Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: open
Not much use in itself, but encouraging.
I have never paid much attention to the directory and where it fits into Google's system. What, if anything, does this return of the "lost" to the directory mean?
A companion site that we launched this Fall is listed in DMOZ (ODP) but not the Google Directory (google yes, directory no.)
I have not got a clue if this will help but I gave a link to the category that my site is listed in from the site that was affected as part of my post Florida fidleing. I did this for the DMOZ cat and the Google cat, kind of trying to show Google bot the way around ;-)
Still clutching at illogical straws, but if I had a recent DMOZ listing I think I'd want to make sure Googlebot found it, goodness only knows how old the cached version of DMOZ is that it is working from.
I realise I may have further exposed my stupidity but hey who cares any more?
ADDED: Yeah, good to see the directory searches back. Also nice to see we're #1 on most of our important kw's.
I've been in DMOZ for 2 years, but Google keeps forgetting this (mainly a non-www, www issue) I did the same thing a few months ago - I pointed to the appropriate DMOZ category containing my URL from my index page in the hope of 'enlightening' the GoogleBot. Hasn't worked to date. It's because my non-www.mysite has a DMOZ listing, but Google hasn't picked it up on www.mysite. I've basically got a duplicate penalty on this because Google doesn't understand that in the vast majority of cases non-www and www are identical and usually resolved with a 302. I now have a proper 301 in place, but see my post regarding Strange results in allinurl - now I can't figure out whether the 301 is t*ts up, or a strange redirect is responsible for losing 2 important pages from my site.
'Things can only get better' - or perhaps: 'worse things happen at sea' as they say - but it will be stretching it to make things any worse for his particular webmaster at the present time.
It's because my non-www.mysite has a DMOZ listing
Have you tried asking the editor to change it? If it's a really large category, then maybe it's not going to happen, but it's worth a try.
Google doesn't understand that in the vast majority of cases non-www and www are identical
Yeah, it's rather insane. I had a problem with it back in Dom/Esm, got the links changed, and since then I watch things like a hawk. I go through log files looking for incoming links in the wrong form... even have a notice on the index page. The www business is madness in the first place, "world wide web"... some stupid marketing term that has the acronym taking longer to say than the words themselves.
Back on topic: well spotted, hissingsid, on the directory getting back to normal. That went for a few months eh, with it just a dupe of the main serps.
<edit>got my acronym, terms, mixed up</edit>
Responses are listed by I don't know what. Nothing from the high level cat Business>.>.>.>keyword shows up until about #8. Instead are results from lower level cats, i.e Business>.>.>.>keyword>associations, or Business>.>.>.>keyword>Manufacturers>Country>State
And, to boot, have a site that is listed in the high level keyword cat, but the directory search returns it in the much lower level Regions>.>.>State>City secondary listing that I have.
Now that secondary listing was changed within the past month, but the higher cat listing has been there for a long, long time.
but as of today Sunday... I am seeing a third
permutation of the data since Fla update..
AND as of today..
andbody notice Y=ahoo today (or last day or so)...
results look very similar to G=oogle (again).
It appears as though both are heavy on the link popularity
to achieve better ranking, as compared to relevance.
whaT a mess....
(I'll be out of town for a few days myself this week, just so people know..)
Redirect root to www. An ODP editor in that case should list the www subdomain, as root is just a redirect. As for how long it will take after doing this for the change, it depends on how active the editors are.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 7:34 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2003]