When your an owner or an ex owner it doesn't matter how many deeplinks you can get. Maybe Topix Open Directory Sites (1-20 of 10000) is more informative and popular than CNN Open Directory Sites (1-20 of 3180). Ivan that is not good as you have only a few.
Wow, CNN had 230,000 listings and its now down to little over 3k http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.php Did someone really believed that I bought cnn.com and delisted it? Or did AOL and TOPIX decided to remove competitors listings from DMOZ? wiki seems to have gotten some extra 10k of listings in meanwhile http://directory.domaintools.com/WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Anything at wiki has ridiculously inflated page rank, even if article is empty... But at lest its admins got balls to stand up to its founder. http://www.nbc12.com/news/youwanttoknow/12183956.html http://media.www.commonwealthtimes....ent.Triggers.Wikipedia.Showdown-3088322.shtml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml
Well, AOL owns Time Warner and according to CNN's "About Us" page, they are owned by Time Warner. So hardly an AOL competitor - quite the opposite, in fact. But I'm sure that little detail will be conveniently forgotten... hate to ruin a good conspiracy theory....
Actually, they are a competitor... a competitor to the Founder's site, Topix. Though honestly I do not think that is why they got so many sites removed. I'd assume that it had more to do with the fact that CNN has hundreds upon hundreds of dead links within the directory. I'd also assume that removing thousands of links to news archives from years ago likely was not hurting all that much and was much easier then actually sorting the dead links from the working ones. And I applaud you for your efforts in that. Its one less thing I get to complain about
I'd assume this is closer to the truth because it makes sense. CNN is more closely related to ODP than Topix will ever be. I hope. Also, editors are free to remove any topix listing that they deem useless in their discretion, no discussion or consensus required. I've never seen or heard of an editor getting into trouble for delisting a topix link. I deleted LOTS of them, no problem. I agree, this move shows a great deal of editorial integrity as well as courage. As someone who spent waaay too many hours/days/weeks working on those archives I can only feel happy that they are removed. This will free up the time of editors who felt the terrible condition of the archives was an embarrassment and tried to keep it minimal even though the stupid URLs were always changing or going dead. They changed as often as schools, but at least fixing broken school links are a worthwhile use of an editor's time.
Like I'm keeping my eye on what American imperialist **** are doing who owns what... it is all run by Illuminati and part of NWO anyway... Didn't they remove you? Maybe you removed one too many topix link.
Yes, we don't want to let little insignificant details like facts get in the way of a good argument, either
Since I seriously doubt any facts were used in my removal procedures I'm only following metas example.
Ohhh you were changing the subject to YOU! Sorry, I thought we were talking about the subject of discussion. Silly me. Missed that one.
It's may just a accident ,But search every keywords in google the site will most be the 1th pages,which added in DMOZ. So if you need google ,you need add in ODP.
Hmm, language barriers seem to be confusing me here as I don't really understand what you are saying. I don't think. However there are plenty of sites that rank very well in google that are not in dmoz and there are plenty more listed in dmoz that do not rank well with google. Only google can say for sure how they rank sites, but I think most familiar with the area will tell you dmoz = 1 good link. No more, no less. It is no more valuable than any other quality link.
True only Google knows the variables. There are references for a sites PR calculation but there maybe sites that has a relatively low in number but ranks higher in serps and vice versa, that said an unofficial calculation system provided by a friend of mine Bob Mutch, an seo specialist from Canada, gives us an idea. Variables maybe are due to its number of quality links and the targeted keywords, domain age, links from .gov or .edu sites. A DMOZ listing is one variable of a quality link especially from a category that is indexed, overall it is a good link whether indexed or unindexed since most sites that uses the odp data provides natural back links. Some examples are the Google Directory, Alexa or Amfibi. But in a general rule promoting a site to good neighborhood links (Quality Sites) is the best way to do it.
ODP is a mainly volunteer network which makes it tough. What's frustrating to those on the outside looking in is the seemingly endless hurdles and lack of action. I've been following this category since we submitted. For as far back as I remember or can see, no new companies have been added to the site. Surely over the last three-five months at least one worthy company in this major category has come along or some editor underneath this category has applied and been denied to assist in processing sites. The editor may be busy, may have rejected all the sites submitted, who knows? It's a volunteer position but no matter what anyone says the link does matter, and the fact that some seem to get it instantly and others wait years is curious. Judging from some of the sites we've seen posted on this thread some bad sites slip through the cracks. I think maybe if the backlog is this huge and there are so few active editors - it might be time to start allowing more editors in to get the job done. The database has no meaning if it's not updated in a timely and relevant manner. It's a great project that I think needs some modernization to deal with the massive increase in sites. Hopefully our comments are viewed as constructive. It's a great project going through some growing pains.
Promo - The cute girl in the backpack that takes over expired sites doesn't add a lot to most categories, so when they delete her brood it makes additions less apparent. Additionally there have been sites moved out to more appropriate cats as they changed focus, sites removed that had become spammier than when added. Adds & attrition can combine to give wrong impression, but it has been actively edited (adds, moves, deletions) during the timeframe in question (by 3 editors and a lizard).