Has anyone here tried to get their site listed in a competitive commercial category but been denied for over 1 year? Do you believe it's a "conflict of interest" to have editors that are also sellers in their category? Does google's algo favor DMOZ listings as Matt Cutts himself has suggested? If google does rely upon DMOZ listings (virtually all SEO professionals believe that to be the case), is google negligent for allowing this conflict of interest to influence commercial listings, thus costing censored websites countless millions in PPC campaigns? Curious minds would like your opinions.
I've never been denied a listing - and that's for the time I was not an editor. Right now (as an editor) I have one site waiting to be listed and it has been over a year. No. Those who do show a conflict of interest will be removed. Explain how an editor who has a conflict of interest can prevent a site being listed. No one knows, but maybe a small amount. Don't believe all that MC says. Countless millions - LOL. There is no way a (not) DMOZ listing costs countless millions. You cannot be serious. If you think Google is costing you countless millions, take it up with them - since they are the ones causing this "problem" Which minds besides yours.
I'm only referring to competitive commercial categories where not being DMOZ listed does seem to have a negative affect on SERPS. I guess my point is this. How could google's algo give any more weight to DMOZ listed sites given the obvious conflict of interest that exists in competitive categories? (without opening themselves up to litigation) I don't blame the editors for including their own sites, that's human nature. I put 100% of the blame on the people who wrote the algo to favor DMOZ sites. They F'd up to put it mildly, and they're going to pay someday. I'm also willing to bet that their algo does not favor DMOZ listed sites within 1 year, and that there is litigation on this subject within 1 year. Only time will tell. We'll see.
Why would it be a conflict of interest? Someone in the same industry would be a better editor than someone not in the industry. It's clear in the editor guidelines that it's ok to edit a category you have websites in, and to list those websites... so long as you don't reject listings for competitors that belong. It's possible that your site hasn't even been reviewed yet, or that you provide no original content or products for sale. Inclusion in the DMOZ is not a right, it's a benefit. If you can't compete in your industry without a DMOZ lisitng then you're not gonna compete regardless. PS - I've found no evidence that the DMOZ (or any other directory) provides benefits greater than any other relevant aged backlinks... aside from the scraper directories which are getting their pages booted from the index on an ongoing basis. I've got a couple sites listed and I noticed no direct increase in serps in the following few months after being listed and in the Google directory. Pagerank increased, sure, but that's it. My advice? If your confident an editor is abusing their category... then use the "report abuse / spam" link in the navigational bar at the top. If someone is abusing their category then it will be looked at.
Also, it is very unusual that only one editor edits a particular category and almost impossible if it is a "competitive" category that requires lots of work. So the likelihood of abuse in a "competitive" cat is extremely low.
I've been doing research into DMOZ/google algo for quite some time because our site is being censored. I didn't know I have an avenue to complain, will look into that. As for original content, not one website in our category has more original content. We write a weekly newsletter. We sell more items than any other website plus we have our own product line. Our site does not spam. The listings we submitted were all low key, not spammy. No reason not to list us EXCEPT we offer the best deals, call us the Walmart of our category. We sell at MAP (lowest allowed advertised prices) for over 100 models and offer free shipping plus $40-$80 in freebies. Our product line is sold wholesale to the public. We have to spend over $2000 a month on google because our keywords do not show up in the top 100 while they're #1` or #2 on yahoo and MSN. Why? There are over 150 DMOZ listed sites in our category. To me, Yahoo and MSN offers better search results than google. All you have to do to get top listing in google is be DMOZ listed and have an old website. Our site is 3 yrs old, not new, not old, yet we can't get organic listings in google because we're not listed. I took an accounting and over 90% of the top 10 sites for the main keywords are DMOZ listed. Over 80% of the top 20. That's more than just a coincidence in my book, given what the SEO pro's and even MC has said on the algo's reliance upon DMOZ. Our site is just one out of tens of thousands that has been negatively impacted...ie, class action coming. Again, I don't blame the editors, I blame the people who wrote the google algo 100%.
Have you considered that many editors use Google search to find sites to list.? Your correlation on being DMOZ listed to being high in Google makes the wrong assumption. Sites get listed in DMOZ because they rank well in Google.
How does having your site listed in DMOZ make it being censored? http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Healthcare/Products_and_Services/Filters_and_Purifiers/ - Isn't that your site towards the bottom of the list? Starts with IQ?
You have proof that your site is being censored and that it is not for a breach of DMOZ listing guidelines? That is strange. I thought you were suing and were going to change the face of the search engine and directory industry? Listings? Plural? Did you not read the submission guidelines that specifically say not to submit multiple related sites? How about no editor is obliged to spend their unpaid free time reviewing and listing your site to give you free publicity. They simply couldn't give a toss about your site or business? In global terms only about 1% of listable sites in the world are actually listed - so those are your chances too - 1 in 100 that your site would be listed. Have you got some weird idea editors do price comparisons before deciding which sites to list? If so I can tell you it is totally irrelevant. Because SEO techniques that apply to one don't always convert to the other. Maybe. Because Google aren't too happy about you engaging in selling links and thereby manipulating their algorythm. Maybe. Because you haven't worked out the Google algorythm properly (it does change you know). Maybe. Because your competitors have worked it out better than you have. Maybe. Because they return your site in a higher position? Not being listed in DMOZ has zilch to do with not being listed in Google - there are tens of millions of sites in Google not in DMOZ. And the other 10%? Why can't you be one of the other 10%? Doesn't that 10% tell you that a DMOZ listing is not essential? And the other 20%? Why can't you be one of the other 20%? Doesn't that 20% tell you that a DMOZ listing is not essential? Then why are you complaining in a DMOZ related forum? And I am sure the AOL lawyers will be happy to quote you should you go ahead with a class action lawsuit against DMOZ.
Matt Cutts has never said any such thing. He has repeatedly denied that Google's algo places any more weight on a link from Dmoz than any other link.
I've never seen that "suggestion" either. In fact, I've seen suggestions from him that the opposite is true.
Matt Cutts doesn't have a forum, so I expect you mean his weblog. That gets a lot of comments. All sorts of claims and pleas about Dmoz have appeared among the comments. But there has been no post by Matt himself even mentioning Dmoz. However he has appeared as Google rep at various conferences, and under questioning, has always made it clear that the supposed Dmoz advantage is a myth.
My wife if the google expert, I'll pass this info to her when she gets back home. She seems to be obsessed with DMOZ and is trying to get me in her corner. I'm playing devils advocate here so I hear both sides of the argument before she talks me into backing her ideas. I do know she was reading something on the us patent webstie and she got all excited, called me over, and it seemed to imply that google's algo does put weigh on the human edited directories, but I don't remember seeing DMOZ listed anywhere and didn't qutie "get it". Anyway, I'll have here post for me here (her name is Hiroko, I'm Mike) and she'll let you know why you're all nuts and you can do as I do and tell her she's nuts, lol. By the way, she's the one who told me that Cutts admitted that the algo favors DMOZ listed sites mostly because google used their data for their own directory...so even though google favors sites in their own directory (algo) the data comes form DMOZ. I'm happy to learn that's not written in stone and I'll get her to show me a webpage or admit she was wrong (something she doesn't like doing) Seems common sense to me that the guy wouldn't reveal any 'sensitive" or otherwise trade secrets via some blog or whatever, so I'm thinking you're right about Cutt's. And I'll post the url to the patent and the remarks she seems to think (rather, she will post) after we have dinner or tomorrow. Thanks for the imput on this just the same. Mike
1. a patent is a patent; a patent application is a patent application; neither means that what's contained in the patent description is actually being used by anyone 2. Google may use DMOZ feeds for the Google directory but what/where is the evidence, anywhere, that Google pays any attention to what's in the Google directory when it comes to Google search results or search rankings? Google owns or is interested in a lot of things that have zero effect on Google search results.