| 5:09 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I understand the non-profit nature of dmoz and can see that there hasn't been a proper dump done yet.. the thing that I find interesting (hence the post in this thread), is that I've had a few sites pop up this index who are using the ODP data for search results.. and they include my site.. which was only added in early December to the directory.. How are those directories getting the information? Could they be adding new sites manually?
| 5:10 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Zapatista, per your request I just sticky mailed you a list of over 100 of this guy's SPAM sites. In total they have over 300 of them working Google.
We blow them away in any particular category we have interest in but my point was that ALL the spam reports we sent to Google about them were totally ignored. I assure you, we know how to properly complete and submit spam reports.
| 5:12 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG, Whats wrong with many domain names? I mean as long as they are not mirrors or anything such as that, its all legite. Many people have many domains. I think unless you mean many domains that are mirrors?
If someone comes up alot also, good for them, right? Unless it is of course irrelevant to what you need. But that should get worked out sooner or later.. besides, once you click on someones site once and you see it is spammish just to get a hint, I atleast remember their name usually and wont click on them again when I am looking for something. I think most people do the same?
<edit> Damnn.. 300 domain names, how does one ever have time to do all that work? My one site which is several thousand pages CERTAINLY keeps me busy 10-12 hours a day (to properly maintain that is) </edit>
| 5:15 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>"I assure you, we know how to properly complete and submit spam reports."
I never thought you didn't know how. I think there can be strength in numbers was my point. Plse sticky me your exact report as you submit to Google.
| 5:21 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
daamsie, I would hazard a guess that most sites using dmoz data are not using the RDF dump but scripts that query the dmoz site directly. They would return exactly the same reuslts for queries that dmoz.org has. Smaller sites are not set up to download the monstrously big datafile but you can "have dmoz on your site" by using a tiny perl script for example.
| 5:22 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy, consider 21st of April for a cool holiday logo: 753 BC - Romulus founds Rome
in 2003 my city will be 2756 years old!
| 5:24 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I understand the non-profit nature of dmoz and can see that there hasn't been a proper dump done yet.. the thing that I find interesting (hence the post in this thread), is that I've had a few sites pop up this index who are using the ODP data for search results.. and they include my site.. which was only added in early December to the directory.. How are those directories getting the information? Could they be adding new sites manually?
Google doesn't rely on just the dump. They also *crawl* the ODP. If you go to the Google directory, you see a 4 month old version of the ODP. However, if you search the web with google.com, that includes what has been added by ODP editors up to about a month ago. I can see using the Google link: command ODP backlinks of sites I myself have added as an ODP editor that are more than a month old. As such, these sites are getting the benefit of the fact I added them to the ODP database in the Google web search even though they are not in the Google directory. Also, please note that the current ODP database *is* publicly available if you go to dmoz.org. The downstream partners like Google are 4 months out of date, but direct ODP users see a current database.
| 5:56 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I would hazard a guess that most sites using dmoz data are not using the RDF dump but scripts that query the dmoz site directly
Chiyo, I think you're probably right there about the scripts.. Wouldn't it be great if Google Directory followed their example :)
>Google doesn't rely on just the dump. They also *crawl* the ODP
RFG, I do understand that and my query was not relating to Google crawling DMOZ.. I had already noticed that and see the benefit of that. My query was relating to Google crawling downstream sites of DMOZ and finding my site.. I was hoping maybe Google would soon follow.. but looks like these smaller sites have just developed a different way of handling DMOZ data... see Chiyos post for the answer to my query...
| 6:10 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
skylighter you'll have pagerank a month from now, next update.
| 7:15 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Page rank plus 1..Page Rank back. New links up 54...New Links Back...Dec 31 Crawls new pages.. Dec 31 crawl is gone. What is the point of watching this....
I am going to bed.;)
| 7:23 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why can't Google at least subsidize 1/2 the salary of this Netscape engineer in charge of the DMOZ directory?
I think it's the least they can do to keep the directory up to date considering they use the results for free, sort it by PR and call it a Google Directory ;)
Or maybe they can become more serious about making their own directory or partnering with another directory company like Yahoo! This stale DMOZ directory is a disgrace for Google, dammit! :)
| 7:58 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
born2drv, you may want to write to the ODP and ask when a more recent RDF dump will be available. :)
I'm heading on to bed, but if people will do a fresh spam report on queries that folks are passing around by stickymail, that would help us check out our quality in those areas.
| 8:03 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG - may I suggest Shivarathri - the festival of the dancing God Shiva (the Greek equivalent would probably be Dionysius, but not quite). Its in Feb or March depending on the year (just like the Google Dec update which could be in Dec or Jan depending on the year!)
| 8:07 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Check out the number of "results" for your "keyword" search.. anything over 500k is going to take a lot of work and LINKS LINKS LINKS to get you on the front page..2nd page (the only pages that matter) |
dauction, I disagree with your quote above (in the nicest possible way :)).
I have a relatively new site that even when it was PR 2 was ranked 1-10 for some of my keywords with over 800k results in one case, many others 500k plus. My new PR has gone to 4 (some new links from Yahoo and DMOZ I think) but I don't worry about PR too much - content is what matters and if your content is unique that is a major factor in a successful site I believe (the PR should follow). Targeting multiple and niche keywords works well too.
I'm no expert, all I did was read a few posts here on titles, headings, meta myths etc. It worked for me and now I'm following Brett's '12 months to a successful site with Google' with good success. The hardest part is the create-crawl-update cycle is so slow :).
PS GoogleGuy, add April 25 to your list (Anzac Day in Australia).
| 8:19 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
July 20th.. Chiyo's birthday
| 8:21 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm very happy the way the monthly cycle is... gives me the chance to breath and relax every month knowing my rankings are more or less "locked in" :)
GoogleGuy - I didn't mean to be harsh, but Google is getting a free ride with DMOZ, they should be able to contribute something (or someone for temporary assistance) to help keep it up and running. Or maybe buy it off AOLTW completely.
And please don't beat me up or take my PR away, I still love you guys... keep up the good work! ;)
| 8:24 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree aus_dave, the easiest way to get good PR is to have the content that people *want* to link to. I don't do any reciprocal links, yet I have gained over 100 unsolicited links each of the last 2 months.
| 8:31 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
daamsie - not all sites use the RDF dump. Some take their listings from the ODP dynamically, using programs such as POD.
| 9:07 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I must say that I agree with born2drv about DMOZ. I have all but given up on trying to get sites in locally. I've submitted, got nothing, gone up a cat, got nothing, gone up again, got nothing, never even the courtesy of a reply. There simply is noone there. Google is hurting their credibility by reccomending webmasters submit to a basically non existent entity. Does anyone doubt that if they ran their own website the way DMOZ is run they would be out of business in a matter of months? Google has become a codependent for something that should have been put into rehab a long, long time ago.
| 9:20 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As a DMOZ editor myself I have to say you are totally correct. The thing needs to be ditched by Google ASAP.
It influences SERPS in a totally unrealistic manner based upon the global sites being more important than any others, which most often is not the case.
If there is one single thing I would like to see in 2003 from Google it would be to ditch DMOZ and the associated Google directory.
| 9:21 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>I have all but given up on trying to get sites in locally. I've submitted, got nothing, gone up a cat, got nothing, gone up again, got nothing, never even the courtesy of a reply.
Powdork, try inquiring about your submissions over at the resource-zone.com in the Submission Status forum. You'll at least get a reply.
| 9:36 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have the perfect solution....
1. Use the Yahoo directory
2. Sort it by PR
3. Don't give *ANY* PR benefit to actually being IN the yahoo directory, (make all PR come from outside sources only).
That would eliminate most all the spam issues and give a great resource. Google could even "offer" to use Yahoo's directory from them for free (or even get paid), since the value of a yahoo listing would be more important thus generating more revenue for Yahoo. Especially now since it is almost useless, I can't see many people paying for it other than to cover all the bases.
Google obviously doesn't like to use human intervention for anything and Yahoo does, you could get your site in both directories very fast, Win-Win-Win for Yahoo-Google-webmaster!
[edited by: born2drv at 10:22 am (utc) on Jan. 2, 2003]
| 9:41 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your info on the DMOZ dump.. I haven't been following this stuff closely for all that long, but I must say .. to me it looks like the Open Directory is just the 'Open for Abuse Directory' most of the time! If it wanted to be truly succesful, it should either be funded properly by one of the ODP abusers (ie. Google), or be made into a true Open SOURCE Directory, because at the moment the last thing DMOZ is, is OPEN!
Now.. in other matters more relating to this thread.. back in the early posts there was a mention of updating the TCP/IP hosts file and then being able to see the ranking from www2. I've tried that.. but my ranking is still stuck on 'unranked'. Unlike the post, I'm only on a Win98 comp, so had to find the file elsewhere.. it was located in the Windows root folder. Changing it has resulted in the Google Toolbar popping up in my sytem folders which is kind of cool, but still isn't showing any rank.. I am expecting at least some ranking this month.. with over 80 backlinks registering on Google. I was ranked two months ago as a 6, but lost it due to some foolish coding that resulted in error codes for the GoogleBot.
Do I just need to wait a few more days, or is there a way to find out early for my impatient self?
| 10:46 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
daamsie - if your site is about lost travel friends, you've got a 6.
| 11:24 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When there is a problem with something, you can either use this as an excuse to attack the whole entity, or offer constructive suggestions to resolve the specific issue.
Far too many people seem to derive perverse pleasure from the former, hence the well out of order attacks on DMOZ... which is THE kingpin directory on the net.
>> Use the Yahoo directory <<
Yes... that would certainly help destroy the prospects of the small guy and push the web further into the realms of a totally commercial entity. Is that what you want? Do understand the ramifications of a disasterous move like that.
I would prefer a free for entry, INFORMATION based directory which is not used simply to line the pockets of a large corporation. One that ordinary webmasters like myself can be involved in by editing the categories in which I have expertise. One that is open and one that is established in almost every corner of the net and tends to reflect its better aspects.
Ahhh... well that would be DMOZ then!
Please get this into perspective. Yes, there are problems (eg: with the dump) - and yes, it is an excellent suggestion that Google could/should play a part in resolving them. But that's as far as it goes. Recognize DMOZ for what it is and please lay off the unwarrented abuse.
| 11:29 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can't take seriously anybody who suggests using the yahoo directory, let alone over DMOZ. DMOZ is the best resource on the Internet, bar none, by far. Some categories have large backlogs, usually (but not always) because webmasters spam spam spam sites that are clearly not listable, or even remotely on the topic of the category. Most obviously the Shopping category gets overrun by submissions that don't meet the category guidelines.
The best move Google can make is to draw DMOZ closer. By fully integrating the Internet's two best, quality-driven informational entities... now that would be something. DMOZ simply needs a little money, paid humans, thrown into the problem areas.
Google owning DMOZ is obviously more sensible than Netscape/AOL or anybody else owning it. They just need to pull the trigger and buy it. Do that and none of the other pretenders stand a chance in the search business for the forseeable future.
| 11:34 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
webwalla - thanks! It has just started showing up on my toolbar again! WOOHOOO.. pretty happy to bounce back like that after a month in the pits.. but ehemm.. may I ask how you knew what site is mine? :)
| 11:40 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hi all. on 12-31-02 googlebot came to do his thing but, when he got there my site said "Unable to Log Into Database" am I doomed in this update or will the bots be back to get my sites?
| 11:44 am on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
daamsie - guess which search engine I used to search for the word daamsie? :)
After that, it was pretty easy.
| 12:03 pm on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
FYI Yahoo does offer free entrace into the directory for informational sites (but I'm sure you knew this) ;) In fact, who really knows about DMOZ? Webmasters/spammers, not the general public. Informational sites would be submitted to yahoo for free before DMOZ in higher frequency by REAL webmasters with legit sites, in my opinion. Just because it is more well known.
You can't expect spam-fighting editors in commercial directories with zero hidden agendas and fast service to come cheap (or free). Nothing is free :)
Unless Google wants to go the editorial route or create a magical algo to determine cats with no spam, they should consider outsourcing it to someone. Maybe Yahoo could offer a 6-week submission for $99 (equiv. to time to get in DMOZ) and 3-day for $299 like they did in the past for commercial sites. This would be very acceptable if you ask me, if it resulted in a high quality directory which I'm sure it would.
Or maybe Google could create a "category" meta tag webmasters could use (one per site), or use Froogle to crawl and index the entire web into commercial cats and add it to DMOZ informational sites to create a new hybrid directory all togehter, but something should be done.
Depending on DMOZ for quality directory results is questionable, now that they are totally unreliable they should be dumped. Besides, if Google becomes a full fledged portal like many believe, don't you think the possibility of AOL severing ties with Google is a possibility? Then they would have to get an alternate directory plan in place anyway. It would be in Google's best interest to do something, soon.
|Made In Sheffield|
| 12:03 pm on Jan 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Damn, new it would start while I was away :)
First heart stopping moment of 2003, PR had gone from 4 down to 3, gulp. Relief, checked again and up to 5, then back to 4. As long as the 3 doesn't stick I''ll be happy. Backlinks up from 1 to 110.