1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ and rel="nofollow"

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by Will.Spencer, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    No one has a vested interest in DMOZ (except the owner(s)) - at least as long as you use the actual meaning of the word vested:
    I don't understand how wanting sites that are topically correct to the search conducted to show up higher is against the DMOZ mission.
    FWIW - I don't like the Adult section either - but not everything is under my control :)
     
    lmocr, Nov 9, 2005 IP
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #62
    For at least the third time in this thread, using rel=nofollow does NOT diminish the value of the listing in DMOZ itself - it simply prevents the passing of PageRank to the listed site from that DMOZ page.

    For any other implications of your statements, please re-read the thread. I've said it all more than once. To say it again would bore even me.
     
    minstrel, Nov 9, 2005 IP
  3. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #63
    This all ofcourse is only of interest if you believe DMOZ has a huge impact on PR.
    Remember the clones won't have the nofollow attribute, so their influence on PR won't change.
     
    pagode, Nov 10, 2005 IP
  4. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    I don't agree that this would level the playing field at all. It would mean that highly seo'd sites would have even more freedom to manipulate search results and bury informational pages. We all know this is true and we know why. Highly seo'd sites buy PR, they buy links, they sell links, they trade links, they treat PR as a commodity with commercial value. Hundreds of directories are made by seo professionals with the sole purpose of getting and passing on PR. They use schemes to get PR, whether it's buying links from high PR sites, or whatever, but in reality these directories are nothing more than a sophisticated version of the link farms that used to work but don't anymore.

    ODP, on the other hand, predates PR. We do not swap links, we do not buy links to gain PR or for any other reason. We do not sell advertising or links. The ODP is completely natural; any PR it has can only be the result of the good honest work of dedicated editors. We don't seo DMOZ at all to get our PR.

    How in your wildest imagination can you think it would be ethical to prevent a natural spread of PR in favor of the seo's PR manipulation? DMOZ strives to give balance to informational sites. It's what we do and it seems we do it well or this wouldn't be an issue.

    For the record, I agree with this as well. The adult directory is considered seperate from the main DMOZ directory and even has its own set of guidelines. I wish they would drop it. I absolutely refuse to edit in that area.

    No, we are not going around in circles. Our participation in this discussion is moving right along, the repetition is coming from you. Perhaps this is because you are neglecting to carefully read what we are writing. Or maybe you think the readers of this forum will avoid reading the necessarily long posts of the editors, so your short repetitious replies are all that will be noticed. Either way, your arguements are seriously lacking. Your use of the same old canned seo responses does not herd us into a circle.

    Please explain how you come to the conclusion that webmasters have a "vested interest" rather than simply "an interest" in DMOZ policies. We've asked you this at least 3 times but you avoid answering. Could it be that there is no rational answer because it's simply not true? No webmaster has a "vested interest" in DMOZ, just as no editor has a "vested interest" in DMOZ. If anyone from DMOZ has provided any webmaster a "vested interest" we would like to know about it. We would call that abuse; termination would be in order.

    Yes, you have said it all more than once and i agree, there's no need to keep repeating yourself. However, there are points that have been raised that have not been addressed by the seo/webmaster side of this discussion. The fact that you say the same thing over and over as you avoid addressing other important points makes me suspect you have no answer to those neglected points.

    What you're missing is that the ODP plays fair and because of that we have credibility. That makes us a desirable target as far as SEO goes. Although the SEO community knows what we are about, they continue to target us and keep us in the spotlight. It's unfair to suggest we take unreasonable measures to protect ourselves.

    If someone made a habit of peeking into your windows what would you do? Would you board them up or would you try to make them go away and leave you alone? We aren't going to board up DMOZ. Like I already said, we won't be bullied.

    I can see our philosophies will always differ unless you change your mind.

    On the other hand, you are a very intelligent man. I wonder if you're just trying to have some fun here? Kinda like, stir up the seo's and editors, then sit back and enjoy??? ;)
     
    compostannie, Nov 10, 2005 IP
  5. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    lmocr is correct though minstrel - as things stand, when an editor comes across a site that has good content and lists it, the dmoz listing (and the PR it is passing, if you want to visualise it that way, though PR itself isn't a very good measure of anything) bumps it up in search engine results for realted searches. Adding rel=nofollow to a vouched-for link (an abuse of its stated purpose) would make search engine robots on DMOZ (but not scraper sites using its data) ignore the fact that a trusted site is linking to that good site, i.e. remove the SERP boost DMOZ gives sites that have good enough content to warrant being listed.

    Basically, on what basis are you defining 'value'? Adding nofollow would most definitely reduce the value of dmoz' efforts, since the relevance and quality of search engine pages would drop.
     
    bradley, Nov 10, 2005 IP
  6. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    I found two directories listing psychologists. One, DMOZ, has over 50 records and each site has been checked at the time it was reviewed to ensure it contained sufficient original content. The other contains less records and I hope the same amount of care, if not more, went into making sure the links were valid. Google should confer some PR value as a result of both since they both confirm a valid site with relevant information. I then do a Google search for psychologists. It takes me 6 pages to get to any one actual psychologist's name and that is actually a directory of resources - the same one with the lesser amount of records mentioned above. The DMOZ directory category, the larger one, appears nowhere and neither do any of the listed sites at least as far as page 6.

    Now let us assume both directories do actually confer some PR value. Why is it unfair for one, the larger and more comprehensive one, to do so, and perfectly fair for the second one. Both are providing the links for the benefit of people looking for a useful web resource and not, I hope, adding links for PR value. In the case of DMOZ to do so would be abuse. And frankly neither were doing very well at all at getting actual psychologists' sites further up the rankings in response to "psychologists" as a search term. And in fact I get associations, directories, publishers, etc. anything but psychologists. I wouldn't have thought that as a subject matter this was any different from 99.9% of subjects. So if there is an effect it is so marginal that it can't be seen at least in this instance and at the same time shows the advantage of directories over automated robot-driven search engines.

    Webmasters have an interest in DMOZ the same as non-Americans have an interest in US foreign and trade policy. It impacts everyone in some way but like the citizens of the USA are the only ones with a vote, so editors are the only ones in DMOZ with a vote. Like US citizens are still restricted by a Constitution so DMOZ editors are restricted by the social contract.

    Do editors influence search engine results - maybe and if so marginally. Should they influence search engine results - maybe and if so marginally in order to get more relevance into those results. As should other good resources such as the other one I looked at. Should editors edit in such a way as to specifically influence search engine results - no, that would be abuse, hence the requirement for bland objective statements without keyword stuffing or hype. One of the key ways to spot an abusive or potentially abusive editor is to spot the one hyping some descriptions and stripping others. There was one I know of doing this blatently earlier this year who then went bleating all round the webmaster forums when booted out.

    One of the things I hate about Adult is that it appears to fly in the face of the general DMOZ guidelines in terms of descriptions. For example it is OK to use slang (aka keywords). It seems to be OK to list each gallery on a site separately. And quite honestly I don't want to be associated with it.
     
    brizzie, Nov 10, 2005 IP