| 9:21 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ won't "remove a link for SEO purposes".
They'll only remove a link if the site no longer works or the content makes it no longer suitable for inclusion in the directory.
| 9:29 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Yes but the problem seems to be that some SEOs are unaware that they should be dealing with Dmoz rather than a multitude of web directories that use Dmoz as a feed. Admittedly some of Dmoz is a bit of a wasteland now with no editors covering topics. If they could get Dmoz to deal with the link, then they wouldn't have to bother all those webmasters.
Perhaps getting Dmoz to implement a 410 (content gone) approach with their checker might solve that problem and automate the removal of sites from the directory.
[edited by: jmccormac at 9:33 am (utc) on Feb 13, 2013]
| 9:31 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
The issue of link quality (theoretically) involves the site that's hosting the link, not the feed. If there are many thousands of really crappy sites hosting DMOZ backfills, that might become a conundrum of sorts.
| 9:38 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Very much a chicken and egg situation. Now how do SEOs know what is a valuable link and what is not - Google PR?
| 9:47 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Now how do SEOs know what is a valuable link and what is not - Google PR? |
Maybe the SEOs don't know. They might be reacting preemptively, perhaps thinking they have too many identical directory links and that might look spammy to Google.
| 9:57 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Nothing scares SEOs more than some crazy cult ideas about the great god Google and its magic algorithm. :) It is the blanket approach that is, from what I can see, causing problems because rather than verifying what is a good link and what is not, some SEOs are just hitting every site. Thus sites with stable, long-lived links (10 years or so) are getting e-mails from these SEOs. Now from a search engine developer point of view, this is a very dangerous thing. Generally when a long-lived link disappears from a site's link ecology, it is an alarm signal that the quality of the site may have dropped or the site has been hacked or changed ownership.
| 10:20 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I don't think the problem will be around for much longer. Surely DMOZ is ready to die?
| 10:25 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It has been that way for years. Some topics seem to be maintained but others are not. The RDFs are still being published.
| 12:12 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|crazy cult ideas about the great god Google and its magic algorithm |
Amen. But on the other side, Google does have an unnatural amount of power over website profits in many cases, due to their powerful near-monopoly on search. Some SEO paranoia seems unavoidable.