DMOZ Giving 250+ Links Per Entry

[digitalpoint]

Google has publicly said many times that a link from DMOZ is not any more valuable than a link from any other site (assuming the same PageRank).

But the real value in a DMOZ entry comes from how many other sites are based on the data. For example, a DMOZ link within the /Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/ section yields 257 total links when you include the websites that use the data, as you can see here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=allinurl:Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Of course it takes awhile for your entry to show up everywhere since not all websites update on a regular schedule, but a DMOZ entry still has a big value.

- Shawn

[expat]

Yes, these are nice to have but they can easily be very stale.

Changing an entry is nearly impossible and as a lot of "users" seem to use one download to get of the ground never to update. So an entry can haunt you forever.

Because I use the net to trial a lot and adapt sites or split off sites by actual demand and search paterns my tendency is to submit to DMOZ after a site is established and gone through a couple of "remakes" (and in my case spell checks).

Also a lot of these sites using DMOZ use their own slant.
Even after two years I find sites that I have in DMOZ only to be in about 30-40% of sites claiming to use DMOZ and their directory structue.
M

[Owlcroft]

For example, a DMOZ link within the /Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/ section yields 257 total links when you include the websites that use the data . . .

I just completed an interesting exercise that may be some grist for the mill. dmoz is utterly adamant that "one site, one listing" rules. With the established value of a listing, as demonstrated by the citation above, that is obviously a critical criterion. OK.

I sampled some half dozen closely related categories, and got a total of 191 URLs listed. Of those, 14 were exact duplicates of another 14. Another 14 (coincidence) were URLs where one was a subdivision of a larger site included in the 191 (and, from the look of the URLs, not virtually a separate site, either). And there were 2 more that were very similar sorts of duplication.

In short, of a random sample of nearly 200 listed URLs in related categories, over 15% were supposedly disallowed duplications, nearly half blatantly identical. (And that 15% is just the spurious duplications: if we say that double-listers should be banned altogether, over 30% of the listings disappear.)

Play by the rules, do it right, and you will always get your just reward: several hundred links fewer than the cheaters.

(Yes, I have reported all those.)

How does this happen? I know dmoz is big, but this kind of cross-checking is scarcely rocket science.

[schmeg007]

Google has publicly said many times that a link from DMOZ is not any more valuable than a link from any other site (assuming the same PageRank).

But the real value in a DMOZ entry comes from how many other sites are based on the data. For example, a DMOZ link within the /Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/ section yields 257 total links when you include the websites that use the data

I'm glad you researched that, as I currently saw a jump in my presence on google, but didn't know if it was because of my large CSS reference http://www.tizag.com/cssT/reference.php or if it was because of a couple dmoz listings. I guess I should try a bit harder to get listed on Dmoz, hundreds of actual links per listing is awesome!

[nlopes]

The problem is that that sites have low PR...

[digitalpoint]

Agreed... You won't see the as reported back links by Google, unless you are fairly close to the top of the directory. But a link is a link (even if Google doesn't report it publicly).

- Shawn

[Old Welsh Guy]

Some of my older sites are gaining PR as a result of DMOZ data use, it has been this wasy for a long time, but has been greatly helped by the raft of PHP progs that allow you to use the DMOZ dumps with ease.

[schlottke]

What would one say it generally takes to get in all of the directories using the DMOZ results? 2-6 months?

[digitalpoint]

Probably will never happen (100%) of them... some never update their data. They leave it "as is" from the first set of data they pull. But I would say 4-6 months for all of them that update on a regular basis.

- Shawn

[schlottke]

Yeah, I figured there were some of those.

[disgust]

in my category, MAYBE 10 pages use the dmoz data and get into the google serps.

it's not great, but not fantastic either.

[Dominic]

Play by the rules, do it right, and you will always get your just reward: several hundred links fewer than the cheaters. (Yes, I have reported all those.)

How do you report - as I have noticed a few listings that should be removed.

It is a pretty valuable link - even though the pr is low, they are related pages (duplicate) but related.

[Bernard]

From time to time, I see musings in SEO forums that this or that engine gives more weight to older sites than newer ones. I think that for sites listed in DMOZ, the age definitely affords the opportunity to have been listed in more of the one dump wonders on the net.

[DarrenC]

Getting listed in DMOZ definatly helps! I've been waiting two years to get our site submitted in the category, mainly because of the amount of SPAM received, but anyway, an editor suggested we put our business address on the contact page and submit it to the location, within a week of submitting the site it was accepted.

Just thought people who are struggling to get listed, this could be a solution, if not ideal.

When the DMOZ directory was updated by Google, the site jumped to PR6, unfortunately, we seem to be jumping between PR 5 and PR6 at the moment.

Darren :)

[arounddelhi]

I have just got listed in DMOZ,how long does it take to get the above said links from other sites. Google already is giving me one backlink of DOMZ listing.
R.Anand

[digitalpoint]

It can take a long time, since some sites update once a year, or sometimes never (after their initial use of the data).

[I, Brian]

I wonder how much may fall to duplicate content filters, though.

[domokun]

I wonder whether a listing in DMoz is worth the effort of getting past some of the more anal-retentive editors; it's no coincidence the Dmoz's logo is a Dinosaur (i know it's a gecko - i just liked the analogy)

[Chatmaster]

It certainly is!!! From what planet are you? Analivia!??

[windsilver]

Getting listed in DMOZ definatly helps! I've been waiting two years to get our site submitted in the category, mainly because of the amount of SPAM received, but anyway, an editor suggested we put our business address on the contact page and submit it to the location, within a week of submitting the site it was accepted.

Huh? Wazzat?

How did you work it? Did you resubmit your contact page? You talked to a LIVE editor? Pullease, more details!!

[Bernard]

If your site represents a brick and mortar business, publish your address on the site and you can submit it to a regional category in the ODP with a much greater chance of a quick review (and hopefully a listing).

[arestia]

How does this happen? I know dmoz is big, but this kind of cross-checking is scarcely rocket science.
i bet some of the sites with duplicate links in many related categories submited so many times over the 6mon+ it takes to get in that they forgot what cat they oriiginaly submited to.

so after a while all of the submitals would be added.

maybe they should cancel all the other submitals with the domain name if one is accepted.

[macdesign]

it's no coincidence the Dmoz's logo is a Dinosaur

A reminder that we tear apart and eat alive anyone who questions ODP policies. :rolleyes:

[Weirfire]

maybe they should cancel all the other submitals with the domain name if one is accepted.

They couldn't do that either because you are allowed a regional listing as well as a main listing.

DMOZ is 1 big frustration. They should offer incentives to editors to keep editing sites.

[arestia]

They couldn't do that either because you are allowed a regional listing as well as a main listing.

DMOZ is 1 big frustration. They should offer incentives to editors to keep editing sites.
oh i didnt know that. good info.

[Weirfire]

I've just submitted to be an editor of my own town so we'll see how that goes. :)

[rhinoplayer]

I submitted to be an editor a while back..... does that take 6 months too (or maybe a year)???!!!

[Weirfire]

Submitting to be an editor should take about 14 days. You should have received an email by now. Check at Resource Zone (http://www.resource-zone.com) to check your status. That's both editor status and website submission status.

[I, Brian]

The trouble is - wouldn;t it be easy to folter out DMOZ clones when indexing links? After all, they have to issue the DMOZ box at the bottom of each page, as per the terms of use (or so I believe).

Therefore just because a site may have multiple lniks due to DMOZ data being reused, I'm not entirely surely any direct judgement on ranking value can be made.

Btw - as a quick point - DMOZ isn't a website directory - it's an information directory. If you produce reference sites then you can get multiple deeplinks - one of mine already has 40 deeplinks, and I'm negotiating 80+ deeplinks on another site. Reference sites, though, and none commercial.

[macdesign]

Good point. The general rule is one category per site + possibly a second Regional category.

However, exceptions have been made on certain information resources, where just about all pages of the site can be listed. These however, require a lot of editor agreement to be allowed and are rare.

Addtionally as noted, some sites that provide good resources may be allowed multiple categories, but generally not for commercial sites. This does apply a lot for government sites, for example, where each branch of government might be listed in a separate category, For example, embassies.

[Weirfire]

Btw - as a quick point - DMOZ isn't a website directory - it's an information directory. If you produce reference sites then you can get multiple deeplinks - one of mine already has 40 deeplinks, and I'm negotiating 80+ deeplinks on another site. Reference sites, though, and none commercial.

Which is the main reason for the directory being free and the reason why they have to use voluntary editors to maintain the directory. If it was a paid directory then informational sites just wouldn't be able to enter.

[PRBot.Com]

This explains why one of my sites just exploded in PR after it was listed on DMOZ :D

[sixcorp]

Google has publicly said many times that a link from DMOZ is not any more valuable than a link from any other site (assuming the same PageRank).

But the real value in a DMOZ entry comes from how many other sites are based on the data.

- Shawn

This is good to know but also frustrates me. I've had 2 sites submitted to DMOZ.

http://www.tailoredresume.com
http://www.resumexposure.com

One for over a year (ResumeXposure.com) - it hasn't been accepted or rejected. The category does have a reviewer but there is no action. I submitted a status request and was told it hadn't been reviewed and to check back in 6 months :)

Insane. Hopefully the big search engines (which my sites are highly ranked on) will get the picture and de-emphasize DMOZ and sites that use that directory as incoming links. It was a great idea but obviously something is really wrong over there with their business plan.

[disgust]

if you really want to get into dmoz, you can always apply to be an editor and then disclose which sites you run, and then add them (if they wouldn't get in normally this won't help you- it'll be booted right out along with possibly your editing privs- but if it's just a "wait" issue can sort of.. have a bit of an advantage)

oh, and just to show that it really depends on the cat:

I submitted my new site a few days ago. I checked the logs/stats for the site: one of the referrers was from a dmoz editor panel. so I went and checked, sure enough, it was already added. less than a 2 day wait.

[Bernard]

DMOZ does not have a business plan. It is not a revenue generator.

If you want some perspective on what DMOZ is really all about and how it works, you should read some of the articles posted in the ODP forum at IHY (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15) by DMOZ editors. Here are a few insightful ones:

Getting your site listed (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16137)

Guide to resubmissions (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15816) (includes links to other excellent ODP essays)

Letter to a friend (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11226)

[macdesign]

http://www.tailoredresume.com
http://www.resumexposure.com

One for over a year (ResumeXposure.com) - it hasn't been accepted or rejected. The category does have a reviewer but there is no action. I submitted a status request and was told it hadn't been reviewed and to check back in 6 months

Insane.Sounds really bad doesn't it. But let's look at this a little more deeply and see what really is happening.

A general guideline at ODP is that a company only gets one web site listed. You may choose to spread your content over several web sites , but that does not entitle you to additional listings. Submissions of multiple web sites for the same business entity is considered spam - and can cause you to lose all your listings.

So if we take a look at http://webforce6.com/ - we can see clearly it says [I]" webForce 6 LLC owns and powers ResumeXposure.com."

Since http://webforce6.com/ is listed in ODP, the other sites will not be.

[sixcorp]

So if we take a look at http://webforce6.com/ - we can see clearly it says " webForce 6 LLC owns and powers ResumeXposure.com."

Since http://webforce6.com/ is listed in ODP, the other sites will not be.

First - Tailoredresume.com LLC is it's own business entity and is not at all tied to ResumeXposure.com which is owned by webForce 6 LLC. These businesses file separate tax returns and have separate ownership structures. Since I am the "techie" partner for both sites (businesses) I have submitted them both to DMOZ. There is nothing "underhanded" going on except that I can't seem to get a HUMAN EDITED board to get the listing correct. In theory DMOZ is a great concept but the "crawling" boards have listed our sites perfectly. We're able to help a lot more people due to those boards than due to DMOZ (so far).

Second - I NEVER submitted webforce6.com to be listed - NEVER EVER! In fact we've want to deactivate that URL except for email because 100% of our customers arrive via www.resumexposure.com for the webforce 6 business. Someone at DMOZ decided to list a "placeholder" domain name of a business (webforce 6 LLC) that owns another eCommerce career site (www.resumexposure.com). The webforce6.com domain gets zero traffic (except we might get some now that DMOZ has improperly listed it). The funny thing about all this is that this is a HUMAN edited board and I can't seem to get the proper listings?? Strange. I've submitted 3 requests to have the listing changed for webforce6 to www.resumexposure.com so that I can deactivate the webforce6.com URL. If you look at this URL: http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Employment/Resumes_and_Portfolios/Distribution/

You will note that PC Pros Inc. owns www.resumeblaster.com - this is the same relationship that webForce 6 LLC has with www.resumexposure.com. I am unclear why we can't get our URL listed correctly. You obviously did it correctly for them.

I REALLY want to get this resolved. We have been waiting patiently to get listed. I do not like responses from editors like the one above making it sound like we are trying to do something that is not legit with our businesses. That is not the case. We (www.resumexposure.com) practically founded the Resume Distribution category in 1999 and yet we are still not listed on your directory.

What I would appreciate (greatly) is if we could get the "webforce 6" listing to point at the www.resumexposure.com domain name as that is the actual business URL for the business. If you wish, I will deactivate the webforce6.com URL once the listing is corrected. As I stated before, that URL gets zero traffic - we have not promoted it anywhere and yet a DMOZ editor pulled it from the email address I listed (csix@webforce6.com) as my contact email and decided to post it as the business URL. This is a simple fix. We have been with the BBB Online for several years and have NO outstanding complaints against our company. We do it business the right way and would appreciate getting listed correctly on DMOZ.

Sincerely,

Clint Six
Partner
webForce 6 LLC
www.resumexposure.com

[CanadianEh]

Check out these stats http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html

CNN has been listed 231,000 times according to this list. By the way, CNN is owned by AOL Time Warner, who also own DMOZ.

[macdesign]

AND

cia.gov is listed 178 time - it's a CIA plot
NAVY.MIL is listed 1870 times - US government plot
bbc.co.uk is listed 4500 times - AOL now owns the BBC
SOURCEFORGE.NET is listed 3079 times - open source == open directory mmm!
imdb.com is listed 8900 times - we should make a movie about this

See also http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Conspiracy/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Movies/Titles/C/Conspiracy_Theory/

[minstrel]

How to Bribe a DMOZ Editor (http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/2004/12/how-to-bribe-dmoz-editor.htm)

[anthonycea]

Do you think DMOZ is a joke Minstrel or is it possible for them to make a comeback if they fire all editors and automate the submission process?

[SEbasic]

bbc.co.uk is listed 4500 times - AOL now owns the BBCNot too sure about that...

Haha.

[minstrel]

There's no hope for a "comeback". They are too entrenched in their "traditions" and much too busy defending what they do (or don't do) now to be open to innovation or improvement. They are on their way to extinction like the dinosaur. What does not evolve dies.

[anthonycea]

Not even with a new automated submission process Minstrel :confused:

[minstrel]

DMOZ will never consider an automated submission process. They won't even consider automated emails to site submitters saying "we've received your submission", "we've accepted your submission", or "we've rejected your submission".

I told you: They like things the way they are. They are not interested in improvements or innovation or anything except explaining to all and one that they believe the way things are done now is perfect.

[a389951l]

How to Bribe a DMOZ Editor (http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/2004/12/how-to-bribe-dmoz-editor.htm)

Interesting read. I guess nothing is really for free.

[anthonycea]

I do think AOL/Netscape will bring this home and fire all the editors since they are moving ahead in the search business Minstrel.

How will you feel then :confused:

[minstrel]

I don't believe AOL/Netscape owns DMOZ.

[anthonycea]

Last time I read about it they did :)

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=DMOZ+owned+by+Netscape&x=40&y=10

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[minstrel]

I may be mistaken here -- I thought they were independent.

It's not like you can tell from the DMOZ website -- they don't even update their own site with any regularity:

Last update: 2002
Copyright © 1998-2004 Netscape Communications Corporation

[anthonycea]

With AOL's expansion into the search business and plans to invest in their search business, you can look for them to do something with DMOZ down the road.

First off, I would fire all the editors and completely automate the submission process.

[minstrel]

You know, I would really like to believe this were possible, AC, but I'm afraid I see the DMOZ concept as fundamentally flawed and the infrastructure as too entrenched and unwieldy to have any real hope.

But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[anthonycea]

Minstrel, marketing is meeting the needs of the customers, without doing something about this terrible submission and approval process and making the directory database more useful to searchers they are not meeting the needs of the customers.

AOL/Netscape will be forced to change this soon.

[minstrel]

I don't know. Meeting the needs of the customers has certainly not guided DMOZ to this point. And if indeed AOL owns them, why haven't they done something about it up to this point? And why is now any different?

[anthonycea]

Because AOL is a for profit company and they are investing big money in search (local search also).

http://news.com.com/This+week+in+search+wars/2100-1030_3-5545480.html?tag=html.alert

They are working with more than Google in developing search technology.

[minstrel]

As I said, AC, I'd like to think you're right. I hope you're right. I fear you are not, though.

[anthonycea]

If you were running AOL search and you had this resource, what would you do Minstrel :confused:

Those executives can't be that stupid that are running AOL search :p

[minstrel]

Maybe I'm not being clear.

1. IF indeed AOL does own DMOZ, how long have they done so?
2. IF they own it and they have plans to change it, why haven't they already done so?
3. AOL and AOL Search are not new entities: Why do you think anything is going to change at this point?

[anthonycea]

When AOL acquired Netscape they became the owner of everything Netscape owned, DMOZ happens to be one of those properties.

It would not be hard for them to take the database and tell the editors to all get lost, implement an automated system of submissions and maintenance of the database the same way other directories do it.

They could also make it a for profit directory just like your Yellow Page directory.

[minstrel]

OK, but they bought Netscape some time ago, no? Have they given any indications whatsoever that they intend to revamp DMOZ? They have already taken steps to update Netscape...

[anthonycea]

Information on the Netscape acquisition is below.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=AOL+acquires+Netscape&x=42&y=17


Look for AOL since they are competing with the Yahoo directory to upgrade DMOZ, who knows what might happen, but you can bet something will happen since they are investing money in search.

[Bernard]

AOL/TW/Netscape will have a hard time making any changes to DMOZ without facing severe editor attrition IMO. I'm not sure where the economic impetus lies for them to change anything either.

[anthonycea]

What do they have to lose Bernard? Yahoo is charging money and their directory is a profit center for them.

Why would you say that AOL has no incentive to change it :confused:

Bernard, did you miss the part about firing all the editors?

[CanadianEh]

When AOL acquired Netscape they became the owner of everything Netscape owned, DMOZ happens to be one of those properties.

It would not be hard for them to take the database and tell the editors to all get lost, implement an automated system of submissions and maintenance of the database the same way other directories do it.

They could also make it a for profit directory just like your Yellow Page directory.
In my opinion, they have made it a huge profit center (without having to invest). This list shows the companies with the most DMOZ listings http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html

BTW, AOL / Time Warner owns number 1, CNN

[Bernard]

Is AOL/TW/Netscape going to hire a huge bureaucracy to screen, qualify and oversee 10,000+ new employees to replace the active editors who are currently working for free? I don't see it.

Also, if DMOZ moved to a paid model, there may be serious legal issues involved in incorporating the current directory into a new commercial venture per the DMOZ legal status/incorporation/licensing.

[anthonycea]

CE, sort of figures, money talks, AOL has done well since the directory was acquired.

I am going to start my own directory just for my sites and my friends one day soon. :p

PS: Bernard, I said automate the process, how does Yahoo do it?

[CanadianEh]

Is AOL/TW/Netscape going to hire a huge bureaucracy to screen, qualify and oversee 10,000+ new employees to replace the active editors who are currently working for free? I don't see it.
I may be wrong, but, if they hired 20 full-time employees, they could probably approve more submissions than DMOZ does today.

[minstrel]

AOL Acquires Netscape For $4.2 Billion (http://internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/23701)
November 24, 1998
AOL Acquires Netscape For $4.2 Billion

Following several days of negotiations, America Online Inc. Tuesday acquired Netscape Communications Corp. for $4.2 billion in stock
Notice the date on that, Anthony? More than 6 years ago. The deal was fully finalized in March 1999, almost 6 years ago.

If AOL hasn't done anything with DMOZ in 6 years, why do you expect a change now? or any time soon? or in our lifetimes?

[anthonycea]

Minstrel, in that time AOL acquired Time Warner which was the largest failure in corporate merger history.

So bad that Time Warner booted out Steve Case the mastermind of it and Ted Turner lost Billions in the deal, they have since changed the name of the company from AOL/Time Warner back to Time Warner and may spin off AOL in a shareholder distribution deal.

AOL is now becoming more of a portal versus an ISP and is now investing in search and has acquired Advertising.com about 6 months ago to compete in the online advertising game.

So you will see some changes coming up within their portfolio, they just introduced Netscape $9.95 per month dial up service to go head to head with NetZero. So they are now promoting the Netscape brand name again.

There are major changes going on at AOL because of massive loss of customers and executives have been replaced at a good clip in the last few years also.

[minstrel]

You may have a point...

[webworker]

In short, of a random sample of nearly 200 listed URLs in related categories, over 15% were supposedly disallowed duplications, nearly half blatantly identical. (And that 15% is just the spurious duplications: if we say that double-listers should be banned altogether, over 30% of the listings disappear.)
Play by the rules, do it right, and you will always get your just reward: several hundred links fewer than the cheaters.

I know about that. I've seen a site that has 8 DMOZ listings for the same domain (or maybe 7 + 1 subdomain). The rules are to submit your site once - but when the siteowner is also an editall or a meta editor - he puts them into practice. Maybe this was it.

[digitalpoint]

I know about that. I've seen a site that has 8 DMOZ listings for the same domain (or maybe 7 + 1 subdomain). The rules are to submit your site once - but if you're an editall or a meta editor - you make the rules. Or, at least, you put them into practice.That's not true... digitalpoint.com had 3 listings (to different URLs within it) before I even heard of DMOZ (so an editor added them themselves).

It all depends on the merit of the linking page. If a site has lots of useful stuff (that could warrant the link being on it's own domain), it will end up getting deeplinks from DMOZ.

digitalpoint.com has 13 links from DMOZ as of right now... none of which were added by me or via any "inside connections".

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=digitalpoint

[webworker]

igitalpoint.com has 13 links from DMOZ as of right now... none of which were added by me or via any "inside connections".


Got your point. Maybe I was wrong.

[Lisa White]

Hi Shawn

Can you please give me an advise how can i get my site on DMOZ, i submited my site about Two Month ago, but no result.

[minstrel]

Lisa, seriously, the best advice amyone can give you is to submit and forget about it. Your site may be listed any time in the next few months, or not for another two or three years, or maybe never. Just move on and submit to other directories.

[digitalpoint]

Exactly what minstrel said. I submit and forget... and I assume I *won't* get listed. That way I don't have to think about it... and then maybe down the road (even if it's a year or two), it will all of a sudden show up.

[Lisa White]

Ok I got It

[Sharpseo]

Wow, old thread, but a good'un. Back to the original point of the thread, the "real value of dmoz listings" - At the time posted, I agree that it was in the number of sites that use dmoz to populate their own directories.

However, with speculation flying about TrustRank and the devaluation of purchased links, I think it's pretty close to certain that a link from dmoz mean a lot more than most other links :D

If TrustRank or something similar is in place, I think that dmoz would be one of, if not the most important source of "trust" on the Internet.

Google's duplicate content filter has also gotten better, which knocks out some of the benefit of the additional links. However, I'd imagine lots of the links from dmoz clones still contribute, at least to some extent. I've seen dmoz clones that have are indexed and have PR on really deep pages.

Sorry if someone already said something similar in the thread, didn't take time to go through everything :p

[minstrel]

Google's duplicate content filter has also gotten better, which knocks out some of the benefit of the additional links. However, I'd imagine lots of the links from dmoz clones still contribute, at least to some extent. I've seen dmoz clones that have are indexed and have PR on really deep pages.
But of course that doesn't mean they are contributing anything to the PR of other pages they list - only that they have other pages linking to them.

I think Google has been devaluing the clones and is continuing to do that with each tweak or update. It will be interesting to see how BigDaddy plays out.

[Coupons]

My site was listed for years, and it was them that inserted them, before I knew what Dmoz was. Then last year it was delisted, for no reason. The site is the same for 5 years now. I submitted again, and after many months, it still isn't there. So, submit and forget... and after some months, submit again :)

[ImBae.net]

yeah, me too

[shygirl]

At the end of the day, no matter who owns Dmoz and we can talk to we're all blue in the face about who own's what, and 'Hey wouldn't it be such a good idea to fire all editors in order to make some profit for AOL' should they decide to do so.

But not everyone has the money to pay for that sort of thing. I am still astounded that Yahoo ask for nearly $300 just to look. There's not many ready to risk that sort of cash just for a quick look over.

Are you seriously considering that DMOZ should fire all editors and go down this route ? Would't it just be another 'who has the most cash for inclusion' type of thing ?

And those that do pay their $$$ for a look over, and were not included, doesn't that lead you down the exact same path of percieved corruption taking the cash and not including the site ?

It seems a weird kind of 'equality' of all websites to me, asking those folks that CAN afford it, to pay for a looksee ??? :confused: And those that can't..have no chance ever of getting in. Money talks right in Yahoo ? Those that don't have it are stuffed. If you're seriously considering firing all editors and bringing this sort of sceanrio in. Then you must have more money than sense. Especially if you own quite a few websites, what hell that would be having to pay $200 odd just for someone to look at EACH of them.:eek:

If all editors were fired and this sort of 'submission process' put in place (for profit )... oh boy...You would be soooo harking back to the glory days of Dmoz, when you could just submit and forget for free. Believe me !!!

[pagode]

And what to do with all the sites DMOZ now includes without them ever been suggested at all. For me I guess that over 50% of sites I have listed weren't suggested. And those sites were more worth being listed than the average suggestion I have looked at.

Now commercial and affiliates get suggested a lot. Informational and small local companies almost never get suggested. Guess which type of site most DMOZ editors like most.

[minstrel]

If Google took over DMOZ, they would not have to necessarily make it paid inclusion. They'd simply have to make it business-like and professional. That would get rid of a lot of editors in itself :rolleyes:

[shygirl]

If Google took over DMOZ

I guess that's still a pretty big IF. So until then, enjoy the free and simple submission process.

[minstrel]

enjoy the free and simple submission process
You mean the one that throws the URL into a giant void, often never to be seen again? That "free and simple submission process"? The one that many of your colleagues keep insisting isn't a "submission process" at all but rather a "suggestion process"? That one? :rolleyes:

[alhoop]

I am not sure if this is related or not, recently I was accepted on DMOZ and shortly right after, I could see my site jumped so high in major competitive kwds, this could be just a coincident but I have not done anything different and there has not been any major update.

Or it could be a case of my getting out of the hated sandbox :D

[shygirl]

You mean the one that throws the URL into a giant void, often never to be seen again?

If it's the one thing I really get annoyed about Minstrel is the way you generalise and make sweeping statments decrying ALL editors like this. In my own categories, and I cannot and would not ever speak for any of my fellow volunteers in this ( note I said volunteers )...but in my own personal categories I check in EVERY day and , gosh, I know it's hard for an old cynic to take.... but I do actually list sites every day and I am very glad too as well..( do I hear you gasp ?). Oh and don't hit me with the old chestnut that 'I must be the exception to the rule'. I know I'm not... you on the other hand can only speculate right ?

Stop the 'stereotyping' of all and every single editor please like that, it's really boring and very predictable. Void indeed, I take pride in my categories and I work hard to list every single relevant site I can get my hands on. So once in your life give a humble volunteer some credit for taking the time to do so.

And darn it, I was sooo hoping to get the last word on this one with Minstrel. Oh well.. next time.:rolleyes:

[minstrel]

Why do you feel the need to take everything so personally, Shygirl? My comment was aimed at the length of "the queue" in DMOZ categories in general, not at whatever your personal little category is, and the fact that many sites submitted are never listed and thus, from the point of view of the people who submit them, disappear into a void and are never heard from again. The comment was about your characterization of "free submission to DMOZ", which really is misleading. See my previous post (but read it this time).

[brizzie]

Categorizing the process as a "free submission process" still gives the impression it is a service and it isn't - you are as likely to get listed in DMOZ via a link submitted to Google or a trade association or an ad on the side of a bus. The only thing a "submission" does is put the URL in a list of sites supposedly relevant to the category and as editors are prone to repeat a keyword search on Google is just as likely if not more likely to be productive at finding relevant sites than the submission list. Hence a tendency to be selective in using submissions, even ignoring it completely in some cases, when editors are picking sites to review.

The problem is that the "submission process" does not actually say that, it mentions no guarantees, it hints/misleads at times for review that are patently wrong, and it suggests in too many minds that the submitter has availed themselves of a listing service (which they haven't). The result being that people get the wrong idea and start getting agitated when their sites doesn't appear. Editors try and explain that here and in other forums but they are badly let down by an administrative lack of priority to revising the submission/suggestion text that would eliminate the problem of false expectations for all apart from the most stupid. When I was an editor I, and others, would have been willing to make such things a priority in my own time given over to editing tasks. But there is already a list of priorities and if those don't interest an editor then there is little positive support given for others which leads to alienating some good editors who have said goodbye to the circus as a result.

[thesaddleryshop]

Lisa, I sympathise!! I became an editor of a very tiny catagory to do with my industry, it meant I finally got reviewed and it also keeps me up to date with other peoples sites as you add them! It's good fun too! :)

[shygirl]

Why do you feel the need to take everything so personally, Shygirl? My comment was aimed at the length of "the queue" in DMOZ categories in general, not at whatever your personal little category is

Personally my ass ! On the contrary, I was simply trying to point out that most editors in Dmoz do their editing just for the sake of it. I feel that deserves a bit of respect at the very least, even if you do not agree with the organisation and it's methodology. Y'know, doing something for no monetary compensation and just for the challenge ? Obviously a lot here don't think so, but well, that's par for the course, as I well know, on a primarily webmaster based site.

As for my 'personal little category', why Minstrel, I've moved on quite a bit in the last few months, and now look after more than 'quite a few' in lots of differing areas... :rolleyes: But I've only gotten there by working hard and...er.. listing an awful lot of sites. So the 'queue' comment, doesn't apply. There are none in any of my categories. And personally (I do apologise Minstrel) don't feel it's fair that you tar us all with the same brush. I guess I'm just a tad better placed than you, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong won't you ?, to state that there are a lot of editors just like me. Honestly, there are loads ordinary editors just quietly getting on with it..And I get pissed off when you suggest as you frequently do, otherwise. Crapping on about voids and queue's and corruption. Get a life mate !

Submission, Suggestion, whatever anyone wants to call it :rolleyes: If Dmoz goes 'profit making' then there will be a lot who will not be able to afford the fee, given that the 2nd most respected directory on the net charges $299 just to look at 1 site.

Ps Minstrel, do you suffer from a 'superiority complex' ?:confused:

[minstrel]

I think I've figured out your "disability", shygirl :rolleyes:

[frenchmen77]

yeh, it takes a long time to get into dmoz, i'm still waiting =)

[shygirl]

Yes Minstrel, I'm in love with you and I want the world to know it !!!... You're kinda cuddly in a big 'teddy bear' kind of way, familiar, but getting shabby round the edges.;)

But never the twain shall meet...sigh.

I'm so off topic now I'm ashamed of even myself. I'll leave it there... Till next time.

[bloodwrath]

Google has publicly said many times that a link from DMOZ is not any more valuable than a link from any other site (assuming the same PageRank).

But the real value in a DMOZ entry comes from how many other sites are based on the data. For example, a DMOZ link within the /Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/ section yields 257 total links when you include the websites that use the data, as you can see here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=allinurl:Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing/&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Of course it takes awhile for your entry to show up everywhere since not all websites update on a regular schedule, but a DMOZ entry still has a big value.

- Shawn

Try this search now its gone up a tad...
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,440 for allinurl:Computers/Software/Accounting/Billing