Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
Much less emphasis on DMOZ. As i was looking for link exchanges this is what i found. About 5% of the sites listed don't even exist anymore. Alot of "this category needs an editor". Alot of tripod, geocities type sites. I can't get in myself, but i know my site is better than most in my category. I think Google is the best SE in the world, but don't understand the relationship with DMOZ.
Less emphasis on reciprocal links, more on sites linking to yours without a link back. Mainly because i could spend a week doing nothing but link exchanges and easily get hundreds. That's not hard it just takes time. I think it's more important if a site links to a site without a link back.
Maybe this is in the algo already, but more emphasis on if your site is in the other search engines. Why? Name a site with a PR 8,9,10 thats not in the other search engines.
Thats just a few, i could name more but football is on.
About 5% of the sites listed don't even exist anymore.
This is not Google's fault.
Alot of "this category needs an editor".
This completely irrelevant to Google's algo.
Alot of tripod, geocities type sites.
This is some of the better information on the net..I can't see why you would think this is bad?
I can't get in myself, but i know my site is better than most in my category.
Why can't you get in? Is there a problem? Help me out here.
I think Google is the best SE in the world, but don't understand the relationship with DMOZ.
This sounds like a disguised complaint against DMOZ...or am I reading you wrong.
Much less emphasis on DMOZ. As i was looking for link exchanges this is what i found.
But YOU found it useful for looking for links?:>)
I like your idea of looking for links within your industry. It's a very good idea...But I am confused regarding your suggestions.
How will these suggestions help Google?
Did you actually mean this? Most every site that links to me without a reciprocal link is virtually worthless. Valuing these sort links would just be silly. It may make sense for sites like Amazon or Yahoo, but within an industry it's absurd. If garbage "add a link here" sites don't merit links themselves, why should their votes count for anything?
Less emphasis on reciprocal links, more on sites linking to yours without a link back.
Google doesn't rank sites--it ranks pages. So how is Google supposed to know that your link to site X from one of 1,000 pages is reciprocated with a link to your home page from one of Site X's 1,000 pages? It might be possible for Google to keep track of such reciprocal links, but the cost (in terms of CPU cycles and equipment) would almost certainly be prohibitive.
2) Many Dmoz editors spot spam in a way no algo can at the moment. Indeed a hardcore lot delight in searching for spam and removing it. This benifits Google.
3)Dmoz is human edited and complements an algo. No algo can really tell how relevant a site is or how good it is. Dmoz can. This benifits Google.
4) Most editors are not webmasters or are webmasters of only one site. Very few use it to exclude/damage others and they get banned quite quickly.
Google use of dmoz is great: It cost's them ziltch and factors in the major human reviewed directory to give them more relevant results.
Predictions: I think they will move back slightly from this algo. It seems no more relevant yet has been badly received.
Suggestions: Make sure your mousemats are better than your algo for next years Pubcon
This is why they rightly give heavy (perhaps the heaviest) weighting to a manual directory which happens to be dmoz.
Go there, and try different categories. Theres are LOTS of sites listed that no longer exist and haven't existed for some time. This is a fact.
"Most editors are not webmasters or are webmasters of only one site. Very few use it to exclude/damage others and they get banned quite quickly. "
A lot of editors are webmasters, which sometimes can be a bad thing. Do a search on Google on how to become a dmoz editor and tell me what you see. I've read in some webmaster newsletters on tricks on now to become an editor so later you can get your site in. Example: Apply to be an editor for a category you have nothing to do with and after awhile if you do good, apply to be an editor in your own category. I know some editors in DMOZ that are great and fair but there are editors there for the sole purpose of getting there site listed.
(Also what you suggest would mean that sites that sell stuff, and thus have lots of incoming affiliate links, would zoom up in the rankings just because they sell which makes no sense at all.)
Thats exactly what i meant. I personally like recip linking because its easy. But it shouldn't be that important for the sole fact anybody can get hundreds if not thousands of links,it just takes time. And most people will link to you if you get a recip link. Those aren;t important because both parties get a benefit, kinda of a you wash my back i wash yours.
Site A has 1000 incoming links, but has outgoing links to the same 1000 sites
Site B has 1000 incoming links, but has 0 outgoing links.
If both sites are in the same category Site B should be ranked higher.
I picked the first category i came upon and the above is what i found. That why there should be much less emphasis on DMOZ is the Google Algo. Try this out for yourself and then defend these comments:
"Google use of dmoz is great: It cost's them ziltch and factors in the major human reviewed directory to give them more relevant results"
"This is why they rightly give heavy (perhaps the heaviest) weighting to a manual directory which happens to be dmoz."
I agree with your thoughts on non recipricol links. They must be worth more, but steveb comments about affiliate links is an interesting one. If a site has an affiliate scheme, perhaps its got something of value and thus deserves to be higher in the rankings? Recipricol links all too often is just a sign of how busy the webmaster has been in getting them.... not a reflection of true quality.
Going back to the original question:
1) More weight put on 'location' of incoming links to help the relevancy of regional searches. If someone has a .com address hosted in the states they do not appear in .co.uk local searches, but may have relevant content. However, if .co.uk sites link to them perhaps this will become a signal that they are relevant to people in the UK.
2) Less emphasis on hosting location. Too many sites now host in the states for various reasons, but are relevant to other countries.
3) Ignoring all unseen text. Things like noscript or noframes should not be used for seo purposes. They are relevant for some sites functionality, but why should that give them an advantage.
4) More emphasis on blocks of text. If you know your subject, you will have good quality lumps of text, and rank well accordingly.
5) Less emphasis on big sites with loads of pages. Each page, whether part of a big or small site, should be evaluated equally. Often a specialist site is quite small but far more informative. Again, the algo should concentrate on body text, not all the other stuff. Word proximity, density and theme continuity throughout the page should be the most important part of the algo.
6) Penalties for interlinking or linking to bad neighbourhoods should be abandoned. People in all innocents create a community of sites or perhaps link where they shouldn't. It is rarely a sign of true spamming. The google assumption that links are an indicator of quality is outdated. I bet there are thousands of great sites out there, enjoyed by millions of people who don't have sites to "cast their vote" and link to them. The creators of these sites probably have better things to do than chase links. By ranking sites according to 'Links in' then google is basing it's index on the' votes' given by a small and narrow percentage of the worlds population...webmasters!
7) I think the concept of 'searching' rather than 'search results' is the area to examine. At the moment, a search for 'widgets in London' just produces a list of vague references and hundreds of links, which can take hours to look through. The secret to effective searching is knowing what to ask... google is wasting its time trying to give useful results for such vague requests, and should stop trying. All it produces is a list of sites that happen to match its algo and perhaps not answer the question. Having a simple search box is too simplistic, a search request should be followed by a qualifying question, thus instantly refining the search. With this in mind, perhaps directories should be given more prominence in search results ;) They are a good stepping stone to find sites google has missed.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 6:50 am (utc) on Oct. 20, 2002]
I think that we sometimes forget that members here come from a vast variety of companies. From individuals working on one site part time or full time, to individuals working full time on many sites, to companies doing many sites. Some are full SEO, or run pure affiliate or marketing sites, (the pure business people who are in it for the money with possible little content interest in the topic of their websites rather than it will make money - [no personal problem with that by the way!]) - others run sites that never make money, some that give internet exposure to charities, an organization, a person, or a company. There are major differences between the goals of each and the strategies they use to promote sites with very different goals.
For example, people with affiliate sites or types of sites in highly competitive sites though the latest G and Y! updates were disastrous. Others who run more news-based or information sites thought they were great! (generalising a lot of course)
I see in WebmasterWorld a lot that we do tend to view things from our own perspectives. So while for me for example, adding content is key to sites that will stand on their own and focus and keywords is key to our company site, I never ever realized until lately how profitable creating full on affiliate sites for example could be. Heh there are guyd out there making mega bucks from just being middle men with no product or service of their own! - [again no problem with this]
So coming from one posters view here unreciprocated links are no good. On the other i know in my area (and others do in their areas) that they are "better" as they demonstrate a link that has been freely added without any exchange as they just simply think ading a link to your site will help their own users.
Its all a matter of the different goals we have. The internet is so diverse, that now completely diff strategies have to be applied to say - a news site, a company site, an affiliate site, a blog, a webshop, an advertising site, an ecommerce site, and those that stand on their own compared to those that are just the web marketing vehicle for a bricks and mortar company.
So the suggestion is, let people know the type of sites you have experience in when it is important to the topic, and understand that others are in a completely different business - the only thing in common is that you use the web for marketing.
It depends on what your veiw of lots are. Dmoz lists around 4million sites. All search engines includes lots of dead sites/pages including Google when no dmoz entry exists.
>A lot of editors are webmasters, which sometimes can be a bad thing.
Again depends what you mean by lots. It can also be a good thing. An webmaster editor is more likely to be able to spot spam and judge a site.
>webmaster newsletters on tricks on now to become an editor
No tricks are needed. My first cat was for my industry and I fully disclosed my site involvement. I got in with no problem as per their terms:
Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated.
ScottM, can I email you a category to which I can not get in for the last 7 month?
But I see one problem with one of yours suggestions:
I think most people involved in the so-called 'commercial' sites, maybe don't want others [competitors?] know their area..
About all the rest of your post, what to say..
-> thanks for being so clear & careful :)