homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.141.129
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: 86 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google DIRECTORY Updated: 2007-08-18
Updated on 2007-08-18 including edits through 2007-08-07
g1smd




msg:3425573
 3:59 pm on Aug 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

On 2007-08-18, the Google Directory was updated with new information taken from the most recent ODP RDF dump. This update includes all directory edits through 2007-08-07.

The previous Google Directory update was so long ago, that it is almost forgotten. That update on 2006-02-19 included all ODP edits through 2006-01-29 at that time.

The Google Directory has slowly become more and more outdated since then. Now it is again updated.

.

.
This is mostly visible on European servers, and not so much on servers elsewhere.

Google has at least 44 datacentres. I guess that it may take days or weeks for them all to be updated.

It is possible that they are only testing this on a very limited number until they are sure things are OK.

.

These five datacentres have the new version:

[gfe-bu.google.com...]
[gfe-fg.google.com...]
[gfe-fk.google.com...]
[gfe-hu.google.com...]
[gfe-mu.google.com...]

There are about 10 datacentres without any directory copy. The rest still have the old 2005 version. A few datacentres recently went offline.

Incomplete datacentre list: gfe-ag, gfe-an, gfe-au, gfe-ar, gfe-bf, gfe-bp, gfe-bu, gfe-bx, gfe-cw, gfe-dc, gfe-ed, gfe-eh, gfe-ff, gfe-fg, gfe-fk, gfe-gv, gfe-he, gfe-hk, gfe-hs, gfe-hu, gfe-ik, gfe-in, gfe-jc, gfe-jp, gfe-kc, gfe-kr, gfe-lm, gfe-lo, gfe-mc, gfe-mu, gfe-nf, gfe-nz, gfe-od, gfe-po, gfe-pr, gfe-py, gfe-qb, gfe-rn, gfe-ro, gfe-td, gfe-tl, gfe-tw, gfe-ug, gfe-ui, gfe-va, gfe-wr, gfe-wx and gfe-yo.

 

nejron




msg:3425638
 6:18 pm on Aug 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

"The previous Google Directory update was so long ago, that it is almost forgotten. That update on 2006-02-19 included all ODP edits through 2006-01-29 at that time"

Why through 2006-01-29?

In [rdf.dmoz.org...] I see only 2006-01-03 and 2006-02-07 RDF dumps. I don't see any 2006-01-29 RDF dump.

Best regards,
Aleksandr

g1smd




msg:3425651
 6:37 pm on Aug 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

The RDF dump takes many days to assemble, so the actual data capture date for different categories may be spread across nearly a week.

Once the data capture has completed, it takes another day or two to error check that data and build the RDF file, and then publish it.

I can't remember what happened that far back, but there have been a few occasions when the process has got stuck at the publish stage for example.

On those occasions, the system may have needed a nudge to get things finished.

Once the RDF is published it might not be picked up by users such as Google for a while, and once they have picked it up, they usually take 10 to 14 days to process it and get the data online on their site.

whitenight




msg:3425913
 7:12 am on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well this might explain some things...

Goog has been awfully slow in updating the rankings over the past few days. (minor adjustments here and there but nowhere near normal)

I assumed the huge PR update, but adding this tidbit of information might explain more.

g1smd




msg:3426124
 4:27 pm on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

This may have an effect on which directory categories show in Google search results, and their positions.

It may also have a negative effect on sites that were in the old version of the Google directory but are no longer listed, and a positive impact on sites that are newly listed in the Google Directory... or will it?

There may be a time lag for the changes to ripple through. Will it be hours, or days, or weeks?

Reno




msg:3426133
 5:03 pm on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I guess this update is good news. Unfortunately, in so many categories DMOZ is no longer useful, it makes me wonder if it is mostly a reflection of the web circa 2004.

It may be true that some categories still have editors that promptly review new submissions, but if you go through various categories you'll see that a large percentage do not even have editors, and many that do -- in my experience -- don't seem to be looking at new sites.

If participation in ODP is in any way useful to PR, then I feel sorry for new sites that will likely never get in, not because they are necessarily unworthy, but rather because no one is home.

........................

centime




msg:3426206
 6:40 pm on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sadly, invisible listings remain invisible

Wlauzon




msg:3426211
 6:55 pm on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

The areas in DMOZ that I used to manage before I had a falling out with management have not been updated since I left in late 2003.

IMO, DMOZ - or any general directory - is pretty much irrelevant anymore. They simply cannot keep up.

I think if directories have any future at all, it will be specialized ones.

And I notice that the "Google Directory" does not even show up on the main search page of Google anymore, you have to go looking for it.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 6:56 pm (utc) on Aug. 19, 2007]

Reno




msg:3426229
 7:06 pm on Aug 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think if directories have any future at all, it will be specialized ones.

I completely agree. I see specialized directories that have smart editorial control as a valuable resource on the web, for people looking to buy and/or learn something, but also as a great way for newer quality sites to get a relevant link to point to them.

.........................

vincevincevince




msg:3426727
 12:06 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder whether this is something which was forgotten by Google, something deliberately left by Google or something which has now been restarted due to a new development by Google?

I think if directories have any future at all, it will be specialized ones.

Disagree. I think if directories have any future at all, it will be elitist ones which restrict themselves to say the very best five sites per category rather than letting in anyone with 'listable content'.

gibbergibber




msg:3426732
 12:16 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

--Disagree. I think if directories have any future at all, it will be elitist ones which restrict themselves to say the very best five sites per category rather than letting in anyone with 'listable content'. --

Who decides the categories though? If someone wanted to look up information on how to sew a Canadian flag, is that under sewing, Canada or flags?

Hierarchical directories consider topics, whereas many people may be looking for a very specific bit of information which may not belong to a clear specific topic. This is why Google and its simple front page layout have done so well, they just provide one box that you put your query into, and that checks everything in the index. It might not always produce good results for all searches, but it produces good results enough of the time to be considered more convenient.

europeforvisitors




msg:3426988
 4:14 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think directories have much of a future, except for directories that add value in the form of editorial content: e.g., a bed-and-breakfast directory that has a page of useful information and photos for each B&B, or a restaurant directory that has reviews. If someone just wants to look for "widgetville bed and breakfast" or "uptown whatsitberg restaurants," a Google search is likely to be more useful (and convenient) than a simple list of annotated links.

Directory material also works well when presented within an editorial site. For example, a city guide to Widgetville might have a transportation page with text and photos plus annotated links to the local transit company, airport shuttles, excursion-boat companies, maps, etc. In this case, the directory content would be adding value to the non-directory editorial content, rather than the other way around.

pageoneresults




msg:3426991
 4:21 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think directories have much of a future, except for directories that add value in the form of editorial content.

In this instance, we're talking about dMoz, the mother of all directories. While there may not be much perceived value, there is stuff happening behind the scenes that does present value. You've got to figure that if Google went through this much to update their Directory and it is not readily visible to the searching public, what do you think they are using it for? Is it possible that Google does some sort of compare on the ODP to determine its authorities?

Reno




msg:3427123
 6:11 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is it possible that Google does some sort of compare on the ODP to determine its authorities?

If that's true then it sure would be nice if DMOZ was an up-to-date functioning property, as opposed to what it appears to be now, which is an old snapshot of the WWW from several years ago.

I mean, think about it -- we know Google is presenting a PR bar which has a numeric value which is not necessarily current, and if what you're postulating is true, they may be using a directory (ODP) for authority verification which is also not current! Maybe it's the best anyone can do under the circumstances, but if so it does not engender a heckuva' lot of confidence, at least in regards to accuracy.

.....................

europeforvisitors




msg:3427132
 6:18 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

If that's true

The operative word is "if." Why get het up over something that may or may not be true?

pageoneresults




msg:3427135
 6:21 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

The operative word is "if." Why get het up over something that may or may not be true?

We're speculating EFV, is that okay? ;)

Remember when you could see PageRankô with the directory listings?

Reno




msg:3427146
 6:34 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

The operative word is "if." Why get het up over something that may or may not be true?

I'll take it one step further -- whether it's true or not, it STILL would be nice if ODP was vital again. That's not Google's problem, except for whatever use they may have in their algo for the listings within ODP, which as I said, may in part be useless at this point!

..............................

Marcia




msg:3427160
 6:46 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

EFV
The operative word is "if." Why get het up over something that may or may not be true?

pageoneresults
We're speculating EFV, is that okay?

Beyond speculation, there are some among us who pursue a practice of reading IR white papers and patents, which can go a step past the question of true or not true into another realm, with the operative principle then becoming that of estimating probabilities.

Wlauzon




msg:3427162
 6:52 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

What killed ODP and similar "list them all" directories I think is a couple of factors - (1) that their is no lower limit for site or page quality. It is not really any better than just scraping the top few pages of results from a search. (2) That you have to rely on volunteers - which sounds good, but what happens is that some categories go without editors for years.

While some editors might have some quality standards, overall DMOZ can list just about anything (assuming there is actually a live editor), regardless of how good or bad the site is.

With the billions of sites out there, for any directory to be of much use, it will have to have some type of selectivity or it just becomes a listing of what is in the trash barrel.

A general listing *might* work if (1) it charged a nominal fee, say $15 a year - that would keep the fly-by-night sites out, and (2) if there was some kind of ratings where people could rate sites based on 3-4 factors.

I don't see that happening.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 6:56 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

g1smd




msg:3427173
 7:11 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

While there may be "billions" of sites out there, only a small percentage are actually quality or of value.

>> Remember when you could see PageRankô with the directory listings? <<

You still can, in the directory itself.

pageoneresults




msg:3427180
 7:16 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

You still can, in the directory itself.

No, I'm referring to an actual PR indicator that was attached to each listing within the directory.

Reno




msg:3427183
 7:19 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

...for any directory to be of much use, it will have to have some type of selectivity

I agree. The key I think to a successful specialized directory is for the theme of the site to be highly specific -- for example, "custom woodworkers in New York state"; and second, that there be tight editorial control where each site listed had to meet published criteria based on genuine quality standards.

Directories like this can be a valuable source of targetted traffic for siteowners, and for visitors with the specific interest, they can see a number of useful resources all under one roof. It's a win-win.

.........................

g1smd




msg:3427214
 7:42 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

>> I'm referring to an actual PR indicator that was attached to each listing within the directory. <<

So am I. I still see that.

pageoneresults




msg:3427260
 8:28 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Remember when you could see PageRankô with the directory listings?

Okay, I have to fess up. Its probably been over a year or so since I've browsed deep into the ODP. I'll be damned if I wasn't far enough down the cat structure yet to see the PR indicators. And, they were BTF. I'm such a noob.

g1smd, how often do you check those data centers? :)

Tidal2




msg:3427289
 8:56 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have had three sites I host, listed in DMOZ over the last year or so. Only the early two have gone into googles directory the third site was added to DMOZ over 6 months ago and has has not been added to Googles directory, so it could be selective or by date of course.

Has any one had a recent DMOZ site addition added to the Google directory?

Tidal2




msg:3427296
 9:02 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just add that the web sites were all .co.uk domains.

Marcia




msg:3427345
 9:40 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Has any one had a recent DMOZ site addition added to the Google directory?

Yep! A site submitted several years ago (2002 or 2003 I think) was not in dmoz.org on May 2, 2007 according to the Wayback Machine; and there was no editor for the category. The next date shown at Wayback Machine is June 13, 2007 and the site shows up there - with an editor for the category.

The site also now shows up in the category of the Google Directory in the first datacenter g1smd posted above.

g1smd




msg:3427356
 10:00 pm on Aug 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

@pageoneresults:

I used to check a couple of datacentres every month or so, but haven't looked much more than a couple of times this year.

incrediBILL




msg:3427424
 12:00 am on Aug 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

A general listing *might* work if (1) it charged a nominal fee, say $15 a year - that would keep the fly-by-night sites out, and (2) if there was some kind of ratings where people could rate sites based on 3-4 factors.

They exist and are called the YAHOO directory and BOTW directory, but the fees are not nominal.

johnlim9988




msg:3427537
 3:54 am on Aug 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Will the sites in yahoo directory also be included in Google Directory?

Can submit to Google Directory directly?

Or only sites in DMOZ appear in Google Directory?

Thanks.

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: 86 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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