Google using more DMOZ clones

Proliferation of DMOZ clones appearing in backlinks

[IanTurner]

Update Esmeralda seems to have significantly amplified the benefit of having that all important DMOZ link, with many more clones now appearing in backlink results.

[rfgdxm1]

Confirmed. A quick check of some sites in the high up the tree Recreation/Drugs category shows 2 clones in the backlinks for the sites I checked. There may be more that are below PR4 and not showing.

[petertdavis]

Yep, I noticed that too on a couple of my sites. Makes me all the more happy about the couple sites that I got lucky with on that craps shoot submital to DMOZ. :)

[Chris_R]

Wow - I had noticed a few, but just thought they were isolated cases of people copying dmoz stuff onto their pages.

I wouldn't want to rain on anyones parade, but I don't think this will last too long - maybe they'll keep Alexa, but then again - who knows.....

[rfgdxm1]

A check of backlinks in the sites listed at the top level of Health does show quite a few clones. Presumably these clones have PR all the way down to the low level cats. Thus, even though they won't show in most cases for backlinks doesn't mean they aren't counted. Of course, Google could be showing clones in backlinks, yet not counting them. If so odd, as Google used to PR0 the clones.

[Net_Wizard]

Nope, this is really happening with Google and in fact have become a hotly contested debate on some forums where the question is...Does Google rely too much on DMOZ?

There are example right now at Google serp listed at #1 with the content has nothing to do with the query but the backlinks are mostly ODP and its clones.

One example for instance was the case of a site listed at ODP and later on switched content. Meanwhile the ODP listing were propagated to its clones. What worrisome with this case is that Google does freshcrawl this site at the same time but it seems to ignore what is obviously an irrelevant content and favor instead the backlinks of ODP and its clones because of the keyword-anchor links.

This behaviour tend to point out that Google either...

1. Relies heavily on the anchor of the links or
2. A special algorithmic weight for ODP listing

and either ignore or weighted down the algorithmic value of a freshcrawl.

[skipfactor]

I never thought Google PR zeroing the DMOZ clones was very fair as the Google Directory itself is a DMOZ clone. ;)

[Net_Wizard]

I don't agree either that Google should lower the PR for ODP clones. However, I would like to see that links from these clones should be discounted. The ODP clones scenario right now have a resemblance with guestbooks spamming the only difference, is that, it's harder to get listed at ODP.

Likewise, I don't agree either that owners of sites with guestbooks should have lower PR but if Google have a filter for guestbooks links(do they?), why Google can't filter ODP clones links is a mystery.

[steveb]

Maybe this is more important in areas I haven't looked at, but the best clone in terms of PR I can see is an Excite one, which is three PR points below the DMOZ category PR (like PR3 compared to PR6). The effect of the several clones is pretty close to nil in terms of pagerank. If there were over 1000 of the Excite type it would mean something.

I would think that much more important is the anchor text benefit.

added... I wasn't thinking of Alexa. Right now that is the only one that seems to matter.

[rocco]

why shouldn't it be fair to count the dmoz clones? because sites are too crappy to make it into dmoz? why should those links from your links page count? if your site is listed in dmoz then your links page could be considered as a mini-dmoz clone as well. some sites just clone a certain category of dmoz and add some of their own links. this actually increases the quality of serps, because no one would list crappy sites of others on purpose on his pages...

counting pr from dmoz clones underweights spam networks - that's good. we don't need another 100 viagra affiliate sites.

[GodLikeLotus]

Makes it even more unfair when the editors refuse to add your web site. I think ATW shows many of these DMOZ clones if you check-out backlinks with them.

[Dave_Hawley]

RE: craps shoot submital to DMOZ

Aint that the truth! I got our site listed in the VBA section 5 years ago. For the last 3 years I have been trying to change it to the the Excel section, without any luck at all. I then tried submitting a new link to the Excel section for 2 years with nothing, zilch , zero! I have emailed the editor on 3 occasion and DMOZ themselves on 3 occasions. No reply, no confirmation absolutely nothing.

I guess this is the downside of having it run by voulenteers. I think it would better if they charged a one time fee and paid someone.

[soapystar]

id think twice about requesting changes. I did that once and got dumped all together. Seems they'd rather have sites listed in the wrong section than be asked to move them to relevant sections. If the editor is the same for both cats then fine, but you can get editors taking excpetion to other editors adding to their turf!

as for dmoz clones, can you be sure that the link is counting? According to googleguy although guestbook backlinks show he reckons most of the time they are filtered from having an affect, but then i guess he would say that wouldnt he. Doh!

[Dave_Hawley]

Thanks for the tip. It's just so frustrating trying to get a link in there! My site is FULL of good content yet they just dont care. Makes me think just how many other good content sites are not in there due to the BIG flaw in the process.

[takagi]

There may be more that are below PR4 and not showing.

I can see is an Excite one, which is three PR points below the DMOZ category PR (like PR3 compared to PR6).

It looks that since the Esmeralda update, the PR needed to show up in the back links is lowered. It used to be above a low PR4 (some low PR4 didn't show), now PR3 and maybe even some PR2 is listed. That would explain why DMOZ clones now start to show up as back links. The PR of these sites didn't change, the links are not new, but the filter to get in the SERP is changed.

[Net_Wizard]

According to googleguy although guestbook backlinks show he reckons most of the time they are filtered from having an affect, but then i guess he would say that wouldnt he. Doh!

he reckons most of the time they are filtered Shall we take that as a definitive Google answer to guestbooks spamming? It seems to me GG is not even sure.

In fact, as of this posting, in a 2 word competitive keywords with over 5 million results, one of the top 10 site 'all' its backlinks are coming from guestbooks and nothing else.

How do you explain that?

[Harwich]

First you have to even get DMOZ to review your site.

I guess I can't see putting that much weight on DMOZ results because of the incessant back log. I understand the value of a human sorted directory but for it to be weighed so heavily it should be able to handle the load of submissions. This not a reflection on the actual editors, they are volunteers and don't have to do it at all, they just need more of them. Of course I would probably feel different if my site was listed.

[toolkit]

Maybe Google should stop those pigeons working on PR (which they've obviously broken anyway) and get them reviewing websites for their own proprietory directory...

[coolasafanman]

i like the concept of weighting dmoz. a computer will never look at a website the way a human can and although the system is a bit flawed, and the equipment is antiquated, it's the best we've got in terms of a human edited standard. At the very least the editors do a quick check for blatant spaminess. I would however, like to see a few more dmoz-type directories worked into the mix though. Of course they would have to be heavily scrutinized first.

as far as counting clone sites goes, i think it makes perfect sense - IMO it would simplify google's algorithm to include clones of dmoz, rather than weighting the original dmoz site more heavily and discounting all the rest.

However, there is the whole duplicate content issue that i still don't fully understand - clones are clones are duplicate content. Google itself has over a dozen domain names pointing to basically the same information. they have that right, but it just baffles me.

as far as getting your site into dmoz, my experience is if you follow the rules and pick a smaller niche category with an editor rather than one with hundreds of sites listed, and have a quality site, you'll be up in a week or so.

[Harwich]

Unfortunatly you do not always get to pick your category.
I selected the category that I believed (and still do) was the most appropriate for my site. The DMOZ editor(s) disagreed and moved it to another category with a VERY long queue

[steveb]

The "whine about dmoz" forum is the "Directories" one.

Google Guy has said that Google counts directories that people use. Excite certainly qualifies, as does Alexa. Those sites, and others, use the Dmoz dump because it is what it is, the best resource on the Internet.

There are a few sites that manage PR2 and PR3 for higher level directory categories, but again the effect of that is miniscule to the point of being irrelevant. If you have a PR6 link from DMOZ, you hardly are going to get excited about three or four PR3 or PR2 links showing up.

The benefit from being listed in the regional yahoos is more since they are often (though not always) only one or two points lower than the "main" directory PR.

[rfgdxm1]

>In fact, as of this posting, in a 2 word competitive keywords with over 5 million results, one of the top 10 site 'all' its backlinks are coming from guestbooks and nothing else.

It may be that when Google did the switchover to this new continuous update system that not all of the filters were properly added in. It is possible that this happened with the filter for guestbook entries, and they benefitted from a temporary window of opportunity. These ODP clones being counted currently may be another case of a filter failing.

[Net_Wizard]

Maybe so, but I've noticed this guestbooks spamming like over a month or so. The main question then is...when is the guestbooks filter will be applied, that is if there's one?

In the case of ODP and its clones, I've noticed this behaviour way even before Dominic but was just now clearly demonstrated by what's going on with Google.

[IanTurner]

Net_Wizard, pre Dominic I was seeing a DMOZ clone in one month and gone the next, with Esmeralda I am seeing DMOZ clones that have been dead for months back in the backlinks.

Okay they may not be counting, but my guess is that they are. Backlink a few top sites in your serps and look for clones.

[kstprod]

I have clones showing up also. While they don't exactly show up as backlinks using link: command, they do show up when searching for my domain. The thing that makes me a little nervous is that almost ALL of them are PR0, and theres well over 50 listed.

This is not supposed to negatively affect me, right?

[EliteWeb]

I've always noticed the sites using dmoz data in the refer logs. Much of the sites had no PR but now they have better PR and their pages show with the dmoz data that didnt show before.

Decent :) I don't mine. It's data, and most the sites who use DMOZ dir data offer other info on their sites (atleast for me ;))

[nippi]

I have 2 sites I can not get into DMOZ as there is no editor in teh category

I can not apply to edit the category myself, as there are not 3 good quality sites I can recommend for the category that are not already listed.

Thus, my sites will never make it into DMOZ>

[Dave_Hawley]

It's a real shame. DMOZ is missing out on thousands of good quality sites because it's volunteer system simply cannot cope.

I really think they need to revise it's volunteer system and consider charging a nominal fee for submission.

Dave

[rfgdxm1]

The ODP social contract forbids them from ever charging a fee.

[nippi]

I reject that google fluctuations are causing problems. All my competitor sites in many different categories seem to be having no problems, whilst mine are being hamemred.

I have done something wrong, according to the latest google alg. It would make sense, I don't employ spam tactics, but I do apply a similar formula to my sites.

ALl I ahve to do now is find what it is....