Effectiveness of DMOZ?

In the end everybody will believe whatever they wish to believe. And the fewer that believe it is beneficial the fewer sites will end up in the un-reviewed queue for the overworked editors to handle. So it is a win-win situation for everyone.

Are you in fact an ex-editor? If not you certainly sound like one.

 

LOL! No. I am not and never was a DMOZ editor.

 

Some of us think he would make a good one though.

 

Anybody that is dedicated to the internet will make a good DMOZ editor.

 

Are you or are you hoping to become one?

 

We both know the admins and metas would throw my ass outa there in a week... max. I have so many objections to the way things are done currently that you just know I would piss them off.

 

Nah, you would be removed for self-promotion because of removal of "competitors" (pedo, pills, spam, abuse and other junk) and listing websites to which you are affiliated with - that is credible websites that could actually be useful to normal person.

 

I have never denied I was an editor. Not under this handle, I would never reveal my editor handle in outside forums. I receive too much hate email as it is just because my name is listed on too many categories as editor.

I have noticed that most of the negative comments about DMOZ, and especially the persistent negative comments posted in thread after thread, come from ex-editors who did not have much choice about their status.

And most of the defenders of DMOZ come from current editors. And that those who claim the DMOZ system is totally fair come from the Meta Editors.

 

It would be the Meta Editors. The staff(admins) don't have enough time to fool with such minor details.

 

I don't think the DMOZ admins like me.

 

Yep pattern is clear and not much of a surprise, I remember when I was editor how I defended DMOZ, so basically solution is to make everyone Meta so then everyone will support DMOZ.

 

Not exactly wrong in my opinion, but not quite right either. That line seems much more blurred to me.

 

Millions of people dedicated to play online games will make good editors?

In this case most of the editors will be coming from South Korea & Japan.

 

Well, yes, the extremely new editors tend to act like the Meta Editors in defending DMOZ as being in the Absolute Right, they just don't have the power.

 

Why is it that so many people get so passionate about DMOZ? I see the same people taking the same stance on all the Open Dir threads. So it's my turn to step up to the mic.

One link is worth the same as any other??? Are you kidding me?

A link in DMOZ is worth about as much as one in the signature of this forum??? Really?

That is like saying all sins are created equal. Or all women. It's just not true. Google, Y!, etc. have as much digression on the value of a link as they want. Because DMOZ is so hard to get in, and few sites slips through the cracks, they value their links more than 99% of all other directories (they are mainly link farms with no content anyway, whores for $1).

I think this specifically why search engines do not release their algos. It gives some webmasters their own opinion, which separates the have's from the have not's in the SERPs.

My answer on the effectiveness of DMOZ: It's a very worthy link >= that of the Yahoo! Dir which costs $300/yr. But the bottom line is that you don't have a say so if they include you or not. So hedge your bets and do not rely solely on ANY one directory. And put your heart and soul into submitting to DMOZ, that means no copy/paste.

 

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

I’m on debunking duty
Matt Cutts
December 8, 2006

In comments:

And while I'm at it, this is worth repeating too:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-article-in-newsweek

In comments:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1756437348670651505

 

Dude, I've read all that in your previous posts here. And you don't have to say you are sorry. I get that we differ in opinion and I am ok with that. You can go on thinking your geocities sites and pixel ads count the same as my DMOZ listings and we'll both sleep well at night.

I also get that Cutts said it ain't true, I still don't buy it. They are a billion+ dollar company, not an open source movements, they DO NOT leak insider information and Matt Cutts is not the HDIC, he's more of a liaison.

Google has already intentionally broken the link: feature in their search engine in order to cut down on people snooping on the competition (which ruins the integrity of search), unfortunately link bombers can still use y! Do you think they gave a straight answer on that one? You are not getting one here either.

To further clarify my position, I am not so much under the impression that it is a DMOZ, edu & org boost as much as a crappy site discount. There really is some poop out there on the net. Here is the truth: Great, original content + PR = Link Strength.

I am actually under the impression that the links in your signature in this forum will eventually mean something, if you are selling and posting about the same topic. That being said if you post 1000 times that does not mean that the links from here are worth 1000x more than the DMOZ link, maybe 10x but how many hours have you spent here vs. submitting a site to DMOZ. DMOZ has a much better ROI, better than 99.9% of the links out there because it costs nothing and the links are actually worth something.

Give me a link from a site like Wikipedia any day of the week over any of the sites that have been discussed here. That is all relevant content and low # of outbound links. Which is why .org and .edu domains push so much link strength. Loads of contextual information with very few outbound links give the org & edu boost. It's numbers not .com racism.

Minstrel, I have many of the same feelings you do about the ODP (disorganization, bad politics, 1 year downtime!!!), but this is about rankings and rankings mean business. I know you are not going to change your mind. Thankfully I am not posting for your benefit but for the rookies out there who read this and see you discrediting their links like they are a pirate site. DMOZ is worth more than this guy is giving them credit for.

Rooks, Free your mind and think for yourself about that whole "All sins are not created equal" thing I wrote in a previous post, the same applies here. Would you rather live next door to a pot head or a murderer/rapist. Would you rather get your links from Uncle Chris's engine affiliate site or Princeton.edu? Which would be worth more in Google's eyes?

It makes more sense when you approach SERPs with your eyes open rather than just chunking your links out there and hoping they will stick in the most irrelevant places. Plan you actions and make DMOZ part of them, their links are worth more than Joe's Directory Shack . . . this much I am certain.

 

Please - try not to be ridiculous about this: Where did I say a Geocities site was worth as much as a DMOZ link? What I have said, repeatedly (and since you say you've read my other posts, I presume you know this), that a DMOZ link is worth no more and no less than any other topic-relevant equivalent PR link.

And it's NOT a matter of opinion but of PUBLISHED FACT.

Now, if you or anyone else has EVIDENCE to contradict those published facts, I'm very interested in seeing it. But for you to tell me that your opinion is worth more than a Google insider's published statements is just BS.

That makes it even worse. If you are posting for rookies, I would suggest that it is even more important to stick to evidence-based fact rather than superstitious anectotal opinion with no basis in reality.

 

Please - try not to be ridiculous about this: Where did I say a Geocities site was worth as much as a DMOZ link? What I have said, repeatedly (and since you say you've read my other posts, I presume you know this), is that a DMOZ link is worth no more and no less than any other topic-relevant equivalent PR link.

And it's NOT a matter of opinion but of PUBLISHED FACT.

Now, if you or anyone else has EVIDENCE to contradict those published facts, I'm very interested in seeing it. But for you to tell me that your unsupported opinion is worth more than a Google insider's published statements is just ludicrous.

That makes it even worse. If you are posting for rookies, I would suggest that it is even more important to stick to evidence-based fact rather than superstitious anecdotal opinion with no basis in reality.

 

You are right, I tend to go a little overboard on examples. My point is still valid and I still disagree with you. Some links count more than others but it's not reputation as much as content and longevity. DMOZ is one that counts more than 99.5% of the others.

You have 13,000+ posts, obviously I have not read them all, just your recent ones on DMOZ, and you wear your opinion on your sleeve. Speaking of opinions . . .

Here's a published fact for you "But when push comes to shove: This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and not those of my employer." From Cutts' disclaimer.

Sounds like it is a matter of opinion. However, I do not hold my opinion higher than Matt's, I quite admire him and would love to be in his shoes. That being said, I do have a few brain cells and I do think for a living! I DO NOT believe everything I read online. Nor should you.

The internet is a podium for people to say whatever they want, it's the ultimate in free speech. And opinions are like {_o_}, I have one too, as do you. Each is different and that is what makes this place great. Rookies, think for yourself as there are many ways to get to the top of SERPs.

I am posting to tell a more complete story, but the rookies benefit from our opinions. If we only dealt in fact this forum would be utterly empty and you would have nothing to discredit. Ponder that one for a moment, then be grateful that you don't live in a "facts only" world. A good opinion is the evolution of fact. It used to be a fact that the world was flat, and that Yahoo was the only search engine, and that Netscape Navigator was the best browser. My how things have changed.

FYI: My "superstitious anecdotal opinion" tells me that I know equally, if not more, about Google's algo & PR as you do, and probably equally as much as Matt Cutts does. That is not the kind of info that they give out to the head of the Google's Webspam team (his official title).

Matt is there to help newbies and to sway people away from the dark side of SEO. THAT is his job, not tweaking the PR algo. He is very good at what he does and is great for Google's public relations. I have to giggle every time he says dub-dub-dub instead of www. It's just very catchy.