I'm fully aware of that. You're missing the point. I am suggesting that DMOZ clone pages are of no benefit primarily because they are duplicate pages and therefore discounted. Evenif they DID provide some benefit, it would be close to zero since they have little or no PR to pass anyway, but that isn't the primary point - see the original posts above. There's the additional point that even the original DMOZ pages pass very limited PR. Many of them start as PR3or PR5 pages with up to 200+ outgoing links. Ecah of those links gets very little PR passed from the DMOZ listing, which is distributed among all the outgoing links on the page.
"close to zero" is exactly that, "close to". Multiplied by a sufficiently high number (of links) it could be a comfortable PR5. I don't see any argument saying that one link from a <1 PR page will give you green. Assuming links from duplicate pages do provide benefit. Sorry, that's a weak argument. First, some ODP pages are higher than 5; I've even got links from them. Second, it's not all cats that have 200+ links; I have many links from cats with just 5 or 6 entries. I don't think DMOZ is as hot as some make out but methinks you are playing down the PR importance of a DMOZ listing a bit too much. That impacts on the credibility of the claim that DMOZ clones pass no PR at all. And you seem to completely discount the fact that some RDF dump clones are value-added and not seen as pure dups.
Perhaps. I'm trying to play them down to the value of any other link from an equivalent PR page, which is what i believe the true value is. No. Whatever limited benefit you get from a DMOZ listing is diluted in even the "best" of the clones. Not completely but those are few and far between and again may have limited value from a PR standpoint. Look, I'm not trying to tell people not to submit to DMOZ. What I'm saying is there are easier ways to rank well even in Google and easier ways to increase the PR value of your pages. There is nothing magic about DMOZ - it has this legendary magical mythical power as its reputation and it's simply not true. How many times have you seen posts either worrying that without a DMOZ listing the site is doomed or, as in this thread, believing that getting a DMOZ listing "guarantees" you a PR4 or PR5? Those are the myths I'm trying to debunk.
I am sick of DMOZ to be honest. I have tried to understand what all the fuss is about but through certain queries I have made, it seems this directory is dying on its feet due to its selection of Editors. It seems there are too many editors using this directory to help themselves or a select few. So when we talk about 'it is not what we know, it is who we know'. We can now use this in web terms with DMOZ and in all seriousness, the directory will fall on its behind if it does not sort it out. Just my two cents, as usual! Steve
It needs to be stated that the very worst case scenario of being listed in the clones is that the PR they send you is not counted. That's it. Best case scenario is that they do pass PR. But I doubt the DMOZ listing benefit is diluted just because clones happen to exist. I absolutely agree.
You misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that even if a DMOZ clone DOES provide some PR benefit, it will be less than (diluted from) the original DMOZ listing and even the PR vaolue of the original DMOZ listing isn't all that much. I was not suggesting that the existence of a clone listing would reduce the value of the original listing.
minstrel, there's also the possibility that Google considers a link from a DMOZ PR3 page with one million outgoing links more important than a PR5 link from some low-trust page. Actually, it's more than possible, it's very probably. I'd rather pay $50 for a single link from a DMOZ PR3 page than I would for 5 links from five different, PR5 MFA sites. But that's just me. And that's just because I care more about ranking in SERPs than I do about PR. This does not in any way diminish from my position that DMOZ clones do pass PR, admittedly in small quantities but only because they have small quantities themselves - except for the Google Directory. When the clones don't pass PR it's because of reasons like nofollow i.e. clone owner intervention.
We'll have to disagree on that point. I care a lot more about ranking than PR as well. And that's why I wouldn't pay a nickel for a DMOZ listing. Pick any search term at random. Look at the top ranked sites. Look at how many of them outrank sites with higher public PR. And look at how many of them do NOT have a DMOZ listing.
I'm sorry but that experiment doesn't make sense. It would if there was an easy way of filtering other variables out till the DMOZ listing was the only distinguishing factor. The argument is getting circular now. You counter a point that has never been made i.e. that you need a DMOZ listing to rank well. The listing helps but I have never claimed it's a pre-requisite. I don't believe anyone else has either.
I didn't say YOU were making that claim. However, it's far from a straw dog. Are you new to webmaster forums? That belief (that one cannot rank in the top 10 without a DMOZ listing) HAS been stated numerous times including here and on numerous other forums. I don't know how you've missed it.
Does it matter if it's been stated elsewhere in the world if, in this thread, it's neither the subject of discussion nor a given vector? I'll ignore the insult to my intelligence. Attacking an opponent doesn't further one's arguments; I prefer to stick to the subject under discussion.
Yes, of course it does if it's relevant to the thread. I'm addressing issues raised in this thread. My comments about the issue are legitimate and on topic.
The issue of "one cannot rank in the top 10 without a DMOZ listing"? Please point me to where it appears in this thread before you brought it up. Oh, and don't worry about the insult, it's not really worth apologising about.
I believe I said, "I'm addressing issues raised in this thread", viz. the issue of the value of a DMOZ link and the myths and misinformation related to that issue. If you have a problem with how I'm interpreting the topic and feel I've gone off-topic, click on the little triangle with the exclamation mark and report it to the moderators. That's what it's for. If they agree with you, the thread will be split. I wasn't and I won't. I didn't insult you. I merely asked a question about whether you were new to forums, since you seemed to have missed seeing the numerous threads containing the myths about DMOZ listings.
And you then answered the question yourself and moved on to how I "missed it". Boy, I must be thick to "miss" something so obvious! You're insulting everybody else's intelligence by pulling your "Who? Me?" face. But, it's really not important. I thought you'd be a worthy debater but your circular logic, you causal fallacies (as top sites in SERPs don't have DMOZ listing, DMOZ listing doesn't help in SERPS), your topic-switching to a point not under discussion (to re-establish credibility) and your even using the cheap ad hominem to gain traction by discrediting me is all so dull. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's got a bee in his bonnet that's clouding his judgement. Trashing DMOZ seems to be a lot more important to you. It's a commitment, a passion. I tend not to feel so strongly about mundane things like directories and have better things to do with my time than waging wars to vilify them. But, if that floats your boat, good luck to you. I'll leave you to it. LOL. I apologise that my post count isn't a good indicator of my maturity.
One of my friend has the same problem with you. He emails them every 6 weeks asking why his site still getting listed. He receives feedback, but there is no success yet.