On the plus side I think DMOZ is still used as a starting point for some internet crawlers, and new directories often start with a clone of DMOZ - so you might get free additional links.
But wasting your time trying to get your site listed in to a site which carries such little weight now is really not worth it; no-one actually uses it to find a website anyhow. Your better of submitting to other directories.
I've must have made 100 different requests over the last 10 years and about 5 made it in. Those 5 are no higher or lower ranking than the websites that havent made it in.
Surely you jest? What other directories carry more weight and generate more traffic than DMOZ?
|Your better of submitting to other directories. |
If DMOZ carries no weight, then so do all the other directories carry no weight!
There are many niche directories which create more and better quality traffic for websites than broad directories like DMOZ. DMOZ may have more overall incoming traffic than those niche directories, but incoming traffic to the directory is something that doesn't count for most webmasters. It is outgoing traffic to their site which is their primary indicator.
In my niches until 2006, the SERPs in mainly Google were built like:
1) DMOZ entries
3) Other relevant sites
Since 2007, the SERPs more or less look like
2) Relevant sites (with or without DMOZ listing)
It seems that at least in the niches I am working in the DMOZ added-value disappeared in the Google SERPs about three years ago.
Whether it carries weight, and if so how much, is hard to gauge with any precision but it's undeniable that getting a new listing is pretty much impossible. That results in a directory that has little value for the searcher (as it's incomplete) and no value for the hopeful new webmaster (because he can't get in it).
Seems the only value is for a few long established sites that got in before it became trapped in a time warp. Time it was given a decent burial.
That implies that you are expecting some sort of provision of service from DMOZ. What are you providing to DMOZ in expectation of this service you are expecting?
|getting a new listing is pretty much impossible |
Its not impossible. Last time I checked DMOZ was listing >2000 new sites a week, making it the fastest growing directory on the web.
im surprised to see many crappy sites listed in a few categories. All sites were old, but had no real content or design.
I know of several little niche directories that send much more traffic than dmoz and surely university and library subject guides carry more weight...
DMOZ; never go there, never will.
I once managed a 100% charitable site (all profits went to charity) with a huge amount of unique content. Several pages listed in DMOZ, on day some got removed, contacted them, got insulted, site dropped totally. Coincidently in the primary category a well known spammer's repeat same content sites starting all appearing. Complained several times, nothing happened, more identical sites appeared.
DMOZ is to content what Hormel is to Haute Cuisine.
it would be nice if the dmoz editors did what they are supposed to do rather than favouring friends and there own sites - over the last 10 years I'll be amazed if I got more than a handful of sites listed and these are all sites that well fit inside there guidelines
Dmoz is a private club and if your very lucky they make take the odd site in, and try to get an editor to reply to a message LOL - they mite as well take the contact button away for all the good it is
I was a DMOZ editor, 2005-2007. Found it a social service and a sheer waste of time - worst I was approved to be editor of a category I had no knowledge of and had no business interests - so it didn't help me to include my websites either.
I think it takes no more then 5 minutes to submit a site in DMOZ. So submit and forget. If it gets in - it does no harm. If it doesn't - it still does not harm.
Unfortunately Google directly listing still comes from DMOZ. Till it does DMOZ at the least canít be ignored.
|Its not impossible. Last time I checked DMOZ was listing >2000 new sites a week, making it the fastest growing directory on the web. |
This doesn't mean that its the fastest growing quality directory on the web.
Instead of repeating the 'we do not provide a service' line, why don't you tell us that Dmoz is for, if it's not to provide a service.
I still see important of DMOZ, as they are provided to many websites which means you will get bunch of directories worldwide not just only DMOZ.org.
As a former editor, DMOZ has and will continue to be nothing more than a tool for self promotion.
|Unfortunately Google directly listing still comes from DMOZ. Till it does DMOZ at the least canít be ignored. |
Google still has a directory? :-)
Seriously--how does the average user even find the Google Directory these days if he doesn't have it bookmarked and doesn't know the URL?
I just submitted my main site to Dmoz. Will it take a: 2 hours; b: 2 days; c: 2 weeks; d: 2 months; e: 2 years; f: never; to get listed? :)
What you don't seem to understand is that webmasters made Dmoz by submitting their sites in the hope of being listed. Without webmasters, Dmoz would have been gone long ago. It is the expectation of being listed that keeps some webmasters submitting websites. Dmoz was a noble idea at the start but like most noble ideas, reality has a nasty way of intruding. And as it intruded petty fiefdoms were established. Sometimes they were established by petty minded individuals using their positions as editors to settle old scores and promote their businesses. Over the years, Dmoz lost an awful lot of credibility. Some of this was plainly down to the failure to maintain the quality of its listings. As the web grew, it became impossible for Dmoz to ensure that the listings were genuine and that the domains had not dropped and been reregistered.
|The point I am making is that webmasters seem to have this expectation of a service from DMOZ. DMOZ owes webmasters nothing. I have never got all this whinging that goes on. |
Years ago I submitted my main site to DMOZ and was rapidly listed. That one listing has since been added to several subcategories without any further action on my part. That site still gets a trickle of traffic from both DMOZ and Google's directory but certainly not enough to matter. I've never bothered to submit another site to them.
cbpayne, I've recently learnt of a nice list of very high ranking directories, some are paid, most are free, but more importantly they dont ignore you.
Did not even know DMOZ was still in business. Have not run across their name in years. Surprising they are still around.
I doubt if you are missing much (beyond one more link) by not being listed in DMOZ which I don't believe is too popular now vs the past.
A long time ago I had little success (1 site listed after lots of work and much time spent and being ignored a lot too) plus long delays and hassles trying hard to get a few good sites listed before giving up entirely on DMOZ.
DMOZ caught several of my early piddles back in the mid-1990s. Still there. I get perhaps 1 or 2 hits each month from DMOZ. I've made no attempt to insert since 1998. DMOZ appears to be increasingly irrelevant these days.
My approach to DMOZ is "submit and forget".
It's worth a few minutes to submit, just to make sure that base is covered, but it's not worth much brainshare beyond that. You either get the link or you don't.
Make the best submission you know how, one time only, then go work on something else.
>What you don't seem to understand is that webmasters made Dmoz by submitting their sites in the hope of being listed.
The problem is, that isn't true and wasn't ever true. Editors made the directory, building new categories from scratch, without any suggestions made. Site suggestions have always been a minor part of the system. And this should be obvious: because a directory built (solely on primarily) on site suggestions wouldn't look anything at all like the Open Directory.
Site suggestions are there to help the editor. Sometimes they do. They might help by calling attention to a listable site; even if a site is unlistable it might link to listable sites; it might even list to unlistable sites; it might merely alert alert editors to the newest flavors of lipstick being used on the affiliate pigs. But help or hindrance, once is enough.
After all, you don't see anyone posting messages like "how many times do you have to suggest a site, to get listed? In my experience, I've always gotten listed after between 60 and 75 sugggestions." No, it's always the other way around. "I've suggested the site every week since 1995 and it's still not listed." Which should tell everyone that technique doesn't work.
"Submit and forget." Yes, everyone should be able to work with that.
A long time ago a link from dmoz was valuable because it got you listed in thousands of other dmoz clone directories therby providing lots of valuiable one way links. These days Google's algo discounts thousands of links with same anchor text therefore a dmoz links is no longer as valuanble.
Don't knock DMOZ, it keeps a lot of obsessive compulsive sufferers out of harms way, corralled in their own little world. Keep the editors from leaving their planet and landing in your back yard by submitting to DMOZ a few times a year.
Is a DMOZ listing worth a light - SEOwise? Don't know - I'm a DMOZ agnostic really although I always submit new sites to it and have been reasonably successful in getting acceptances over the years. Got one accepted only this week - that I submitted in November 2006. So my advice is to submit - then forget. I use SEOTIE to monitor my submissions.
Oh yes, I forgot DMOZ existed until I saw this thread.
Last time I looked at my subject area it was full of Geocities 2 page sites from 1998.
Must remember to submit some sites this week.
I applied to be an editor a couple of times. Those subject areas still have the same 4 or 5 links from several years ago.
|how many people on earth still go to DMOZ to find good links? |
As users I'd say nearly none. As webmasters you can find as many decent or important sites in same amuount than garbage, deadlinks, deeplinks and spam.
I personally feel dmoz is full of spam, corruption, and I'm glad is weight is less than before. There are decent sites banned for good just because of interests, and others listed more than 30 times, including promotional titles, and severe deeplinking. I have several of examples about it.
most editors are not altruist people working for the good of internet, are mostly webmasters positioning their own sites.
However you find more useful sites in Google itself than in dmoz.
In old times some people considered dmoz the entrance door to Google. That power is happily gone.
Several years ago I was heavily involved in a niche industry (editor of a well known newsletter and producing various products/services in the niche).
Was also considered an 'expert' in the business by third parties and the media. However, when I applied to be a category editor I was turned-down even though the category I applied for had no active editor at the time.
How stupid was that rejection! Is it any wonder DMOZ has declined so much over the years.
|Six million sites indexed.... is a lack of content? |
I just checked the relevant section for our main site, and of the 20 or so links I checked at random, about 1/3 had been "repurpased" - basically they are now adfarm sites. 3 were expired domains, another 2-3 were "under construction" (some for over 2 years).
So overall just in that one category, about half the links were totally useless.
Personally I check DMOZ about once a month - but the only reason is looking for expired domains that might not have been picked up.
Are any of the directories any better. There was comment earlier suggesting they were, but I do not believe it.
I did volunteer as an editor for a couple of sites a few years ago. The one I remember best was Joeant, where I added a number of sites to the investment category, including Berkshire Hathaway's (Warren Buffet's company). All the other sites were approved, but a senior editor disapproved Berkshire Hathaway and told me not to add such low quality sites in future.
I also remember another directory (I cannot remember which) where the content was OK, but the other editors were strange. I got into a long, times wasting argument on the forums with one who was convinced that Microsoft invented the internet.
They do not have enough of a user base (none is as big as Dmoz) to attract enough good volunteer editors. They end up with too few, and those are either idiots or webmasters getting their own sites in (regardless of quality) - or both.
Dead and gone as far as I am concerned. Any directory that cannot keep more than 25% of their own link references up to date isn't worth submitting to.
Regardless of how valuable it is from an SEO standpoint, which is certainly debatable, your odds are probably 1/4 of getting even an incredibly informative website listed. It all really depends on the editor in charge of the category you are applying to - when all other factors are fine (website is classified and submitting correctly to the most accurate category, correct business name for title, very objective description, etc)
|Craven de Kere|
Dmoz content is freely distributed and is mirrored many other places, for this reason alone it is a link that carries more value than average. But it's not magical.
| This 82 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 82 ( 1  3 ) > > |