DMOZ and rel="nofollow"

1. I have scripts I have writtten that take the whole RDF, parses it and creates HTML, that provides that most efficent way to do a bulk load, but will be generally a week out of date.

2. I also have scripts I wrote that access the dmoz.org site directly, and "scrape off the icing" that is, it pulls out information from the sites that it want, leaving/ignoring the rest. This means it gets totally up to date info, but is slow, and not good for large numbers of sites, only for small subsets.

#1 will not get any nofollow since it's not there

#2 could find nofollow, but I'd have to go write the script to do that - but that's kind of pointless, since the script is writtten to extract the URLs

The same will apply to all scripts currently available, free and paid. No-one is going to bother looking for nofollow - it defeats the purpose.

As far as SEs, nofollow is not a rule that anyone has to follow, it's a suggestion that can be ignored. If I put nofollow on a link in my site - Google will obey that, since my site is not significant. Google knows DMOZ is significant if they bother going to get data from it, in which case they will ignore the nofollow. But if they decide DMOZ is not worthwhile, they won't waste their time scanning it, in which case, ther was no need to add nofollow in the first place.

 

Missing the point - it would eliminate the motivation for webmasters to harangue DMOZ about its slowness in adding sites and its refusal to communicate with webmasters - without the PR factor in DMOZ listing, webmasters wouldn't care - DMOZ would have far less importance to anything at all and DMOZ editors would have their wish granted: they could go back to the noble goals of DMOZ without being bothered by webmaster.

Seems highly unlikely to me. Google doesn't like to make such exceptions.

Now you're being disingenuous. That's one reason why this might be a good idea but far from the only one.

 

don't you think this would such a misuse of the nofollow tag that they probably ought to do so?

 

There has been speculation on this forum that Google might be doing something along the lines of an exception with its duplicate content filter and the ODP clones which I haven't seen proven wrong. Therefore I think it's equally valid to speculate that Google will do whatever it feels necessary in order to give itself what it considers better data.

OK, if you say I am being disingenuous, the reasons Will gave for doing this were two-fold - reduce submission spam and decrease the likelihood of self-interested editors joining the project. So far, if those are the reasons, I can't see it as a compelling argument to cripple the ODP website in this manner.

I challenged the initial premises of Will's argument, about how the ODP sees it's directory, and I have heard nothing more on that point.

There are programs in the ODP to deal with spam and with self-interested (and corrupt editors). I still maintain that the magnitude has been blown up out of proportion by ODP detractors. I don't think that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in this idea.

 

Not at all. The intent of the tag is to indicate to Google that the links on a page are there for informational pages and should not be followed for indexing. DMOZ would be using it in a way that's entirely consistent with that instruction. Not a misuse at all.

If by this you mean you think that Google are making exceptions to the duplicate content filter to allow DMOZ clones, it's a huge surprise to me - if anything, I think the opposite is happening and it's NOT an exception to the duplicate content filter.

Will's post aside, another reason that recommends the practice is that it would be consistent with repeated statements from DMOZ editors that they don't care about PR or what Google does with the data. I don't believe that but if true then why not have DMOZ do whatever they can to discourage the use of their data for PR promotion? And how on earth would this "cripple" DMOZ? It wouldn't affect the data in the directory at all - it would just put up obstacles to the PR factor.

What "drawbacks"? I don't see any to DMOZ.

 

"Don't care" in the sense of being neutral on the subject. If someone wants to use the ODP data for the purpose of identifying valuable sites (which in Google terms means higher PR), then more power to them.

Adding a "nofollow" tag would say that we DO care about PR and want it removed, or at least reduced.

I, and I assume other ODP editors and staff, have absolutely no issue with the ODP data being used for that purpose.

That is what I mean by "neutral", in this context.

Adding the nofollow tag would only "cripple" the ODP website in the sense that it would stop people (spiders) using it to spider sites. I just don't see any reason why the ODP would want to do that.

 

I don't think they want to do it either. Doing it would remove the only reason anyone outside of DMOZ spends even a second caring about DMOZ. That would significantly reduce its position on the net and thus the power or status that any editor has (or thinks s/he has).

 

I have to ask a question here.

I'm editing primarily in the equestrian area - trying to make breeders, riding stables, boarding stables, and related information available on the internet. One advantage is that people can search through the directory and another is that these sites I'm finding will eventually show up on a google or other search.

If a no follow link thing is added to those directory listings, how is that helping people find a list of boarding stables or stallions or tack stores when they search google or AOL or MSN or ?

 

Search engines will still find and index what is in DMOZ. They just won't "pass PageRank" to any links to external sites.

If people search for an equestrian term, they will still be able to find those sites and the DMOZ page that lists them, but a listing in DMOZ will no longer add additional PR to the site (page) and therefore will not provide an advantage to a DMOZ-listed page over an unlisted page.

 

So PR adding means that a site comes up higher than a site that doesn't have PR added.

Considering the amount of crap that comes up when searching for stud or stallion - I don't think that reducing the PR because the sites are listed in DMOZ is a good idea at all.

 

I apologize in advance to anyone I may offend with this post. This is a topic I am passionate about and there are no personal digs intended.

This doesn't make any sense to me. We want the links for informational pages to be followed for indexing. I don't care about PR but I definately care about informational pages being found.

No! Just no, and here's why...
We've worked hard to build the directory and we continue to work hard. Heck, I'm coming up on my 5 year anniversary soon and I'm not even one of the old timers. Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be) the ODP pre-dates the web professional's obsession with PR. That PR obsession has led to attacks on the directory by spammers, and we deal with it. That same PR obsession has also led to attacks on us personally, in forums, websites, blogs, via email, and even in person.

This PR obsession makes otherwise perfectly nice people act abusively. The fact is, the PR obsessed professional is behaving badly; ODP editors are their victims. We're just doing what we've always done. If that made us successful, well that's life. If that success makes us an attractive target for webmasters who only want to use us for personal gain, well that's not acceptable behaviour in any civilized society. There's absolutely no reason for us to alter what we do or to mutilate ourselves for the sole purpose of becoming less useful and therefore, less attractive to legitimate users as well as PR obsessed professionals.

Would you tell a rape victim it's all her fault? That if she weren't so attractive she wouldn't be a target? That she should mutilate herself to avoid further attacks. And that if she doesn't, well that proves she wanted it and isn't willing to give it up?

(Before anyone jumps on me for using that analogy, I was a rape victim over 30 years ago, and I'm an ODP editor so the analogy stands and I won't apologize for it!)​

It's unreasonable to expect the ODP to mutilate itself so web professionals can better control the internet for the sake of making money. Making a living on the internet is fine and perfectly respectable, but please remember the resource is here for all of us. The free flow of information is a very important thing, IMO.

I want the informational pages indexed and found. I don't care if only a small number of people actually go to dmoz.org and I don't care if the information is spread mainly by google and others. We aren't a marketing tool, we are an informational tool.

I have no power or status because I'm an ODP editor. Sure, some can/do misuse their editorship as though they have power or status, but we call that abuse, and that type is kicked out and shunned. This is volunteer work for the public good. I've always done a lot of volunteer work in my community as well and have never felt that it gave me any power or status. It's just part of being human.

I'll feely admit that sometimes when I do a google search and can't get decent results I'll build a category to correct the situation. And I'm aware of the fact that doing so works. This is exactly why and how the pediatric stroke category came to exist. Before that category was created and those sites were listed, a month of desperate searching brought me nothing but frustration and spam results. Now the same goole search will give relevant information on the topic. I assure you, those who need that information need it desperately, and quick! So, did I use my editorship to affect search engine results for the phrase "pediatric stroke"? Of couse I did, and I'm proud of my role in making information on the topic easy to find. I do not feel I misused my editorship in resolving that issue, which was highly personal to me. There's a huge difference in using your access to certain resources to do good and using those same resources for all the wrong reasons.

Web professionals should stop trying to manipulate the ODP. Web professionals should let the ODP be, and recognize the fact that we can all coexist with mutual respect for what each of us does. Take the time to really understand the ODP, and either work within the framework of the ODP or ignore it. Afer all, we aren't attacking you. It hurts when you attack us.

This is not about money or PR. We simply don't want to be bullied.

 

Right on Annie .

I wish I was as eloquent about our shared goals.

 

See my previous post, Annie. This does NOT prevent DMOZ pages from being indexed and it does NOT prevent any pages from being found in searches. All it does is level the playing field for sites listed in DMOZ versus sites not listed in DMOZ, because the DMOZ listing does not provide additional PageRank to the pages it lists.

If the PR advatange didn't exist, web professionals would most definitely leave DMOZ alone. You'd have your wish. That's my point.

I'm not attacking you, Annie - I'm protesting certain aspects of the DMOZ directory and what I consider to be an undeserved special status.

I would point out, though, that here and elsewhere anyone who dares to criticize DMOZ has been and is soundly attacked by DMOZ editors. Just look at RZ if you dount that.

 

Boy, I can just imagine.

When this thread started, I didn't care one bit about the nofollow tag issue. My eyes have been opened and I oppose any attempt to force DMOZ to use the nofollow tag. I look forward to the day my grandchildren can safely search for sites about studs or stallions when they want to know more about horses.

 

In that case, stop complaining when webmasters have a vested interest in what DMOZ does and stop trying to claim that you aren't interested in influencing search engine rankings.

You can't have it both ways.

 

The point is we're not trying to influence search engine rankings for one site. We're trying to ensure that legitimate sites on a topic are available.

We must be doing something right - just for grins I put the words "black stud" into google. On the first page there was one site for Great Danes and one for Simmental Cattle. On the second page, the site for Great Danes again and a site for Tennessee Walker horses. I don't think I have to mention what the other 16 sites were.

 

The interest is in trying to make useful information (in the opinion of editors) available. Whatever that means. If Google wants to use it for PR, that is their deal.

And what others (including me) feel is a deserved special status.

That is where we differ, I think - the whole crux of it. Webmasters don't feel that the ODP deserves recognition by others (including Google) as a reliable source of information, others (including Google) feel it does.

Therefore, each of us will naturally come to different logical conclusions based on that premise.

 

I agree that webmasters have an interest in what DMOZ does, but it's certainly not a vested interest.

If influencing search engine rankings means that on topic sites show up before off topic highly seo'd sites, well then I suppose I would like that, but keep in mind, we aren't talking about a single website, we're talking about topics. The silent majority of editors do what they do for the same reasons I've given. It's not about manupilation of rankings. It's about free access to accurate, on topic information. --If I'm searching for dog rescue sites so I can adopt a dog, I don't want to wade through dozens and dozens of highly seo'd sites trying to sell me veterinary insurance plans.

It would be nice if the seo community would target only relevant keyword phrases so we could get pollution free results.
What is more evil? DMOZ or SPAM?

Personally, I feel the whole resourse-zone could use a lesson in manners (editors and non-editors) so I'm not responding to that issue. Please keep in mind that rude editors at r-z are only a miniscule fraction of all ODP editors. They do not speak for all of us. And not all editors who are active at r-z are rude.

 

I think the nofollow tag idea would be very useful in one selected part of the Directory - Adult - frankly I would rather most of the sites listed there were buried forever than given any kind of boost.

Otherwise I'm against. When helping my little nephew with his history homework there was nothing in DMOZ and Google returned mixed results as regards relevancy. I picked out all the useful ones and listed them. Now hopefully when someone looks at our directory or a clone of the data for their history homework on the same topic they will find all the useful sites first. If they do it via a Google search hopefully the relevant sites may be higher up than previously but I didn't think of that at the time. As Annie says though what we do and how predates obsession with PR and that is caused by what Google does - DMOZ has no influence over that at all. In one sense what we do in some way levels the playing field. With those history sites it assisted those genuine sites that had been demoted by the use by others of unfair SEO techniques to gain a higher position than warranted by their actual content. There's two sides to every argument.

But does the PR boost come from the DMOZ listing or via the RDF dump from the Google listing?

 

I'll wholeheartedly agree with you on the adult sites issue, brizzie - how it is that anyone involved with DMOZ can believe that listing porn sites (and giving them multiple listings at that) fits the stated objectives of DMOZ totally escapes me.

But as for the rest of it, I think you (all three of you I mean) are going around in circles. As long as what DMOZ does affects webmasters SE rankings, and therefore potentially their income - and at the moment it does have some impact on both - then webmasters do indeed have a vested interest in DMOZ policies. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. That seems to annoy or perturb many DMOZ editors. What Will is suggesting would be a move toward publicly stating to the webmaster community that you actually would rather that DMOZ had less influence in that way - some editors have actually stated that, indicating that they would prefer to be less in the spotlight as far as SEO goes so they could go back to the stated goals of DMOZ. I'm missing something maybe but I don't understand why those of you who actually believe in the DMOZ mission (and aren't just in it for power, money, glory, or self-promotion) wouldn't enthusiastically embrace Will's suggestion.