on DMOZ. As i was looking for link exchanges this is what i found. |
But YOU found it useful for looking for links?:>)
I like your idea of looking for links within your industry. It's a very good idea...But I am confused regarding your suggestions.
How will these suggestions help Google?
| 10:34 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You're missing the point. DMOZ is a major, major part of the algo. I don't think it should be just from visiting today. All my examples (no editor, non-existing sites) all goes to my point there should be much less emphasis on DMOZ. You asked why i can't get in. Because i have no buddies as editors. As most editors are webmaster and put there own sites in.
| 10:41 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"I think it's more important if a site links to a site without a link back."
Did you actually mean this? Most every site that links to me without a reciprocal link is virtually worthless. Valuing these sort links would just be silly. It may make sense for sites like Amazon or Yahoo, but within an industry it's absurd. If garbage "add a link here" sites don't merit links themselves, why should their votes count for anything?
| 10:56 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
johnniebry, that is a pretty broad statement.
Could you sticky-mail me the category(ies) that you think is/are 'bad' and also sticky-mail me your website that you can't 'get in'?
I'd sure appreciate it:>)
| 11:05 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Less emphasis on reciprocal links, more on sites linking to yours without a link back. |
Google doesn't rank sites--it ranks pages. So how is Google supposed to know that your link to site X from one of 1,000 pages is reciprocated with a link to your home page from one of Site X's 1,000 pages? It might be possible for Google to keep track of such reciprocal links, but the cost (in terms of CPU cycles and equipment) would almost certainly be prohibitive.
| 11:09 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What i mean is, if you have a great site, other sites will link to yours simply because your site is good. No need in looking for link exchanges, people will link to your site because they think it is worthy. Most top sites have these type of inbound links. Anybody can do reciprocal linking, because both parties get a benefit. I don't know what type of site you have where worthless sites link to you and FFA (garbage)sites link to you.
| 11:14 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Scott, as far as what category, i think most categories. Just pick a category where your site is related and check some of them out. I have lots of sites, with lots of different categories, and i actually have a few in. But even with categories i have no sites with, some sites listed in there aren't that great.
| 11:14 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Johnniebry you do DMOZ a wrong.
1) Cats showing no editor have editors above that can and often do edit them.
2) Many Dmoz editors spot spam in a way no algo can at the moment. Indeed a hardcore lot delight in searching for spam and removing it. This benifits Google.
3)Dmoz is human edited and complements an algo. No algo can really tell how relevant a site is or how good it is. Dmoz can. This benifits Google.
4) Most editors are not webmasters or are webmasters of only one site. Very few use it to exclude/damage others and they get banned quite quickly.
Google use of dmoz is great: It cost's them ziltch and factors in the major human reviewed directory to give them more relevant results.
Predictions: I think they will move back slightly from this algo. It seems no more relevant yet has been badly received.
Suggestions: Make sure your mousemats are better than your algo for next years Pubcon
| 11:19 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It is important, as google accepts sites automatically, for there to be some kind of "human" portion to the algo. No matter how programatically clever their spidering is, sites will always make it to the top because the webmaster is clever, rather than because it is the "best" site (of course the two may coincide and the site may well be changed after acceptance).
This is why they rightly give heavy (perhaps the heaviest) weighting to a manual directory which happens to be dmoz.
| 11:24 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Cats showing no editor have editors above that can and often do edit them."
Go there, and try different categories. Theres are LOTS of sites listed that no longer exist and haven't existed for some time. This is a fact.
"Most editors are not webmasters or are webmasters of only one site. Very few use it to exclude/damage others and they get banned quite quickly. "
A lot of editors are webmasters, which sometimes can be a bad thing. Do a search on Google on how to become a dmoz editor and tell me what you see. I've read in some webmaster newsletters on tricks on now to become an editor so later you can get your site in. Example: Apply to be an editor for a category you have nothing to do with and after awhile if you do good, apply to be an editor in your own category. I know some editors in DMOZ that are great and fair but there are editors there for the sole purpose of getting there site listed.
| 11:26 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
johnniebry, the Internet is full of "submit your link here" sites. I know you are thinking of an example like thousands of sites might link to yahoo or the New York Times or something, but that is just evidence that they are important, not a reason to make them more important. For the vast majority of non-megasites, what you are suggesting would be terrible. The vast majority of non-exchanged links on the Internet are simply worthless -- or worse, purchased pagerank.
(Also what you suggest would mean that sites that sell stuff, and thus have lots of incoming affiliate links, would zoom up in the rankings just because they sell which makes no sense at all.)
| 11:26 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Make sure your mousemats are better than your algo for next years Pubcon |
That is SO true!
| 11:32 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"I know you are thinking of an example like thousands of sites might link to yahoo or the New York Times or something, but that is just evidence that they are important"
Thats exactly what i meant. I personally like recip linking because its easy. But it shouldn't be that important for the sole fact anybody can get hundreds if not thousands of links,it just takes time. And most people will link to you if you get a recip link. Those aren;t important because both parties get a benefit, kinda of a you wash my back i wash yours.
Site A has 1000 incoming links, but has outgoing links to the same 1000 sites
Site B has 1000 incoming links, but has 0 outgoing links.
If both sites are in the same category Site B should be ranked higher.
| 11:59 pm on Oct 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Heres what i'm talking about. I just went there and clicked the first thing i saw- Arts then clicked Directories and scrolled down to check out the listed sites and here is what i found. "This category needs an editor" Found a site listed more than once with 2 different domains, but exactly the same site, same content. Found 5 sites either have moved, no longer exist and 1 that said "this site has been removed"
I picked the first category i came upon and the above is what i found. That why there should be much less emphasis on DMOZ is the Google Algo. Try this out for yourself and then defend these comments:
"Google use of dmoz is great: It cost's them ziltch and factors in the major human reviewed directory to give them more relevant results"
"This is why they rightly give heavy (perhaps the heaviest) weighting to a manual directory which happens to be dmoz."
| 12:06 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It sounds like you would be willing to help the ODP. If the category doesn't have an editor, why not apply?
You sound like you would like the ODP to be 'fresh' and that's a good thing!
| 12:13 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You could always send the editor in the cat above feedback about what you just found. I've seen sites get updated, moved, deleted, mirror sites removed, etc. from this kind of input.
| 12:15 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have applied and know some fellow site owners and webmasters who have applied too and have been turned down. I'm all for a human edited directory but from what i've seen DMOZ needs to get "minty fresh" results too. I know DMOZ is one of the major factors in the Google algo but from what i saw while looking for some link exchanges i have to question it. They desperately do need to get some new editors and start going thru the directory to update it. You would be suprised at how many non-existent sites and broken links there are. I think Google is the greatest SE but i just wish the directory they use as a part of the algo was better.
| 1:19 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Most editors are not webmasters or
are webmasters of only one site.
Very few use it to exclude/damage others and
they get banned quite quickly.
I must disagree on all the lines/statements of this point.
Only my POV of course.
| 1:28 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with your thoughts on non recipricol links. They must be worth more, but steveb comments about affiliate links is an interesting one. If a site has an affiliate scheme, perhaps its got something of value and thus deserves to be higher in the rankings? Recipricol links all too often is just a sign of how busy the webmaster has been in getting them.... not a reflection of true quality.
Going back to the original question:
1) More weight put on 'location' of incoming links to help the relevancy of regional searches. If someone has a .com address hosted in the states they do not appear in .co.uk local searches, but may have relevant content. However, if .co.uk sites link to them perhaps this will become a signal that they are relevant to people in the UK.
2) Less emphasis on hosting location. Too many sites now host in the states for various reasons, but are relevant to other countries.
3) Ignoring all unseen text. Things like noscript or noframes should not be used for seo purposes. They are relevant for some sites functionality, but why should that give them an advantage.
4) More emphasis on blocks of text. If you know your subject, you will have good quality lumps of text, and rank well accordingly.
5) Less emphasis on big sites with loads of pages. Each page, whether part of a big or small site, should be evaluated equally. Often a specialist site is quite small but far more informative. Again, the algo should concentrate on body text, not all the other stuff. Word proximity, density and theme continuity throughout the page should be the most important part of the algo.
6) Penalties for interlinking or linking to bad neighbourhoods should be abandoned. People in all innocents create a community of sites or perhaps link where they shouldn't. It is rarely a sign of true spamming. The google assumption that links are an indicator of quality is outdated. I bet there are thousands of great sites out there, enjoyed by millions of people who don't have sites to "cast their vote" and link to them. The creators of these sites probably have better things to do than chase links. By ranking sites according to 'Links in' then google is basing it's index on the' votes' given by a small and narrow percentage of the worlds population...webmasters!
7) I think the concept of 'searching' rather than 'search results' is the area to examine. At the moment, a search for 'widgets in London' just produces a list of vague references and hundreds of links, which can take hours to look through. The secret to effective searching is knowing what to ask... google is wasting its time trying to give useful results for such vague requests, and should stop trying. All it produces is a list of sites that happen to match its algo and perhaps not answer the question. Having a simple search box is too simplistic, a search request should be followed by a qualifying question, thus instantly refining the search. With this in mind, perhaps directories should be given more prominence in search results ;) They are a good stepping stone to find sites google has missed.
| 4:16 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For two years I have had links to a website that pays me for advertising. Likewise many other similar sites point paid links at this business. In that time they have not had a single outgoing link on their site. Last month they put up a link to my site, and now it is the only outgoing link they have. It's simply absurd to think that my link to them now should be worth *less*. There is no logic to that at all. Clearly my site rose in stature, and value of links from my site become more important, because they linked to me. The only thing different than now that could possibly make sense here is that the link coming OFF that site should be worth more.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 6:50 am (utc) on Oct. 20, 2002]
| 5:17 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, as far as affiliate links, it doesn't work the way you suggested. Affiliate links dont go directly to the site, they go thru qksrv.net, bfast.com, linksynergy.com. So merchants participating in affiliate programs get no benefit as far as ranking goes.
| 6:40 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just a note here that may be slightly off topic but broadly relevant. I see it happending a lot if WebmasterWorld lately.
I think that we sometimes forget that members here come from a vast variety of companies. From individuals working on one site part time or full time, to individuals working full time on many sites, to companies doing many sites. Some are full SEO, or run pure affiliate or marketing sites, (the pure business people who are in it for the money with possible little content interest in the topic of their websites rather than it will make money - [no personal problem with that by the way!]) - others run sites that never make money, some that give internet exposure to charities, an organization, a person, or a company. There are major differences between the goals of each and the strategies they use to promote sites with very different goals.
For example, people with affiliate sites or types of sites in highly competitive sites though the latest G and Y! updates were disastrous. Others who run more news-based or information sites thought they were great! (generalising a lot of course)
I see in WebmasterWorld a lot that we do tend to view things from our own perspectives. So while for me for example, adding content is key to sites that will stand on their own and focus and keywords is key to our company site, I never ever realized until lately how profitable creating full on affiliate sites for example could be. Heh there are guyd out there making mega bucks from just being middle men with no product or service of their own! - [again no problem with this]
So coming from one posters view here unreciprocated links are no good. On the other i know in my area (and others do in their areas) that they are "better" as they demonstrate a link that has been freely added without any exchange as they just simply think ading a link to your site will help their own users.
Its all a matter of the different goals we have. The internet is so diverse, that now completely diff strategies have to be applied to say - a news site, a company site, an affiliate site, a blog, a webshop, an advertising site, an ecommerce site, and those that stand on their own compared to those that are just the web marketing vehicle for a bricks and mortar company.
So the suggestion is, let people know the type of sites you have experience in when it is important to the topic, and understand that others are in a completely different business - the only thing in common is that you use the web for marketing.
| 6:48 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would just like to add that the overall tone of the threads in this forum have not been appropriate as of late. We are here to discuss topics in a civil manner. So let's try and keep our comments focused on the topic rather thant the individual.
| 11:35 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Go there, and try different categories. Theres are LOTS of sites listed that no longer exist and haven't existed for some time. This is a fact.
It depends on what your veiw of lots are. Dmoz lists around 4million sites. All search engines includes lots of dead sites/pages including Google when no dmoz entry exists.
>A lot of editors are webmasters, which sometimes can be a bad thing.
Again depends what you mean by lots. It can also be a good thing. An webmaster editor is more likely to be able to spot spam and judge a site.
>webmaster newsletters on tricks on now to become an editor
No tricks are needed. My first cat was for my industry and I fully disclosed my site involvement. I got in with no problem as per their terms:
Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated.
| 11:55 am on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Could you sticky-mail me the category(ies) that you think is/are 'bad' and also sticky-mail me your website that you can't 'get in'? "
ScottM, can I email you a category to which I can not get in for the last 7 month?
| 12:36 pm on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone know if there is a "complaints procedure" if you believe a site is not being added to dmoz without legitimate reason?
| 1:37 pm on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone know if there is a "complaints procedure" if you believe a site is not being added to dmoz without legitimate reason? |
| 5:25 pm on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Very good post!
| 6:17 pm on Oct 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree, very good post Chiyo.
But I see one problem with one of yours suggestions:
I think most people involved in the so-called 'commercial' sites, maybe don't want others [competitors?] know their area..
About all the rest of your post, what to say..
-> thanks for being so clear & careful :)
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |