How much value does DMOZ add?

still waiting for my dmoz listing ;(

 

Ministrel, sorry to be a pain, but I'm going to use your style.

Can you show me any actual evidence of Google discounting the value of links for ALL ODP clones (including Google, Alexa, etc).

I read in several articles that a site may be index into the "supplemental results" if the site included duplicate content. This is one of the reasons some sites have the tag "Supplemental Index" next to the search result. Now even in Cutts blog, it states that duplicate content can result your page being inside the supplemental index. Now if you goto google and search "google directory sports", then the first results will be the address:
www.google.com/Top/Sports/ (pr 7)

Now goto DMOZ's main page for Sports. http://dmoz.org/Sports/

You will see these pages include most of the same links, yet outlined and formatted differentley , thus causing the Duplicate content filter not to detect it.

Now lets go inside a deeper sub category of sports, lets say Basketball > coaching.

http://www.google.com/Top/Sports/Basketball/Coaching/
http://dmoz.org/Sports/Basketball/Coaching/


Same content but presented differently.

But, lets say the duplicate content filter can narrow it down to just detecting "link and description" If this was the case, layout , header, footer ,or w/e part of the page is irrelevant. Thus, the duplicate content filter should detect this.

Since theres no way of knowing if Google's own search bot would deem their own directory as duplicate content or not...we are left with the same question. Would Google's cloned links and description from the ODP give extra juice to those web sites?

The way I look at it, is just beacuse theres a duplicate content filter rule, doesn't mean that Google will discount its own directory's link. Maybe all the other small clones, but a directory that has a high PR like google's , it may actually ignore the duplicate content rule and take the link into effect. I'm not too sure, but I think Cutts did mention that if a site has duplicate content and is not stored inside the Supplemental Index, then the reason for it is that it has enough inlinks...which I'm sure Google has. So can this be a reason why it may count its own directorys links?

If this was the case, then being inside DMOZ actually provides you two high pr link values (and related if your inside a good category), DMOZ's link and Google Dir's link.

As I was looking last night, I was reading several discussions debating whether or whether not the value of DMOZ will decrease due to the duplicate content filter....yet I found no real evidence stating it does or it doesn't.

Cheers.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you have any doubt as to the existence of duplicate content filters?

I'm assuming the answer is no.

So let me ask you this: Why do you think DMOZ clones would be exempt from duplicate content filters?

As to your question:

1. Where is there an Alexa DMOZ clone?

2. Can you show me any actual evidence that ghosts do not exist? That UFOs do not exist? That the {insert choice of conspiracy theory here} is incorrect? Who bears the burden of proof?

 

Well, it turned out I believe the duplicate content filters would rule out the less popular DMOZ clones. But Google's ODP clone, I questioned.

www.alexa.com > click the Directory link. Its a DMOZ clone.

To me after reading about duplicate content filters, I'm not the only one still debating whether or whether not it removes ALL DMOZ clones links value. My take on it is that it exempts most of the smaller ones with less inlinks to the directory. Where as Google would actually use the duplicate content filter on their own directory is what I do not TOTALLY believe as of yet.

As for UFO's, I don't believe in them. As for Ghost's, I don't believe in them either. But strong Ghost believers can debate their argument like how you are now by stating:

Is there such thing as EMF (electromagnetic fields)?


So by you saying Google uses duplicate content filter then it automatically will detect all and every single dmoz clone out there (including there own directory), a ghost believer can say since the existence of electromagnetic fields exist and can be detected, then using a EMF detector can detect any ghost around your area. (there are actually strong ghost believers and ones who use a statement like this as a real argument....http://science.howstuffworks.com/ghost-buster.htm).

Like I said earlier, the only way to prove this is to hear it from the inside, the ones who actually program the Googlebot. From what I tried looking for, there has been no such news article, discussion board, no nothing that has anyone ever stating that the duplicate content filter de-values all DMOZ clone links (including Google's).

And if it truly does, then hey, I'm glad to hear it....it'll be one of the best news I heard in a while.

Cheers

 

You seem to have missed this part:

 

Do you know anyone? I wish I did...

 

*sigh*

Okay. You don't get it. I give up.

Look up the concept of "null hypothesis". Maybe that will help.

 

lol, woot, I just made minstrel give up.

 

A DMOZ link is a quality link, and I personally would rather have one DMOZ listing than 50 PR0 directories who have no trust built up with Google and Yahoo.

 

lol, true...I think most webmasters know this, but we were talking about DMOZ's clones. Do those links add any value on top of the original one link from DMOZ? I say some has to,...Ministrel is saying all clone links mean jack zippo.

 

That isn't the question. Would you rather have one DMOZ listing on a PR3 page with 100 other outgoing links, or one PR3 listing from an individual site with less than 10 outgoing links?

 

Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight. I’m going to say that again: Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-provides-backlink-tool-for-site-owners/

 

Exactly, CReed.

 

Well, its hard not to assume.

For example, why assume that a backlink would carry no weight at all? If anything, no assumptions should be made at all. Both sides of the argument have very weak evidence.

 

That's simply not true.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that a DMOZ link has any special power or value. Anywhere.

2. We have it from a Google insider that a DMOZ link does not bestow any special benefit:

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

Why are you still debating this?

Find some evidence - some real EVIDENCE - that disputes that statement and perhaps you'll have something to debate. Until then, this is all a waste of database space.

 

Ok...ill try finding some. that to me is still not hardcore evidence.

 

Yes. He's saying that the only reason a DMOZ link ever even SEEMS to be special is that it tends to have a decent PR.

In other words, any other link from a page with equivalent PR and an equivalent number of outgoing links (among which that PR will be divided) is every bit as valuable.

He has also said the same thing about .edu and .gov links.

That's all the evidence you need.

It's not rocket science. He's not speaking in tongues. What he says is not contradicted by any evidence whatsoever.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

 

Oh wait...

From Cutt's blog

All he is trying to say that theres no special boost from the ODP.
So does this really mean that the link has no value just because its not "special"? Read the sentence afterwards..."The PageRank value of a link from an ODP page is soley because that ODP page has a high PageRank" --- that to me doesn't sound like evidence that shows a clone link gives no weight what so ever.

 

Oh and I do totally understand what your trying to point out.

A link from a dmoz page and a link from another page that have the same PR is equivalent as long as its all related to your site.


I get that...but I'm talking about the clone links that you end up receiving from being inside the ODP.

At first our debate was whether or not those clone links give any juice to your website. You state the duplicate content filters rules out all additional clone links, thus giving no juice. I believe (not state) that some of the clone links must give some juice.

 

It isn't.

Try to keep up...

The evidence for discounting DMOZ clones is the well-documented existence of duplicate content filters.