Forum Moderators: open
The recent G changes favor larger sites with DMOZ listing and links coming from larger sites with DMOZ listings.
Mom and Pop selling homemade candy on the internet may be looking for some other line of work soon as will thousands and thousands of small webbers.
This change in Google's algo no longers serves the internet as a whole - but gives a step up for the big to get bigger and the small to stay away. Granted, anyone can claw their way to the top, but the playing field is no longer level.
Most of the top G search results favor listings in DMOZ which frowns on any type of affiliate site. It's also a listing that can be very hard to get because of under-staffing at ODP. And in many many cases people just don't know it's important!
Most of the top G search results favor large sites with hundreds of pages rather that a dozen or two - even though small sites bring some of the best content to the web.
Most of the top G results have links from other sites that are also listed in DMOZ and are large as well.
This is a major change from G's previous policy and practices.
With Google's changes and Yahoo's need for a Gold Card the interent may be facing a new and interesting path.
-s-
-s-
As rfgdxm1 says, this is CORRELATION and not CAUSATION
(I learnt all about that in epidemiology 101 :-)
[edited by: cbpayne at 4:18 am (utc) on Mar. 20, 2004]
[edited by: mayor at 4:15 am (utc) on Mar. 20, 2004]
I hope Google realizes this was a bad move and returns to more sensible serps. However, in order for this happen people will have to stop using Google and stop advertising. This doesn't seem likely in the near future. My only hope is the press will take notice and bring the issue to a head. Possibly Yahoo will make a move.
If you do searches on Yahoo or other directories you will eventually find the mysteriously boosted site in a directory. Google Directory (ODP) seems to be the most valuable directory to be in however.
I think it is also safe to assume that a minimal amount of filtering is still applied to a web site even if it does show in some human edited directory. That 'last-step' minimal filtering is just another factor that confuses people. I believe the last step filter probably looks for really nasty keyword spam, link farms or some other fatal sin as defined by Google rocket scientists.
So...for competitive terms.
1. Is it in a Directory? If it is not then dump it.
2. If it is in a Directory does it have any Google defined fatal sins? If so dump it.
3. Give user near meaningless result with adwords on the right.
4. Deposit adword money in the bank.
-s-
The problem lies in what is done to a site after it is included in DMOZ. The volunteer editors (and I am one) do not go back and check all the sites in the index. This would be impossible.
Think about it - if I get a site submitted to my area I check it and if it looks good I stick it in the directory. The webmaster sees that this has happened, immediately changes all the text and stuffs it with keywords. What can I do about that?
Regarding old listings in DMOZ:
Have you tried emailing the DMOZ editor to request that they update the particular site within their category? If there isn't an editor listed... go to the next level within the category heiarchy and email the editor.
Wait a week or so for a reply. If that doesn't work, have you tried to volunteer to edit a particular category? Then you could clean up the category and add or remove appropriate sites.
I had a similar problem, where a particular site kept coming up in the top 5 spots that had (zero) content. The company had been out of business for 2 years, and had a blank white page.
I found it incredible that Google, MSN and Yahoo still chose to list the site, even though it had no outgoing links and zero content. I checked on the number of incoming links, and Google was only listing 20.
Obviously, Google was placing emphasis on the incoming links.
Then... eventually the site was removed from DMOZ, and suddenly the site dissapeared from Google's listing.
Go figure...
Now, my next guess is that after you have made the first hurdle (in the Google filter) of getting into the Google ODP (preferred directory) or another directory that Google loves, you next have to pass through some additional filtering.
That additional filtering probably looks at various items on the page (fatal sins as defined by the Google boys). The filter may also look at the editor's 'description' and the 'location path' of the site in the directory that it pulled from. If your keywords are not in the ODP/DMOZ/Yahoo/LookSmart/Etc editor's description or your keywords don't show in the directory path (us>state>business>texas>car dealer) that may be another thing that blocks you.
Once you get past all the Google (give us money for adwords) filters (if you are soo soo lucky) you would then have the normal compete for SEO, which includes keyword placement in the title, description and text.
Another unknown is whether some directories are actually paying Google for listings? Does Google get money kickback if they produce a site from the LookSmart paid directory for instance?
As you can see the Google filter is insane at least. There is absolutely no reasonable expectation of ever getting a page into the Google results at this point unless you find someone at Google who is willing to take a bribe.
Thanks for noticing my post. I think the biggest problem people have is they notice that they sites are gone, but don't investigate the sites that are left in their places.
Consistently it is directory style sites that dominate. The question is what are they doing that we aren't? To answer we must look at what is a directory.
1) Many links out to sites related to a theme. Directories are the best resources for resources. They don't have to offer the content themselves just link to great content sites.
2) Little content and targeting a general term (like "widgets") then linking to specific categories or sites (like "state widgets" and "city widgets").
3) Also, I notice sites that heavily cross-link in order to build a general theme ("widgets") do well for their links for specifics areas for the theme ("city widgets"). This lead people to believe in the over optimization penalty because the sites that ranked well were poorly optimized and didn't even target the right term. I can tell you that there is no over optimization penalty.
4) Directories usually get strong links from other directories. People who think DMOZ has a strong impact might get this belief from seeing these links. DMOZ links to a general directory category at a higher point than it does for a niche term (where one of our sites would be listed).
For example: A directory would be listed at:
US -> state -> guides (pr6 on 5-6 sites listed)
A commercial site would be listed at:
US -> state -> city -> widgets -> blue widgets (pr4 on 20+ sites listed)
5) Directories get many links back from niche sites. A good example of this is every real estate agent linking to the MLS or their local board. Or sites linking to their local portal. Google now sees this not only as a pr boost but looks at what is the theme of the site linking to the directory ("authority"). The thing Google doesn't realize is these links don't neccessary mean the directory is revelant to the theme. For example agents link to weather sites, suddenly weather sites come up for top real estate terms. The result is not relevant serps.
6) Categories from these directories do very well because the directory is an authority and the category targets the term. The "city widgets" category does well because Google still values content, which it would have. For example its title would be "city widgets" and the descriptions of the linked out sites would probably use this term. Google made improvements with Austin and Brandy in order to give these category pages better placement. I noticed an improvement in the directories listed. Weather and university sites still ranked well but the category pages did better. Google is getting better at finding revelant directory pages for a search request. I believe this is a mistake that people would prefer the actual content sites over the sites which link to the content, but this seems to be the way Google is heading. In terms of a money making model, it may be good. The results would look quasi-relevant and commercial sites would be filtered out and therefore would have to advertise. Visitors though feeling the natural serps could be relevant would see an advertiser that is even more relevant and click the ad link. Google makes money and the general user doesn't notice the overall quality has dominished.
They have never been comfortable bedfellows: G is devoted to the search for the 'perfect intelligent search algo' *without* human intervention.
But then they use DMOZ, which is subject to some of the *worst* elements of human intervention (e.g. 'part-time' editors, some of whom regard 'part-time' as meaning one hour per year. And then we have those editors who own websites, and do a fine job of cutting down their competition.)
It has never squared - and logically, indicates a lack of confidence in G's own ability to make a truly intelligent algo.
Make your *own* directory Google - or stop using a defunct one. You can't continue with this middle path. It's not clean or clear enough.
Id tend to agree with you had i not noticed many FLASH sites move up the index with nothing in the source to indicate SEO.
I think the way its going is
a) semantic
b) hilltop
c) PR
On DMOZ. Getting your keywords in the description and hence in the google description is def a * big * bonus.
That does happen also to be all about the items it sells ...
But by its size etc could be considered to be mom and pop ..( not to mention the terrible way I built it ...my first )..
At the time for the keyword search ( and for two months later ) It came up in "g" on page one surrounded by other similar genuinely relevant sites...
And its one of those sort of keywords where if you dont use "keyword" then you aren't talking about the subject at all...and if you want to write non dyslexic text then if you dont use "keyword" every 10 words or so you just can't do it ...
(trust me on this I have a Phd on my "keyword" subject )
Now its still on page one with occasional drops to the top of page two ....
However for neighbours it now has only "affiliate directories".....all with at least 4 "adwords" per page...all linking to the same 4 companies selling things that each used to be no higher than page 4 ....
these are virtually the only 4 companies that sell "keyword" related equipment ...thier own sites are now behind all the "aff' sites" on page 12 or lower!
And the strange thing is that "keyword" only has 5...yep ...Five searches daily showing for it on *verture ...or *raffic***....
So while the items they sell are high ticket price ...
is it worth their while to pay for adwords with "aff' directories" which basically just bar the way to their own sites ( and other truly relevant sites )....
"G" has always said that you can't buy your way to the top of the serps with them ...
But you sure can do it through their friends....!
And only "g" and their "aff site" adwords customers come out on top..
Google ODP is DMOZ; google dont have a directory.
I agree with what was said earlier, generally sites in ODP are quality sites without spam (otherwise they wouldnt get in there).
They also account for a high-quality inbound link of good PR value with good topical relevance.
Therefore, yes DMOZ would help these sites, but no more than any other site would with an equal page rank and relevance.
All things being equal, a DMOZ listing would put it ahead of another without it (all things being equal...), but it doesnt mean that you cant get above it by making a better, more informative and original site with equally as relevant inbound links of good topical relevance.
Perhaps google is focusing more on the topical relevance of inbound links now, and less on the PR...
If you are selling XXX and are linked to by ODP on a page specifically describing 20 sites XXX descriptions, thats gonna help....
Yes it is obvious that Google is giving an unfair boost to directory listings. Anyone that would argue otherwise has obviously not done much research. A DMOZ listing is like solid gold for the latest Google algo.
OK, I'll do some research. First, to make sure I'm not just jumping up and down about a very narrow range of web sites that personally affect me, I'll go to DMOZ, wave my mouse around with my eyes closed, then click the nearest link. Continue until I get to a website. Pick the most obvious search term from the website, see if it's in the top 10 at Google. Your claim appears to be that I should most often find that to be the case (these are "solid gold" links, after all! Gold, I say!).
In each case, the term I searched for was at least two words long, often 3. I selected the term by looking for the most obvious and prominently featured words on the page linked to by DMOZ.
Alas, can't place specific links here, but I'll give the gist.
In Top Ten? URL
NO (journal on mycology)
NO (news for pop music fans)
NO (devoted to improving roads in specific state)
YES (clinical informatics div of major U)
NO (cable assembly for data communcations)
YES (ADA legal expert)
NO (homemade bunnies)
NO (technical information service)
NO (font foundry)
OK, my research says your research is 80% crap. DMOZ links are not "solid gold". You got research? Please point me to where you posted it.
I see absolutely no evidence that what is in the ODP description makes any difference at all in how a site ranks on Google SERPs.
If Google uses the links as a tool to rank or identify your site, great, but if not, so what. Everytime someone out there adds a link to your site, it increases the likelihood that someone will click on that link and visit you.
The up-shot of this approach is that Google does use links within their continually changing algorythms. The more links you end up getting, because of your high quality site, the more likely that Google will reward you with good ranking within the SERPS.
It's easy to get caught up in the monthly changes made by Google, but they are rarely if ever permanent. Why make a change here and make a change there based a changing algorythm? Just hunker down and continue to build more and more content into your site.
This would be a hard call. Google does however highlight any search word that is found in the ODP description. Highlighting usually indicates that the search engine knows the word is there and is doing something with the word as far as relevance.
The amount of weight Google actually gives to this appears to be small if it does exist IMO. But it still may be another of many factors that ad up to the Google filter, since they went out of their way to highlight it IMO.
Best way I can think of testing this out would be to hunt through the ODP and look for sites with descriptions that contain unusual typos. Ideally, a unique typo that exists in an ODP description, but not on any other site on the Internet. Thus if www.example.com was in the ODP with a unique typo in the description, it should be the only site (outside of the ODP and clones) showing up in the SERPs on a search of that typo.
With all due respect, this is pure propaganda. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to link to a local small business web site (lawyer, doctor, maid, dentist, plumber, etc, etc) if you do not pay them to do so. What you describe would only be relevant if you were trying to build a large community web site and spend hours daily doing so. Mom and pops and local small businesses do not have a full time web guy and are not interested in building the next Ebay, that is not their business. They just want to have their local service business and be available in the search engines with their tiny little web site, that probably never changes unless they move locations. That is the real world reality. Those are the people being blocked by Google.
Probably because you have just said it and not prevented one piece of evidence to support it.
BUT BUT BUT (I am shouting here) has any one seen this new glitch or fakey ad or I don't know what..
(I would make another new post but it might take days for it to be reviewed... not dissing the mods..)
On the second page for a keyword search... all the way on the bottom (10 page list preferences) past the 10th item..... it reads like this with no description or anything...
www.somebodysdomain.com/thekeyword
Similar pages
Sticky me if you wanna see... or I apologize if this has been discussed.
I am not your employee (and don't want to be) and I have no reason to do research work for you or anyone else. I also do not have any cameras hidden in Googles offices collecting evidence to present to you with a bow on it. You take what you get for free on the Internet.
With all due respect, would you think it reasonable if a lawyer, doctor, maid, dentist, plumber, etc, etc in Smalltown, Michigan were to moan about the fact that the local paper refused to give them free ad space to promote their business? If they want page 1 on Google, then why is it unreasonable that they pay Google for Adwords, or pay a SEO to do well in Google (and, other major search engines)? If I were in a bar talking to a lawyer who billed clients $100+ and hour and was moaning about how his small website was unfindable in Google, I'd tell him I could rectify that for a fee, or alternatively he could spend his time learning what I know about search engines. Considering that I'd be willing to sell my service at a much lower rate than he bills his clients, for him this would be a good deal.
A little site like this about a business in Smalltown, Michigan wouldn't need to hire a full time web guy to be easily findable in Google. This can be accomplished for far less money than that would cost. In a capitalist economy, a business that wants visibility on the Internet, or any other medium, ain't gonna get that guaranteed unless they get out their checkbook. That is the real world reality.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 11:27 pm (utc) on Mar. 20, 2004]
Why would you expect small commercial sites with little content, and little inbound links to do well in any search engine? If they sell something truly unique, then they should, but if they sell a competitive item, they better get creative with their site. If they do that, they can still get free positions within Google. Otherwise they will have to pay to advertise, which only makes sense.
Rememmber the sub-head of this thread?
"Better get use to the new G-Results for now"
-s-
And to think - I started this thread with an observation that one would think would be impossible to overlook!
This one didn't think so.
You must work at Google. I have been on the Internet since the 80's. It doesn't 'make sense' to charge for inclusion. The Internet started out free for almost everything except the connection. Free searches, free email. That's what made it great. Search engines and email are the heart of the Internet. You charge for those and you take away free speech. I guess it 'makes sense' to charge poor people to deliver their email too as long as some corporation can control the majority of email and get away with it?
Now in Google's case it is either a 'search engine' or a 'money engine'. (well in Google's case they may have invented the Internet's very first 'money-filter engine' or whatever...)
You know if you....ehemmm... I mean Google would just admit that they are now running a LookSmart or PFI model or whatever and quit pretending to still be a 'search engine' I think people would have no problem with that and would respect the truthfulness. Truth in advertising you know.
