I just noticed a search box is placed under the authority links when you search for DMOZ in Goolge. Isn't this a new thing? Googles directory doesn't even have one under it's search result A-links. see http://www.google.com/search?q=dmoz...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLG I think this is good proof that Google is not ditching DMOZ and they still think directories are valuable.
Wikipedia has one as well... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wikipedia&btnG=Search likely in beta stage, lol.
My understanding is Google is doing anything but ditching dmoz, are is moreso in a mode of increasing its usage of DMOZ results. Which stinks.
Sorry you are dissatisfied with your ODP experience. It is a shame why you do not attempt to be more articulate other than it stinks. It leads me to speculate on the reasons for its stinky-ness. Perhaps you are dissatisfied with your ability to manipulate search engine results. Are you saying that SEs should not rely on third party data sources like the ODP rahter than when webmasters and SEOs who are so honest? Maybe you can't get can’t pay a few bucks and your site listed on your own terms and get a fabulous description like " We have more brands of carbon fiber hoods and body kits available than any other company on Earth" that my dear friends at wowdirectory allowed you. Wow the whole earth. Wow indeed. Perhaps it does not fit with your cunning SEO plan that you seem to be using in which you post your URL all over the internet in the guise of being dissatisfied customers. Pure genius that. You seem to be doing OK in searches for your targeted key words with a couple of sites above you. I note that theses site claim to be the "largest" and to have the "widest selection". Perhaps you should go an sue their asses with you being the biggest site in the whole wide earth in all. But I digress, sorry about that I just noticed a few interesting features about your site. What is it that you expect that the ODP should be doing to make it less stinky? And how do you think google should be ranking sites? Perhaps they could weight their results based on listings in fine sites like wow directory and links from sigs in DPs? By Jesus I think that could work.
You are right. Forum signature are a fantastic way to weight the power of sites. They are current and ever changing with the times... unlike the ODP that is crawling far behind anything else out there. Yes, yes, it's got more site listings then any other directory, but if you removed the editor affiliate links then I bet it would be comparable to other directories. (and yes, it is full of editor affiliate links, Skrenta has thousands of affiliated pages listed, and have you been to the adult categories lately? They are full of circular affiliate pages) So yes, I do think that Google could do better using forum links...at least it could not do any worse Then again... Speculation is the key isn't it... yet it seems OK when you do it, but when people ask for things about the ODP, they are left speculating. For instance, why did Ivan get fired? Annie? Any other editor... oh that's right, confidentiality... shall I speculate as to why they all got nixed? Corruption? Why aren't sites listed that are seemingly worthy? What, no status checks? Let me speculate as to why they are not being listed... paid links? As for ericfromandys' comment, Google does not seemingly give all that much weight to the ODP any more. As I showed in my first reply, they are doing it to more then just the ODP, Wiki also has that search feature, as do other sites. So nothing really stinks.... the ODP is as it always has been, and google is treating them like any other website.
Or pay for listings in directories such as DMOZ... Your argument works both ways and you calling me stinky or a whore in no way makes your point more valid. Though does say a lot for your moral standing, and in return the moral standing of the Directory you represent.
If in the context of a discussion of the benefit of SEs using the signature links as a way of determining relevance to searches if I were to use the expression “link whore†then that is indeed appropriate to the discussion. If the person who is suggesting that signature links should be and are used by search engines in determining quality of site and relevancy is also advertising sig links for sale then it is quite appropriate to call him or her a “link whore†in order to illustrate the point. If the moderators here wish to censor such postings because link whoring fits clearly within the DP philosophy and no alternative view points are tolerated then that is their choice and perhaps this community is too small minded for me to participate in. If this is the case could one of the moderators please let me know and I will quite happily disappear over the horizon. My reference to you as “stinky†was just a bit of Jovial banter. I can think of hundred of insults you have thrown at me which I have received in the spirit intended. I do concede that perhaps my suggestion that you would tattoo a companies name on your buttocks for a nominal fee was a bit over the top. And Christopher I am surprised you are so sensitive given your avatar showing a big tough man with a gun, but I shall try real hard to not hurt your feelings in future.
Other then calling you a flaming troll, I've not called you names have I? So I'd love for you to back up that "hundred of insults" comment. I may post a lot, but there is a difference between that and being a whore, or post whore for that matter. Look though my posting history, the better majority of my posts do have content of some type. I do not go around thanking people, or asking for PMs all the time. However, I do waste a bunch of time replying to your personal jabs at me and at others... so if that is what you mean, then I guess the label fits. Though keep in mind, calling me names does not make your points any more valid... however providing sources does... which is something you RARELY do. So yeah, if you'd like to call me names, then I guess that would be OK, but we all know who is what here.
I saw another search box rsult today but um, I forget which site it was on. I think they are going to be common on resource sites. DMOZ does have a lot of problems but the point is Google is not blacklisting it.
Microsoft and Nasa are two others that I am aware of. Google call it teleporting where users type the name of the resource into the google rather than the URL. In this way users who do this are presented with a search box so that they can better locate the exact page they are looking for. I think that the major sites that have been chosen are just an experiment and with time it will become common with many sites.
The other site I saw it was Boscov's http://www.google.com/search?q=bosc...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLG But Macy's, Sears, JC Penny's don't have one. Some one at Google likes Boscov's???
Yeah, it is pretty interesting as to which sites are getting this new feature in the listings and which are not...;-)
Haha nebuchadrezzar, you dug me up and got me up there! The interesting thing is, while I am biased because it's my own website, an unbiased person can verify the claims made by our site. And yet in the relevant category of Dmoz, there 8 of the 61 url's listed now point to unrelated 'search results'. So my experience is that Dmoz is not a very effective composition of relevant websites. That's why I say it stinks. I'm actually all for Google using, theoretically, a human-edited directory's search mechanism in its results. Democratically-driven search results don't bother me, as long as the democracy is a functioning one that aptly reflects peoples' views.