More evidence that Google doesn't value DMOZ

It doesn't even do the first thing. How disappointing for you...

Show me a shred of evidence that the average web surfer even knows that DMOZ exists, let alone uses it for any purpose whatsoever.

 

The proof ODP still has meaning is the presence of little trolls dedicating countless hours trying to prove otherwise.

Show me a similar dedicated band trying to convince us Go or Zeal is meaningless & I'll buy your story.

 

In this case I didn't misquote anything. The original question was asked and I re-asked several times. Still you didn't answer... I was only stating what must have been obvious...you found more importance in pointing out I listed my own site in the directory, then the directory itself.

Yes, the fact that we carry on continuously is a clear sign that Google places a high value on the directory

 

And why would we care what value Google places on the Directory? How does that affect what we do as editors? It doesn't. The sites we list end up in search engines, it's a non issue.

Your needs and our needs are much different. Google is an issue for webmasters, but not for the Directory.

 

Believe it or not, sometimes threads like this one are aimed at other webmasters who are still confused about the SEO value of a DMOZ link. It is, after all, a webmasters forum.

It's almost amusing that so many of you DMOZ trolls seem compelled to join a webmasters' discussion like this to argue the opposite - that DMOZ still has value, this thread and another similar one on another forum dedicated to forum owners and administrators being good examples.

Show me a similar "dedicated band" trying so desperately to convince the rest of the world that what they do for a hobby has any value at all beyond a hobby...

And for readers who are not DMOZ editors and may not have been following his little rants, his reference to "the presence of little trolls dedicating countless hours [to their art]" is describing some of his like-minded fellow editors.

See above. Can you say "egocentric"? Indeed, why should you care - and yet obviously you do.

Nonsense. Most of the sites you list you find in search engines.

And yet you find the time to trail along after robjones into thread after thread to tell us why you don't care?

 

Good points. I think you're probably right. Though, when I'm searching for new sites on my own, it's more useful to follow the existing links on other sites, and more interesting.

Had to go look that one up to make sure I understood, but, I don't think I have an ego that I'm aware of. Might be some kind of unconscious thing though, so I won't argue the point.

I'm not edjacated, so I have to say things as directly and honestly as I can. I don't follow Rob, he does his own thing.

I'm here to speak to the less eccentric webmasters who aren't on a crusade, and give them my view as an editor from the inside, and I speak nothing but the truth. (as I see it)

 

The fact remains that, as I pointed out in the thread starter, Google has been progressively devaluing DMOZ listings for some time now, and the evidence that the other major search engines ever gave a damn is slim at best.

So why have you and other DMOZ editors been wasting your time and ours in trying to (1) argue the opposite, or (2) chime in to say you don't care?

I started this thread and another one on Google's treatment of the meta description tag within minutes, both for the same reason - to dispel common myths about SEO. Obviously, this one struck a nerve with the DMOZ trolls - I don't see any of you over in the other thread saying "We don't care" or "You're wrong - description meta tags do influence Google ranking". Why is that?

 

I'm personally not a webmaster, so can only speak about things concerning the Directory. Meta tags, search engines ect is best left up to experts like yourself.

I honestly don't see that being listed in any Directory is all that important, other than the fact that search engines pick up new listings from them, and there might be some back linking benefits (which I don't understand either).

People do get all hyper about not being listed, and I think what are really Google issues, are being attributed to the ODP because the Google Directory is a mirror, and people can't address a mirror, so they address us with their unhappiness.

I don't view your posts as ODP bashing, as much as just trying to figure the whole mess out, and getting the facts out to the webmaster/seo industry. Nothing wrong with that.

I try to address Directory issues.

 

Lets just run this again.

Some of us here are ODP editors, with vast experience of the project between us and the forum is to help webmasters. Whilst our primary concern is not webmasters, some of us will give information and offer advice. We do just have some qualifications to do that. But ofcourse that makes us trolls, because at times, many times actually, it conflicts with what you want to hear and say about ODP because you have your own agenda.

Now hyou are expert in ODP from how many years experience?

So who is the real troll here?

 

No. What makes you trolls is the common practice of you and robjones and certain other editors of jumping into any thread that mentions DMOZ and following the pattern of (1) deny, (2) distract and try to take the thread off on tangents, and (3) attack the poster or critic in an attempt to smokescreen the point of the thread.

"My own agenda"? What is my agenda in this thread? Did you bother to actually read the OP or are you just following along in line with the usual DMOZ suspects?

I don't need to be an editor to comment on issues concerning the SEO value of a DMOZ link. Indeed, from what I've seen, it's probably an advantange NOT to be an editor to comment on SEO issues.

I also don't need to be an editor to see and comment on issues involving the ethics or social responsibility of what DMOZ editors and admins do. Re-read my posts if you really want to be informed about "my own agenda". Otherwise, stick to what you know, whatever the hell that is.

 

Actually, many of the editors here are trolls, as are many of the non-editors here, so don't think I'm singling out those that volunteer their time to the ODP.

As webmasters many of the people that post in this forum post from years of experience with webmastering, directories in general, and experiences with SEO and link building. Having that type of experience in no way takes away from the understanding of how a directory works according to the web in general.

You seem to fail to realize that the way the web works does not revolve around a single directory, and that clearing up misconceptions about the importance of a single site (in this case dmoz.org) does not infer "expertise" about that site, but rather SEO work in particular.

The premise of this thread is how Google views the directory and how those views seem to be dwindling in importance. Is this a slap in the face to the editors within the project? No, not really. In fact, it's not even a slap in the face to the project itself...but discussing such things is well within the description of this site (Digital Point) and specifically this forum (ODP / DMOZ). And in the case of an open forum, the good the bad and the ugly are all welcome... though there is a distinct difference between posting facts as seen in the first post here and in trolling, as saying google is no longer holding DMOZ on high is a bit different then turning every thread into something personal...something which many editors do seem to do here.

If anyone would like to counter the points given in any of the threads here, the debate is more then welcome, and in most instances debate does not mean that personal attacks need to be made. And whether or not a person is an editor or not, does not mean that the person is clueless as to the importance of the ODP, and understanding how the ODP works has little or nothing to do with how Google views it.

 

Actually, that is quite unlikely. Search engines don't use directories to find new sites or pages to index - they use spiders. And since spiders are far more efficient at finding new pages than any human editor can ever be, chances are that if something is listed in any directory, DMOZ included, it's already been indexed by the major search engines.

Google is especially good at this - they can find and index new pages, blog posts, or forum threads with minutes or an hour or two in some cases. I cannot imagine any human-editor based enterprise ever matching that.

As I've said before, it is far more likely that directory editors find listings in search engines than the other way around.

 

You have a better understanding of spiders than I do, so you're probably right. One misconception about submitted site suggestions by the public is that that is the whole pie, when it's really just one slice of the pie.

The whole pie is everything on the Internet which includes finding sites using search engines, finding them on specialized forums, directories, local ads, phone books, following links on existing sites, and submitted site suggestions.

Each is just one slice of the pie, not the whole pie, and we use those to build categories, so there's a misconception by webmasters, I think, that we're obligated to use the slice of the pie that they submit, and that if we don't do so quickly, we're not servicing their needs. Which is something we never intended to do.

 

ODP does not set out to index the sort of material you mention, on the whole.

The idea of selecting, when we do, from search engines, though I have rarely used them for editing, except to correct 404's with a new url, is that we can provide a description which means the surfer can see if they wish to visit the site. When I personally (rather than editing) use Google for looking for material I want, I find that a large proportion are dead links and the other is bits of half sentences that tell me little. So for indexed sites ODP would be for me and for tracing a word etc I will use Google but with a heavy heart.

 

I'm not referring to any particular type of information - the reference to blog posts and forum posts were simply examples of rapidly changing pages that provide evidence for how quickly Google can index new material on the net. Thus, my comments apply equally well to other types of sites or pages, which DMOZ does attempt to index.

Are you suggesting that DMOZ relies on search engines to provide descriptions of a site?

That's not my experience. Google is much more efficient at de-indexing dead links than DMOZ and, frankly, the DMOZ appproved style of site descriptions, in my opinion, leaves a lot to be desired, not to mention the accuracy of DMOZ descriptions regardless of style.

I will acknowledge that a lot of webmasters, even those for rather large and prominent sites, need to learn a lot about title tags and meta description tags. Some of them are just plain awful and the number of sites out there with pages that show up with titles like "Index page" or "Home page" sometimes appalls me.

 

Not suggesting that we rely on search engines for descs, I am saying we provide them and in my, slightly biased view, mostly good ones. And I repeat that I will guarantee that every time I try a 404 site from ODP in Google the same dead links that I have 404'd come up and come up at the top. Yes a search through will find a new URL, if there is one, but it can be a long trawl and have to guess by the URL's if they have landed me a clone of ODP or if the site contains what I am looking for. I prefer a description anytime.

 

Uh-huh. And that would explain why all of the major search engines offer the option of the "noodp" tag so that webmasters can instruct them that the DMOZ description is in fact a bad description of the site and that the description consturcted by the site designer better represents what the site is about.

 

LOL. You know I'd get insulted if not for the fact nobody takes you seriously.
OK, maybe your patients do, but hey, they're psych patients for a reason.

I figure the threads about the death of dmoz may stop when it really IS dead, but knowing a couple of you, probably not.

 

You really haven't read this thread, have you?

In fact, you haven't even really read the title of the thread, have you?

That's what trolls do, folks... they just wade in with their pointless posts without even bothering to find out what issue they're purportedly debating.

 

Debating? You haven't read his posts have you

in order to debate you need something other then opinion, at least in most cases. He's not debated in this thread, he's just shoveled his personal attacks against other members of this forum. His views on Digital Point go way back from before he made his account here, and his clear lack of bothering to read anything has lead him to believe that you are the big fish of the forum here and that we all are your toadies.

Remember?

So with a mindset like that, did you expect anything civil, or even sane?

Though in a way, with a post like that one, I do get a kick out of him now having an account here at Digital Point. It makes him one of us girls, lol.