Call it a lack of patience. From first submitting through to seeing a site listed, it was around a year later.
I would say some bits and pieces of traffic=yes. And every free incoming visitor counts....!! But I also believe that DMOZ listing helps towards better rankings in Google as well.
Every links helps with Google ranking, why do you think I got so many profiles on different forums, I think I've spammed over 50 forums with my profile and posts like this one. My cult of personality will become greatest in history!
DMOZ sucks. Badly. I had applied for like 10 of my old sites and none accepted. Bad Luck? The editor missing for like 3 years, or just he is bored to death and wont put any new links in there?
Probably bored, most editors signup for the fun of it, go missing from action for months do 1 edit in 3 months and disappear again.. And those that signup to help get kicked cause they critcize the bad dmoz editors(comon dmoz admit it u guys got bad bunch of editors and only a handful of good editors). Cheers
Yes, in much the same way that webmaster forums are loaded with worthless patrons, and only a few really good ones. I think that's a point that can be conceded!
DMOZ is great in concept, but it doesn't seem to work out so well. There needs to be more organization and communication at the editor level, from what I've seen. All in all, it's a great place for REAL links, not for spam links, or PPC sites - it's definitely not for people who are trying to make money with their site. Use it as a resource, and to present a website you've found to be useful to others.
Submitted several other people websites beside mine and none got listed so far, so that doesn't work also.
At least when you win the lotto, you win something! When you win the "DMOZ lotto" you don't win traffic, that's for sure. As for PR... a link's a link, and that one isn't special. Unless there is out there some specialty search engine that seeks out crusty old pre-2001 websites and the expense of newer ones, there is no reason for search engine to grant DMOZ link any kind of "plus-value."
How many levels of wrong can one be? A link is a link is a link, but a PR5 link is better then a PR0 link. Also, Google seemingly gives precedence to long standing domains, and DMOZ being the dinosaur it is, has been around for ages. As for traffic, I've gotten more traffic from DMOZ and it's clones then any other directory out there. So for reasons to give DMOZ value, it's age & page rank...and it has plenty of both.
Even if you do, so what? As it has been said a million times, that's the way people should approach it - submit and forget. It's much like the lotto in that sense. That is to say, if you start assuming that you're a winner before the drawing takes place, you're the same type of fool. There are no guaranteed winners in the "DMOZ lottery". How many times must this be repeated? Again, how many times must it be said that a good DMOZ link brings good PR, (truly as with any "other" link) but even more so, tons of "feeder" links, some of which ARE useful. Just because your webstats don't list "DMOZ" as a search engine referrer, doesn't mean there are no INdirect benefits. How else do you get into the "Google" directory? There is good weight for that one, IME...
When someone writes: "A link is a link is a link, but a PR5 link is better then a PR0 link" I have to agree. However, most ODP pages are PR 0-3. So on this basis, they are worth very little. If you are impressed from the traffic you get from DMOZ & clones... I suspect your website doesn't have much of a "presence" on the internet. So I have to disagree with you, and agree with myself, haha. Most people with a DMOZ link AND a fairly active website will readily tell you that DMOZ "traffic" consists mainly of a few lost souls, that's about it. Look at my logs for the past 10 days: 1 Google Search 64.2% 43601 2 Google Search (International) 22.2% 15097 3 Yahoo Search 5.7% 3857 4 AOL Search 3.9% 2631 5 Search MSN 2.5% 1705 6 Dogpile 0.3% 231 7 MSN (International) 0.3% 197 8 Netscape 0.3% 173 9 Yahoo Search (International) 0.2% 169 10 MSN 0.1% 81 11 Excite.com 0.1% 64 12 Lycos (International) 0.1% 41 13 AltaVista.com 0.0% 13 14 Ask Jeeves 0.0% 8 15 InfoSpace 0.0% 7 16 Mamma 0.0% 5 17 AltaVista (International[$1]) 0.0% 3 18 Google Directory 0.0% 2 19 WebCrawler 0.0% 1 20 DMOZ 0.0% 1 21 Fast Search 0.0% 1 As to the "feeder links" from the DMOZ clones, I think it's safe to say that a couple of years ago, Google discounted those in its PR calculations. It's also a good educated guess that Google does not "double-count" links on its Directory and those on the ODP website. I maintain that "a link is a link" and DMOZ links are no exception.
Could chop out anything that's not a directory from that list, or recompile the list with just directory traffic?
Mmmm... let's see. Total: 67,988 Directories: 3 But these 3 visits are 100% DMOZ and Google Directory! WOW~~~ I see the light now! DMOZ is massively responsible for my total directory traffic of 3 people, a whopping 0.0044% of the traffic for that period. But wait... my host doesn't compile referrals from directories in their "search engine referral" compilation, except for DMOZ/Google. So "other directories" do not show up in the above report.
Checking out another website where the statistics are easier to look up. Search engine referrals: Total search engine referrals: 1119 DMOZ referral: 1 General referrals: Total: 1744 Skaffe: 1 (DMOZ clone): 1 (other directory): 1 (other directory): 1 (other directory): 1
Well then, the problem lies in the fact you are comparinf apples to oranges. You care comparing your DMOZ traffic to non-comparable search engines. Of course the numbers will be swayed in favor of full content rather then a name and description. The fact that you are getting hits from a directory should be proof enough that people are using it. When you can compare the various other directory traffic to dmoz, then I'd be interested in your numbers, but according to your post, if you want to do it that way, then NO directory is worth it, not even the paid ones, in fact, they are even more worthless then DMOZ, they are not even good enough to be monitored by your server.
As are most of the "other" link on the web today. No disagreement yet. We're not talking about "double counting" anything... OK, hypothetical question here - suppose we have 2 sites, of the same quality. (hard to measure, but pretend for a minute) Let's just say that one of those sites has a DMOZ link, and one does not. Who gets the better rating? Make it even more fair - one has a PR5 DMOZ link, and another has just any old PR5 link. Who enjoys a higher SERP? Check this out: Look at result #3 here. Why does this page enjoy a #3 ranking for ZERO content? I can give limited insight here. It formerly enjoyed a DMOZ listing, which fed the Google directory. G did not update the directory after the DMOZ dumped the link.