Effectiveness of DMOZ?

Another irrelevant example/analogy. "The world is flat" was an opinion which was displaced by EVIDENCE, not by another opinion, just as creation theory was displaced by evolution on the basis of evidence which was not consistent with the creation hypothesis.

Oh, please. You know more than Matt Cutts about the Google algorithms? Forget the official title and look at some of the patents with his name.

Again, if you think what Matt Cutts has said is incorrect, show me evidence, not anectdotal opinion.

 

I can tell I have made a friend

You comment on my sarcasm and attempt discredit me but you avoid my 2 serious points. Bring on the comments about Netscape & Y!, I have years of stats and headlines to back me up there.

Also, it makes you sound a little silly bringing up religion here, so what are you looking for there as far a evidence? Do you expect God to boom his all powerful voice to prove you wrong? Religion is faith, not fact. Kind of like Google's algo. "Have faith that if you do it by the book everything will work out well", yet black hatters still outrank you in their sleep. Frustrates me too but what do you do?

Perhaps you should head over to thechurchofgoogle.org , I hear they mix religion and SEO. Not on digitalpoint, you are sounding a bit like a Google Thumper.

Nope, I said equal to. You are misquoting me. He works for Google so he probably knows a little more about the intricacies of what the company cares about, but nothing top secret about the algorithm. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I KNOW!

You should try showing some personality, perhaps people will respond to you a little more warmly. Stop posting other peoples quotes and bring something original to the conversation. Stop screaming for proof, there is none on either side.

Ooh wait a second, we can create proof. Lets lease out 2 domain names and find us an insider at DMOZ in some obscure category. I'll build the DMOZ listed web site, you build the site to be listed at my choice of directories (of course the page content density, # of links & pr must be very close to the same). NO OTHER LINKS WILL BE ALLOWED, just 1 from DMOZ on one site and 1 from Joe's Link Shack on the other. We can judge this 2 ways, first, we should run a google query and find out who ranks higher (non exact phrase) after we both have been indexed. 2nd we can wait a month or so for the PR update in browsers (which is not accurate, by the way). If both PR = 0 then we add 1 link per month from the same source until the first one jumps to PR1.

You have your spokesperson and I have logic. Alas, we are just left with our opinions. I'll take my opinion to the bank, will you?

Enough said here, if you want to keep up the pissing contest lets start a new thread. I think we have hijacked this topic enough, sorry to the creator. So to come full circle and answer what is the "Effectiveness of DMOZ?"
- My answer is "better than 99+% of the rest of the links out there", but that is because of the longevity and content of the domain, not because of any DMOZ inflation that Google gives links from there.
- Menstral's is "Equally as much as any other link out there as long as the PR and content is there"

Huh, Aside from the longevity thing those answers sound surprisingly similar. Does that mean the link is half full or empty?

 

Come back when you have some evidence and we'll talk. Until then, please just cut the meandering crap, okay? It's all hot air and bafflegab and none of it alters the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatseover that a DMOZ link has any special status.

 

Actually there is evidence but unfortunately it is all internal. I don't know how you would verify it since you are not an editor and it takes being an editor to verify it. This was discovered in 2005 and discussed in one of the editor forums.

I understand you don't believe in DMOZ and I respect your opinion. You have a right to that opinion, even if you are wrong. Notice I said "if" as I know you don't believe you are wrong.

I own over 1000 domain names and don't have a single one of them listed in DMOZ. You could argue that this means I don't believe being listed in DMOZ has value but you would be wrong. I simply believe it would be ethical misconduct to list my own domains or submit them for another editor to list.

Sign up as an editor for DMOZ and provide me your editor name by pm. I will then tell you how you can verify the value of a DMOZ link for yourself. I will not reveal this to anybody who is not an editor.

I know this sounds like BS but it is easy to call me on it. Just provide me your editor name by pm and I will use the DMOZ interface to send you a message to that editor name giving you instructions on how to verify it for yourself. You will then be able to test it for yourself.

As I stated in this long winded response I respect your opinion about DMOZ. I don't expect this to change your opinion. Why did I bother writing it? To give you a chance to prove it to yourself if you are really interested.

 

I was curious so I tried to send you a pm. This popped up saying you've chosen not to receive private messages:

I'd love to see your proof, you can contact me via editor feedback. My editor name is the same as my user name here.

 

And I am not an editor but I would love to see this so-called "proof" too.

Does the phrase "put up or shut up" mean anything to you at all, ezgoing8?

 

I did put up. I told you exactly how to obtain the proof. You choose not to follow it, it's your choice. I didn't promise you a rose garden, you will need to do a little work yourself. But you will learn in the process and DMOZ will obtain a new editor. One who may stay when he discovers how DMOZ actually works.

I will check my pm section. If it is turned off I will turn it on.

compostannie I will send you the details as to how you can test it yourself as soon as I can verify your editor name.

 

Nonsense. If you have proof, publish it. So-called "proof" that is only privately available to DMOZ editors isn't proof at all. It's just more bafflegab.

I don't believe any such proof exists. This is just grandstanding and BS.

 

You're opinion. I didn't take you to raise, I told you how to learn the truth for yourself. You don't want to do the minor work involved that's your choice. If I told you, you would not believe me. If you do the work yourself you have no choice but to believe yourself.

It's easy to sprout opinions week after wee, it takes a little more work to verify those opinions. A good man once said, If you give a man a fish, he will eat for one meal. If you teach him how to fish he will eat for life.

Your choice, I really don't care.

 

How about less bluster and more substance?

I've stated the evidence for my "opinion" already in this thread. And I've said repeatedly that if you or anyone else has any EVIDENCE to refute the statement that A DMOZ LINK HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS, please post it.

Merely hinting that you have evidence or that you know something no one else knows is puerile and pointless.

 

I am an editor and I KNOW that such proof that you mention, does not exist inside DMOZ. It is interesting that before, DMOZ "editors" were complaining about the Spam and why everyone wants to be listed in DMOZ but now that the interest is disappearing, you start posting and claim that DMOZ listing has some kind of magical power. What is the problem? Perhaps "Senior" editors need some more business.

 

Didn't say a word about magic. Do some research and you will find the answer for yourself. I wasn't the one that posted the thread in the editor forum about it and I wasn't one of those that posted their results based on the original posting. I don’t post in such threads for safety reasons If you do your research you will find it.

Threaten all you like. But have you ever stopped to think that idle threats such as this is one of the main reasons DMOZ has just a bad reputation? If you don't follow the current policy we will punish you! If you contradict a higher up editor we will punish you! If you punish me then you lose the 8-20 hours a week I spend editing. Given the current status of editors who is the one punished?

I openly advocate individuals submitting their sites to DMOZ for review and listing. I openly advocate individuals apply to become editors. The more editors there are the better the directory will be. The more sites that are submitted and listed the better the directory will be. I know this threatens the power structure of some of those in charge or those who have their sites listed, but DMOZ was founded on the principle of human beings do it better and all sites meeting guidelines should be listed. Something that has been forgotten over the last few years.

 

Translation: Whatever this so-called "evidence" is, it exists only in some internal DMOZ thread where it cannot be scrutinized or verified by anyone who actually knows something about search engines.

Translation: That is not evidence. There is no evidence.

 

What are you talking about? Who is threatening you?
There is always discussions in DMOZ about how to spam Google and other Internet directories and resources but there is no proof for what you are suggesting.

 

You sure are jumping the gun to refute this evidence SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT! When someone is truly right about a topic they become humble. Minstrel has stood on the highest mountain he can find and screamed as loud as possible (you've got close to 1/4 the total posts in this thread). Sounds like you are in denial.

All this screaming about evidence and all you post is Cutt's stuff. Hey, I like the guy more than the next person (he is a Tarheel after all) but that is not EVIDENCE! That is his opinion and not that of his employer. So post your irrefutable EVIDENCE. You have have not satisfied my desire for PROOF.

We can produce evidence by the simple test I suggested earlier in the thread. C'mon take me up on it. It would take a little time but I would love to get something hard in place to silence the naysayers. Plus it would be a tremendous popularity booster for the both of us.

I would like to see the DMOZ thread but I am not an editor myself. It would have to be pretty awesome for something internal from the Open Dir to shut these guys up. For me, it would only be compiling more EVIDENCE of PROOF.

 

I am an editor and there is no such proof. If DMOZ had any magic value, DMOZ "senior" editors including Admins wouldn't work so hard on spamming wikipedia and other directories.

 

*sigh* I obviously gave you more credit that you deserve....

You are claiming special status for a DMOZ link. I have said I see no evidence of that. I have quoted Cutts as saying there is no special status.

And now you are asking me for evidence that something mythical does not exist?

I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, either. But I don't have to. All I need say is show me some convincing evidence that they do exist and. providing I don't find a hole in the presented evidence, I'll accept it and alter my beliefs in accordance with the evidence.

This is no different. You are making a claim for special status. The burden of proof is on you.

 

I'll get back on topic here. No, DMOZ doesn't compare to search engines like google, Yahoo and MSN for traffic. Actually, Yahoo and MSN don't compare to google for traffic either.
Dmoz is one of the highest PR / google-trust FREE directories out there, so getting a link there will help you in the serps. It is not the only way to get a good link, but it is certainly an effective way (if you have the patience to wait out the reviewing process). Good SEO, in most niches, means building several quality links, so one cannot rely on just DMOZ. And given the usual waiting period, one should not rely on DMOZ at all. Just submit and forget about it.

 

At what point did you give me credit? I thought I was just shooting from the hip. You really are swayed easily sucker!

This is the 2nd time you have misquoted me. Stop it! It is making you sound foolish. I am not claiming special status, just that a link from DMOZ is worth more due to the longevity, respect and content it provides. Other sites get discounted for the 3 reasons above while DMOZ does not. This is not a special status, it's just the fruits of being well respected for so long. All of this means that a link IS WORTH MORE and we can prove it, if you will take me up on it.

And Cutts is not GoogleGod, just a popular spokesperson to web masters.

Which is exactly what you have done. Over and over and over and over . . .

Stop misquoting me!

Why don't you bring something interesting and original to the table instead of just eloquently bumping a thread with the same bafflegab and gobbleygoop.

 

Dmoz listing is like a wind , you open your sails.Or course you won't drown with out it.But a free wind is a free wind if you can have it.
( I don't talk about other situations listings etc).