Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.160.177.33

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

DMOZ categories as a link next to listings.

Been gone a while, anyone still missing them.

     
8:50 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Moderator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator mack is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 15, 2001
posts:7557
votes: 3


Does anyone miss the links to relates categories within Google serps.

Today for example I was searching for "foo widget" It was great when you saw a site with the category next to it.. that way you could be fairly certain every site within that cat was going to be on a simlar theme.

What I now use is...

[ foo widget +"dmoz" ]. At leat that way it will display the ODP category within the results.

Anyone else still missing them.

Mack.

11:55 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 4, 2002
posts:1687
votes: 0


I miss them. It was a stamp of quality. It showed that the site had been seen by a human editor, and passed as something that might have value. (I know, everyone who has a grudge against DMOZ will disagree).

I don't know if the whole impersonal algo approach is necessarily the best way to go for organizing search on the internet. The ODP shouldn't get lost in the shuffle.

2:06 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 12, 2002
posts:4479
votes: 0


>I don't know if the whole impersonal algo approach is necessarily the best way to go for organizing search on the internet. The ODP shouldn't get lost in the shuffle.

I agree. It also basically amounted to a very good "click here to find other sites similar to this one". For example, if someone searched just "widgets", they might get on page 1 ODP listed sites selling them, and some about widget safety, and others about widget history. Good way for someone looking to buy a widget to get rid of a lot of sites they didn't care about.

2:55 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 28, 2003
posts:560
votes: 0


The links also made it extremely easy to search within Google's copy of the directory. I know not many people did this, but it was a little-known way to get incredibly relevant results. DMOZ itself has minimal search capabilities at best, so taking advantage of the Google directory was a good way to get search access to the ODP categories.

I can still do this by going to the Google directory frontpage, but it's much more of a pain and dumps me back into the general web search after one shot. :P

3:03 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 4, 2002
posts:1687
votes: 0


It also basically amounted to a very good "click here to find other sites similar to this one".

Yep, and it worked well.

I don't really understand why they went missing... it's hard to see what was gained.

5:58 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


We do a lot of UI experiments, so a link that takes up that much real estate needs to have a commensurate amount of clickthrough or usage by users. I haven't talked to whoever collected the data, but I suspect that the links just weren't getting as much clickthrough. Folks can still access the directory by clicking the "more >>" link on the front page though, so getting to the directory is only an extra click away. Maybe it would be possible to somehow show that a site was in the directory without taking up as much screen real estate. I'll be happy to pass something like that along as a suggestion..
6:20 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 4, 2002
posts:666
votes: 0


Or perhaps add it as a preference that can be saved for those of us who find it useful.
6:32 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 20, 2002
posts:4652
votes: 0


Personalized search already does this. It sticks those globes next to sites in the directory.

Regular search should be able to easily add a globe after "similar pages" or even a link that says "category".

<starting black helicopter>
It's clear to me the Directory links were removed because personalized search is, at this point, redundant and meaningless if basically the same data can be found in the regular search. They had to be removed for the persoanlized search to be activated (and since the personalized search is a joke now this seems a really poor idea).
</black helicopter>

In general the Directory link was at least as useful as the similar pages link, and when a site is in the Directory, the Directory link was far more useful than the similar pages one. Google should swallow a pill and realize personalized search is nowhere close to on the horizon and return the useful link to their search real estate.

6:39 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 0


Ecstatic to see them gone!:) :)
So much so i took deemozwatch offline.
6:54 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 24, 2002
posts:485
votes: 5


I miss the DMOZ link VERY MUCH! Please bring it back.

I used it quite a bit. As it stands now, I have to visit a site, hope they are in DMOZ and then click on the Google Directory icon on the Google Toolbar. A couple of extra steps I would like to avoid.

I can understand the screen real estate thing, but having something - anything - listed to indicate its directory placing would be immensely helpful. The directory - despite being hated by some people on this board - is still a wonderful place to go to find new sites - especially in categories that you (as a searcher) are not familiar with.

My two cents.

2:37 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 0


I can understand the screen real estate thing, but having something - anything - listed to indicate its directory placing would be immensely helpful.
How about a small text link similar to the cache link?
3:04 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2002
posts:1562
votes: 0


How about a small text link similar to the cache link?

Or just the cat-name instead of the full path.

4:51 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 24, 2002
posts:485
votes: 5


I think just having the category name listed - not the full path - is a good idea. Perhaps have it listed next to the "cache" link?
4:59 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 11, 2002
posts:504
votes: 0


I seldom clicked on a dmoz category link BUT I looked at it as
- sign of quality
- help to see where the site belongs to (e.g. was it in a regional category or in a subject category, what category related to the keyword...)

Sometimes I would click on it to see related sites of the same category. But almost always I would look at it as a piece of information to decide which page to click on.

5:16 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


Hey, I'll pass this feedback on.
6:05 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 28, 2003
posts:560
votes: 0


Thanks so much for listening to threads like these, GoogleGuy. (-: I'd be very happy if there were either a little text link next to the cache one, a little icon like the globe one next to directory-listed sites, or the ability for me to turn the old-style category links back on as a personalized option. Any of the three of these would improve my own search experience significantly.
6:27 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:618
votes: 0


zgb999
>I seldom clicked on a dmoz category link BUT I looked at it as
- sign of quality
- help to see where the site belongs to (e.g. was it in a regional category or in a subject category, what category related to the keyword...)

Agree. To reduce bitterness from webmasters who are not listed in DMOZ, if would be nice if Google talks to a few more reputed human-edited directories (Yahoo! ...) and for pages not in DMOZ, display link to categories in those directories with the name of the directory too showing.

On a related topic, if Google uses similar click through results to determine the relevancy of its serps, similar problems arise. I title my pages so that I count myself successful if the surfers get to look at my title and brief description, even if they don't click my page. (Alternative is to deceive the surfers by titling it differently, let them click to my page and then give them the message. At this stage I don't want to do this.)

6:42 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 17, 2004
posts:19
votes: 0


This may have already been been mentioned, but I believe it bears repeating:

Some of the controversy regarding the search for the word 'jew' might have been avoided if the Directory category link to Society/Issues/Race-Ethnic-Religious_Relations/Hate/Hate_Groups/Anti-Semitic/ had appeared with that site (and any other listed hate sites in that SERP.)

Just because a link isn't clicked doesn't mean it isn't useful.

9:53 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2003
posts:202
votes: 0


We do a lot of UI experiments, so a link that takes up that much real estate needs to have a commensurate amount of clickthrough or usage by users. I haven't talked to whoever collected the data, but I suspect that the links just weren't getting as much clickthrough.

Perhaps the UI was flawed, causing the poor clickthough rates?

Just because a link isn't clicked on that often doesn't mean that the information accessed via this link isn't useful or that it wouldn't be useful to those who aren't clicking on it.

Despite some people's opinions about DMOZ, most of the categories are excellent jumping off points for their particular subject. Taking away these links has reduced Google's effectiveness.

11:16 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 12, 2002
posts:4479
votes: 0


>Despite some people's opinions about DMOZ, most of the categories are excellent jumping off points for their particular subject. Taking away these links has reduced Google's effectiveness.

Particularly amongst the most computer savvy people, who knew when clicking on that link made sense, and when to ignore it. These searchers may switch to a new SE if they include ODP links. It's been commented by many that Google has since early on had a lot of "geek appeal". The non-computer savvy folks tend to just do what the geeks they know use and recommend. Geeks *don't* want dumbed down Google SERPs.

4:24 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:618
votes: 0


I say do away with description below the title to make room for some directory link and more pages on the top fold.

It will force people to write better titles. Currently many seem to use title for algo gaming while cleverly using description meta for inviting text.

4:37 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 5, 2003
posts:266
votes: 0


- help to see where the site belongs to

Agreed, to me seeing exactly what category a site fell into was by far the most valuable part of these cat-links. I read almost every category before I clicked the link.

Perhaps someone at G should compare click-through rates for results that showed a DMOZ cat compared to those that didn't.

4:56 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 0


Perhaps someone at G should compare click-through rates for results that showed a DMOZ cat compared to those that didn't.

Of course the ctr would be higher. Those listed in the Google directory received 6 lines of text whereas those without received four.
Let's face it, humans are biased.
5:10 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 18, 2003
posts:161
votes: 0


I'd like to put my vote in too, I liked them both because of the "stamp of quality" comment, and because the categories were a good place to find similar sites.
5:41 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 1, 2003
posts:1201
votes: 0


When the serps suffer at times and only a few really good pages are returned, this was a natural jumping off point to more relevant results. Hope G brings it back.
5:45 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 0


What I think would work is:
Cached - Similar pages - Directory

added- why couldn't the similar pages link just go to the category. It's useless now as it is IMHO.

6:46 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 16, 2002
posts:251
votes: 0


Just because a link isn't clicked on that often doesn't mean that the information accessed via this link isn't useful or that it wouldn't be useful to those who aren't clicking on it.

i agree very much!

i used to click on directory links only occasionally and still i think google SERPs have become a much poorer and sader place since they are gone. they were an indicator of (editorically reviewed!) quality, topical belonging, etc.

en cuanto a screen real estate i'd even go a step further and say the following SERP features are a lot less important (and i wouldn't miss them):

  • the file-size-indicator. i've been using google almost every day in the past 5 years, yet i have NEVER looked at the filesize and drawn conclusions from it. could also go into a title attribute: <a href=# title="64k">
  • the fresh stamp. probably more a marketing feature to show off how up2date google is. for me as the searcher there's no value to it as the "fresh" page can be without updates for months, despite its date stamp. (would have been useful back when SERPs used to serve stone-old data. not the case anymore at G.)
  • similar pages. the feature itself would be nice but the results are more than useless. i've never seen a related:widget result that deserved the name. i'm sure CTR will reflect this.
    as for the rest i can't complain.

    Anyone else still missing them
    very much so.
  • 11:19 am on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

    Senior Member

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

    joined:Apr 28, 2002
    posts:3443
    votes: 1


    I miss them alot, thats for sure.

    zeus

    1:14 pm on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

    Junior Member

    10+ Year Member

    joined:May 19, 2003
    posts:70
    votes: 0


    Google Guy,

    your message #6 has one flaw from my point of view...

    I used to do searches and may want to carry over the search to the directory/DMOZ. Used to be one click before and I would know the results. Now I need to go to "more", then to the directory and finally run the same search again. Three clicks.

    I also vote for the directory tab to be returned to us, it had a huge advantage.

    And if the "more" tab could via javascript carry over the search from the input to wherever you need it, that would be great too...

    Mozart

    1:26 pm on Apr 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

    Full Member

    10+ Year Member

    joined:Mar 5, 2003
    posts:266
    votes: 0


    Canuck: Perhaps someone at G should compare click-through rates for results that showed a DMOZ cat...


    Powdork: Of course the ctr would be higher. Those listed in the Google directory received 6 lines of text whereas those without received four.

    There's many ways to evaluate the usefulness of the DMOZ cats with all the data G has. Perhaps a better indicator of its usefulness would be time spent on a site with a DMOZ cat link compared to now without. I believe the cats allowed the user to make a more informed click, thus saving time. Of course only G's data can back any of this up...

    It all comes down to searcher satisfaction, and just because people aren't clicking the DMOZ links doesn't mean they aren't useful.

    Plus, there's the whole issue of aesthetics - the SERPS just look plain boring without the DMOZ links to add a little spice...

    This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: 74