Google Directory Gone

[troyid]

The Google Directory powered by DMOZ is gone.

See [google.com.au ]

Long overdue in my mind.

[Robert Charlton]

Also gone in the US...

[google.com...]

Google

Google Directory is no longer available.

We believe that Web Search is the fastest way to find the
information you need on the web.

If you prefer to browse a directory of the web, visit the Open
Directory Project at dmoz.org

[cbpayne]

It was never of much use to the searcher.

[nuthin]

It was handy to have for a few things.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Tut tut, this is a case where Google has been the user ;o)

To be fair though, the link to the directory was once on the SERP page, it's been safely tucked away for a while.

[sem4u]

It had a few uses. Still most of it will be available over at dmoz.

[robzilla]

Never happy to lose a decent link.

[tigger]

at last - for once G has done something for webmasters

[iThink]

Will they (Goog) continue to use data from DMOZ?

A link from DMOZ has always been worth a lot. What happens to the value of those links is yet to be seen.

[pawas]

I am really happy Google dumped the most corrupt directory of the world called Dmoz.

[LizardGroupie]

Let's just hope that a big successful company like Google has the human decency to provide some sort of serverence-like monetary compensation to the ODP editors. If only for this devastating blow to their collective self esteem. They work so hard - and now Google makes them less important. It's a shame.

[ChanandlerBong]

typical dmoz editor's reaction: "we're still important. No, really, we are! Excuse me, is anyone listening to me? Hello?"

[proboscis]

Monetary compensation for volunteers?
&
That's funny dmoz editors suffering a devastating blow because they didn't get a link.

k done

[Nagani]

If a back link from Google directory has some weight, do those websites from the directory suffer ranking drop?

[proboscis]

Nagani, I don't think so. If you have a site that's ranking, losing just one link shouldn't have a big effect.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Google loved the project enough to copy it but it didn't pan out as a viable search alternative so I'm not surprised. That and Google has lots of other sites/ideas to pillage where their efforts will yield 'better' results. I think we're overdue for an ORIGINAL idea from Google but this is a step in the right direction anyway.

Why? Because DMOZ has no chance to re-gain traction with a complete copy under the Google brand.

[McMohan]

at last - for once G has done something for webmasters

I would rather say against webmasters. If nothing else, it gave a forecast of a website's pagerank movement :-)

[Rosalind]

Because DMOZ has no chance to re-gain traction with a complete copy under the Google brand.

I think it's more of a nail-in-the-coffin moment for directories. If Google can't benefit enough to keep it going, even though they do none of the work of adding and sorting websites, then who can?

[trinorthlighting]

Good, DMOZ was corrupt and impossible for a legit website to get into.

[proboscis]

Because DMOZ has no chance to re-gain traction with a complete copy under the Google brand.

I don't think they're trying, I just looked and it appears the same as it did in 1998.

What are the plans for dmoz anyway?

[Staffa]

In the current shake-up it's not in G;s interest to drag a free listings directory along, regardless of the quality of that directory. It served G's initial purpose to have search and directory available, in the path it is bulldozing now DMOZ is dispensable

[mhansen]

Ironically... for the first time in ages, I am seeing actual SERP's with Google Directory links mixed into the page-1 organics.

[almighty monkey]

In over 50 campaigns, I've never once succesfully got a site onto Dmoz. Its never held me back.

I'm really not sure its been relevent for SERPS in any meaningful way for years. The fact that its corrupt as all hell isn't exactly news, either.

I did once lose a client because he'd read somewhere that 'Dmoz is vital!' and I hadn't gotten him in there. I wasn't particulary distressed to see the back of him, to be honest.

[pp46]

Wow I am surprised to read this news and the comments , I have been editing in there for years and my only problem was finding time to edit.
I edit very fairly, respecting the DMOZ guidlines and (stopped) a lot of dupe mirror sites getting into the Google directory.
But I guess now they have figured how to do that theme selves ...

I learned a lot from it, making good concise descriptions analyzing/reviewing sites, if I am where I am now its a lot thanks to DMOZ and my editing there. I am sorry for this and maybe its an end of an era when the web was young and free and not everything was done for money,

And I never saw or heard anything to confirm this below.

DMOZ was corrupt and impossible for a legit website to get into

[koan]

DMOZ has always been a "give my quality site a try with a concise description" and forget about it afterward. I got many listings, and failed to get many others. I don't know about corruption but it seemed relatively fair to me, maybe kind of random, but I never took it personally and moved on.

[pp46]

Well even if it stops now I will not complain, I went over a lots of sites and learned what not to do and because the directives state that a site must not be judged simply on its look but must provide sufficient content to the user I added lots of mom pop home made sites just like pro glitter sites.
The main problem that there is with DMOZ is that if you get behind in the editing you are in trouble as you can not catch up...
Thats why it takes so long all the editors do it when they can..

[flashdash]

Less money for the corrupt editors running that directory. I always hated that directory for the amount of time wasted submitting good stuff that never got included.

[JohnRoy]

>> Less money for the editors...

Hmmm... It was a free directory. While some editors were corrupt I don't see where they made money. Many site owners who didn't get into dmoz, focused on other ways to make (more) money.

Google link to dmoz might be down. However, the debate "is a link from dmoz worth" lives on.

[wheel]

While some editors were corrupt I don't see where they made money.

Let's say I edit the new york real estate category, if that's even a category. You do SEO and we meet at a conference. I tell you that $500 to an anonymous paypal account gets you a listing.

see where they made money? :)

This, and worse has gone on.

[koan]

A quality directory, by definition, will refuse the majority of submitted sites because most of them are low quality and is bound to make bitter enemies in the process.