Effects of being listed?

I was wondering if anyone experienced any significant changes in PageRank, traffic or anything else after being listed.

Was there a significant boost in anything after you were listed?

 

I know very little about it, but as no one else has answered you, I'll share my personal experience.

Years ago, I did have a business site, and another site that was an on-line trade magazine. Both were listed in the Directory by myself, as I edited those categories.

There was very little traffic to either site, even though Google picked up both sites.

Now on both sites, I never bothered doing any sort of tagging, mainly because I didn't know the first thing about it, and I never bought any seo services. My conclusion is that an ODP listing alone and being picked up by Google really doesn't do much, you need seo services, which is a very legitimate service (most of the time), or you need to learn to do it yourself.

Just don't try to extend seo services to the Directory, because we're not set up to be seo friendly, just the opposite, we have completely different goals, and serve a completely different crowd, the information seeker, not the information provider.

 

What's the word? morally ambiguous?

pictureboarduk:

I think there are two main effects of being listed on DMOZ:

1. Google use its data.
2. Some categories have a decent page rank.

So, its mainly a Google thing. I guess it doesn't change anything for other engines.

If you have a business site there is another factor you can take into account. It's your competitors being already listed when you aren't.

 

I also removed both sites.

In fact, when I applied to become an editor one of my 3 example sites was my own, and I declared that on my application. I was granted editing privleges two days later, and added those 3 sites to the Directory.

Editors can add sites that meet our listing criteria for a category no matter where they find them, from an ad in a phone book, the side of a truck, out on the net, from sites that are listed, even from a forum like this.

If an editor owns a site, and that site is a good resource for that category, it's not only allowable to list it, it would be a reverse discrimination not to list it, because the goal of an editor is to build a category as a good resource for the information seeker. Not listing a good resource because the editor owned it, would be the wrong thing to do.

Editors are to remain impartial in their editing, and treat every site equally, including their own.

 

The problem is: any person who builds a site with intentions of being a good site, will always think its is worth to list. Otherwise wouldn't be putting any effort on it. Your view about what you do will never be impartial and objective.
If you edit a category and your site fits that category you should ask another editor to review your site. Even as a favor, it will be better than reviewing your own site.
It would be unfair anyway as your site could be laying there for years before being reviewed if you don't ask other editor to do it. But, even that is better than a self review.

 

I don't agree . Any person who builds a website builds a website or should build the website with the intention of generating visitors or income .... ODP listing is just one of the factors that can help in generating visitors, nothing more .

 

As a matter of fact, I did just that. I asked a meta editor to review the site in my place, and came close to getting the boot for asking for a personal favor.

I had to explain that I had editing privleges in that category but thought it would be fairer to have a meta review the site because it was mine.

She explained that it was perfectly ok for me to add the site myself, and that I was trusted to treat it impartially, but she would review it for me anyway, and that I shouldn't put myself in that position again, because it could have been taken the wrong way.

If my site had belonged in another category, then it would have been sent to that category and waited right along with every other site suggestion. If I had asked another editor to review it, that would have been editor abuse, and cause for removing me as an editor.

Everything is pretty cut and dried, and editor abuse of any kind is not tolerated.

 

Well, a DMOZ editor taking something in the wrong way is nothing new.

Her reaction, if the story is true, was absolutely out of place. How can she think you were trying to do something wrong? You had permission for adding your site already. You didn't need her to add your site.

Are you making this story up?

 

She didn't realize that at first, so her reaction was correct.

No, and now that I think of it, it's probably proprietary information that I shouldn't have shared, even if it is personal.

That could be cause for either a strong warning or removal of my editing privileges, but as I think we're trying to be a little more transparent with our blog, maybe it will be ok.

 

I won't say a word. haha

 

You wouldn't need to, several metas hang out here, and other editors besides myself. If I do something to get the boot, I'll expect no favors, those rules apply to all of us equally. That's the way it has to be, and that's the way it is in the Directory.

 

I think it will help your site get more adventage than your competitor

 

If you are listed and your competitor isn't listed, the advantage will be the little traffic DMOZ can send to your site.

According to the experience of webmasters already listed there it's no too much traffic anyway. I guess the only thing left is a little pagerank...

 

I disagree, people are very good at knowing when a site is a worthy site. For instance I have one site that was never completed (mainly because it can never be "done"). This one site is ugly(My first Joomla), I have written a fair bit of content for it in fact. I would never submit it to be listed though, that is even inspite of the fact that google has been sending enough traffic to this site that it rivals the site I actually am proud of.

Crowbar's and other's comments here and else where on this forum have insipred me to submit my "proud" site. If for no other reason than I think it is a useful site for those who actually do manage to dig that deep into the directory where it will if it gets added reside.

On a related note, what happens if something sort of fits a subcategory but sort of does not? For instance the game Sid Meier's X is made by the same man who made X Tycoon and is thought of as a spiritual successor to the tycoon series yet is not really a X tycoon game. In the end I just submitted it to the parent directory but I am wondering if this was the right thing to do with all the talk about submitting to the correct location?

 

As one of the current editors for the WoW category, and a gamer myself, all we're interested in is the content on a site, and how useful it is for the category, so by all means suggest both the "ugly" site and the one you're proud of.

The design of a site is completely irrelevant, as long as you can navigate ok on it, because only the information is important.

If the content on either site is one of a kind (like your personal thoughts and experiences about the game), then it has the "unique content" we're looking for.

Gaming sites usually get listed because they're normally created to help information seekers, in this case other gamers, and editors build categories for exactly the same reason.

Yes, it was. The editors will know where to place it. If a category covers apples and oranges, and you suggest a site that covers apples, oranges, and peaches, the site will be placed in the next highest category that will cover all three topics. That could very well be that parent category you sent it to, good job.

Suggesting a site to the correct category isn't critical, but it's very helpful to both editors and suggesters, and speeds things up across the whole Directory.

 

Do you think that common sense and objectivity are attributes you easily find in anybody? I don't think so, you have to be too young or too naive to think that way.

hahahaha, your proud site. Did you write this post just for making a good example of what I was talking about? Thank you!

If you were a DMOZ editor you could list your site without feeling guilty about it. After all, if it's a site you are proud of, it HAS TO BE a good site.

Anyway, good luck with your suggestion. Don't ever forget it's a suggestion form, not submission.

 

At last! You get it!

 

Are you familiar with the term irony?

 

Yes I do, if there are people out there that you perceive do not have these traits, I would chalk it up to a misunderstanding, not necessarily yours.

That would only be a problem if it did not fit the category and guideline. There are other things I am proud of but would never bother submitting.

I make no money or even pagerank from the site, its there to give back to a great community and hopefully find them more players. It could be a year until it gets added and that owuld be fine, I inted that site to stay the test of time and hopefully provide enjoyment to those long after the game is obsolete.

 

No. That would be a problem if you are an editor and there is a couple of sites along with that one of your own. All of them fitting the category and with similar content or intention. Which one would you list? Yours? How do you know, honestly, that your judgement is fair when you compare your work with other people's work?
I'm not talking about you choosing your site to your own benefit. I'm talking about something universally known. Conflicting interests. The same concept that applies to justice and education when you have to evaluate someone related to you. Unless you believe yourself so perfect that you are capable of being fair in such a case. I'd rather let that kind of attributes to God.

Congratulations! But that has nothing to do with being listed on DMOZ. And I've never said you were interested in money or pagerank. And if you were interested, actually. What's wrong with that? You have every right to make money.