Thats just how PR calculations work. However I would say there is a benefit of being in DMOZ above other directories (much as I hate to say anything good about them), that is that other directories can duplicate it's entire content, therefore if you are in DMOZ you get several more links from other directories too.
Everything has value on some level, and in the case of the ODP it can often fall down to which category adn whether or not that category is actively edited or has recently been rummaged by someone with higher permissions. And it could be that whihc has caused Google to kind of put the ODP on the back burner. But no, even by google standards it's not completely worthless. They do have their clone which is updated once every couple of years, and they do place said clone in the SERP for a few key words. Where are you from? That's not listed in most countries, and has not been listed for years.
I'm not sure I can recall any more where it originated but I believe it was from the original papers and/or patents on PageRank. The ".85" multiplier isn't exact - it's an educated estimate based on the theroretical papers - generally, the .85 value is used to reflect the fact that a page does not pass all of it's own PageRank in it's outgoing links. See screenshot for Google.com below. What you are seeing is the older Google interface (I just checked and found the Google.ca also has the old version). Presumably, Google will update the regional Google's in due course.
I beleive that it was originally published in the Hilltop Paper. However this site has a good explanation of the math: http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html /*tom*/
Like I said earlier like everyone I am not privy to goggle’s algorithm, the full time professionals cannot agree, I doubt that a full time psychologist , and self professed amateur search engine expert. would have the monopoly on the truth. However it is clear that you are putting too much weight on page rank. It seems unlikely that google would solely use link popularity in this way. Here is an example. In another thread we have been having a discussion with a pay for inclusion website owner about whether or not a site should be listed. That site was listed on a pr 2 ODP page with 113 other site. Lets say that that site (or another) was the only site on a page of one of the seo-friendly-site promotion directories of which there are thousands on the internet. Lets say this page has page rank of 1. Using your formula {DMOZ page PR} *.85 / {total number of outgoing links} the PR being passed to the site listed in the SEO directory is 0.85 but the site in the ODP is only passing PR of 0.015. Based on your the-world-revolves-around-page-rank hypothesis this would mean that google would highly value links from the dime a dozen SEO directories with next to no link value summing from sites such as the ODP, Yahoo and others that exist not for the purposes of SEO. There are only two possibilities, one is that you are right, and that would not only make it exceeding easy to manipulate google, but would also make google very stupid which they are certainly not. The other possibility is that they have some other mechanism for valuing links other than PR. Anyone with half a brain (and without an axe to grind) can see that. It might be trustrank, or a number of other possible link analysis techniques. For all I know it may even be that the ODP is not highly valued by google, but please give this the-only-thing-google-considers-is page-rank crap a rest. Lets not confuse Minstrel any further. The hilltop algorithm modifies basic page rank and introduces a factor into the equation based on expert documents. Which is the opposite of what he saying.
And your credentials are? From what anyone here can tell you are a self proclaimed editor that does not speak for the directory. You've also stated that you are not here to defend it. So who are we to believe, a self proclaimed troll such as yourself or a person that by most accounts is open and honest, and has generally given correct answers in SEO/webmaster type threads? I mean, what are you actually bringing to the thread to actually counter what he's saying...he's proven himself, in this case, any and all proof is your burden. Can you back up what you have said, or prove otherwise that anyone in this thread is wrong, with anything but your own post?
Um, that's Google, not "goggle", Nebbie. I'm sorry if we confused you about the topic of this thread. You're a well-practiced weasel, Nebbie, but you can't weasel your way iout of this one. This thread wasn't even about PageRank when it was started - it was about Google's ever increasing disdain for the Google DMOZ Dump Directory. There was then a question about the value of a DMOZ link from another poster. My reply was that it has only as much value as any equivalent listing on any other page. Let me say it again: There is nothing special in a DMOZ link that any other link with equivalent relevancy and equivalent PageRank doesn't have. You asked for evidence; it was provided. More than once. Pick away at it all you like but it won't alter the fact that yoiur precious DMOZ imparts no special magic to the sites it lists. Everything else is the usual Nebbie hot air signifying nothing. You and other DMOZ editors repeatedly pride yourselves on knowing nothing about SEO and on repeating that DMOZ does not exist for the SEO benefit of webmasters. Why are you not applauding my statements instead of failing at disputing them? And by the way, that's not MY formula. I'm sorry if we're confusing you here. See above. You are the one who is trying to make it solely about PageRank. I'm not. Neither are the quotes I've provided you from Matt Cutts. Yiu are choosing to read them that way either (1) because you don't understand what Cutts is saying, or (2) because once again you haven't bothered to read the actual sources. Utter nonsense and bafflegab, trying to divert the thread away from the obvious fact that you don't have a clue. How is that the opposite of what I'm saying? I wasn't the one who even introduced Hilltop into this thread. At least try to pay attention, Nebbie. It's becoming annoying but all this zigging and zagging doesn't alter the fact that Google has buried its directory, the existence of which has been one of the last desperate claims of those who hoped that DMOZ actually mattered to anyone other than DMOZ editors. Does it?
No this thread is about you adding one plus one and getting thirty eight. The reality is that people do not search directories (including the google directory) as much as they used to. Why place a link that few people are using in a prominent place. Google has said that this is why the link was removed from their front page. Now along comes Minstrel who pompously suggests this is evidence that google does not value the ODP. What it means is that google has recognized that people do not want to search directories directly, nothing more. Assuming that you do not get psychology degrees in packets of cornflakes in Canada you should be intelligent enough to grasp this point but instead you choose to twist this point to prove something that fits with your world view. In the context of this discussion it was your formula. You trotted it out to prove a point that now you are saying that you were not trying to prove.
You are making it about the pathetic dying gasps of a troll with no point left to make. No kidding? So you finally understand that? How pathetic... Is that really all you have left, Nebbie? One more time: This is simply one more step in the demotion of the Google Directory to oblivion. This is the continuing history of Google deciding a few years ago that they needed to compete with the Yahoo Directory (back when Yahoo was still seen as a competitor to Google) and the easy solution was a DMOZ Dump prettied up with PageRank bars. First, they stopped bothering to update the RDF feed with any frequency at all, to the point where it has now dwindled to virtually never. Then they moved the link off the front page to a back page. Then they buried it under a "more..." link. And Now it is nowhere to be found. That's not Google saying merely, "Hmmm... people aren't using directories very much any more...". That's Google saying, "This directory has no value to the Google empire". My Ph.D. was not from a cereal box but from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. I don't have any difficulty understanding that. Do you? You then began to bicker about the details of PageRank and Trustrank and authority sites to try to salvage your desperate need to believe that a DMOZ listing still has some special "DMOZ" value, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. I provided you with that evidence. I provided someone else with the formula for calculating PR value of a link, which others were kind enough to link to original documents. For your own reasons, you've decided to ignore all this and try to divert attention to personal issues by impugning me and my degree. Anyone reading this thread will be able to see quite clearly who it is who is striggling with comprehension, Nebbie - the face in that mirror is you. Pathetic. I can't say I ever had any admiration for you but even for you this is a new low.
Actually that is not the case. In another thread (Is being in dmoz.org very important? ) it's obvious that the four editors posting in it (Nebby being one of them, a meta being another) that they think there is no value (or at least importance) with a DMOZ.org link. In fact, I gave it importance in the very first thread there and was corrected by a meta, then later when I said it again Nebby was nice enough to tell me I was wrong. So really, I'm unsure what they are doing here, or there for that matter...but it's apparently not to give some defense to the directory by saying it has value...they had that chance. So if you want to add a link to your mounting evidence of DMOZ losing it's value, add that thread (Is being in dmoz.org very important? ) where there are several editors neglecting to say it has any worth. *shrug* Q
Yeah bloody fascinating. Your problem minstrel is that you only hear what you want to hear. I have said repeatably that I do not know to what extent google and other search engines use the ODP. What I object to from you is your use of half truths to try and prove a point that your have long ago ordained to be a truth. You have much in common with a devotee of a fundamentalist religion fitting facts to his world view. You really need to calm down, take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. Your degree of anger in this matter is way way out of proportion. It is only a directory we are talking about. Just a web directory.
Sadly you are not known to even give half truths now are you? I mean, you won't even give your editor name here, and in the better majority of your posts you have nothing nice to say, not even nice on behalf of the ODP. In fact, in the link I gave above you would rather post about my previous posts than the topic at hand. The topic of course being whether or not DMOZ is important. You would rather make every thread here a personal attack against some one rather then a discussion about the ODP... could there be a reason for that? I mean, take a gander at this thread. Rather then refuting anything that Minstrel has said, you turn it into something personal. If Minstrel is really giving only half the story, come on, lets hear the other half. Enlighten us...
Not that I expect it to happen, but yes... please enlighten us, Nebbie. Perhaps it would help to refresh your memory about the topic of this thread by reading (or re-reading) the opening post...
Are you sure you type the domain correctly? I see the sitelinks http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dmoz.org
Those are called "site links" and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that they have anything to do with authority sites. Nor has Google ever claimed that they were anything but extra navigational links to certain popular sites. They are simply additional links which seem to be a function of (1) PageRank of the home page and (2) the presence of external links to internal pages (best guess).
I guess I must be one of those editors that you want to missquote. Just to set the record staright, this is a forum where webmasters can seek for answers, so it is a perfectly valid topic to discuss the value of an ODP linking. But please don't interpret comments by editors to mean that they do not think it is important. I consistently say that i am not interested in the discussion. I have no interest in if the directory has value or not to the sites in it, if so how much. I edit because I want to provide a service for the average web surfer, not the webmaster. So I work to help produce a directory to serve the average web surfer. If it does other things, fine, if not, fine.