More evidence that Google doesn't value DMOZ

Exactly, webmasters are notorious for being honest about their sites. It is once in a blue moon that they use techniques like spam. Look at our resident smarmy psychologist's google title and description.

Right on doctor Dave, so you are a Psychologist in Ottawa, I missed it the first half dozen times. Is this spammy crap the stuff that google users really want to see?

Heaven forbid google giving title and description like

Your one is so much better, better, much bettersly, betters, much better.

Are you arguing for the right of website owners to spam their google descriptions?

I also love what your NOODP tag has done to your windows search page.

Things a bit tight in the Psyc Doctoring world, you doing a bit of house painting on the side? A house painting shrink? I guess it could work. It really portrays that professional image that I am sure you are after. It really allows the site designer (Dr. David J. Baxter) to better represent what the site is about. I never knew you had such a wicked sense of humor.

 

We write title/descriptions for the human web surfer, I suspect many webmasters write them for the search engines and seo purposes. We speak to humans, they speak to machines.

 

Are you arguing that they don't have the right?

I do applaud the Editors for taking the thread off topic. By making it a personal issue about Minstrel it distracts the average reader away from the FACT that good is caring less and less about the mounting problems of DMOZ.

Is there an editor here that can actually discuss the topic at hand and not make it personal and actually back up their side of the discussion with something more substantial then postcount?

 

Google isn't really an ODP topic, is it? They're one of our largest downstream users, but we don't and have never worked for them, or any other downstream entity. The web surfer is the final user of all information whether it is from a directory or a search engine, and that's who we concentrate on.

When are the rest of you going to get on board with that fact and do the same, instead of infighting for position amongst yourselves on search engines?

Take a look at the facts. The Directory concentrates on the web surfer, you concentrate on yourselves and your own needs, do you not?

Take keywording titles and descriptions as an example. "Car parts, auto, vehicle, exhaust, engines, tires, starters, camshaft", rather than,

"High performance car parts dealer offering sales and service for foreign vehicles. Includes pricing, photos, articles, and shipping information."

How does the keywording benefit the web surfer, it doesn't, it only benefits your own selfish needs for pr on a search engine. Which description is more informative?

You fight with each other for search engine position, then bitch about the Directory for not helping you.

 

Point taken. That part of my site hasn't been updated in a very long time (that part of my little "network" launched in 1997, originally under a different domain name), so you've just done me a favor by pointing that out. However, do please understand that meta description tags do not figure into Google's ranking so the "spam" aspect of your comment really doesn't apply.

I'm arguing for the right of webmasters to choose what they want indexed and displayed in search engine rankings. In every other respect, Google honors that right. Why shouldn't they do the same for descriptions? And if it does look spammy, the only person who loses is the webmaster since that's often the snippet the searcher will see. Or if the webmaster goes overboard in spamming or any gray hat or black hat techniques, Google has a variety of options for decreasing the ranking of the site.

DMOZ can do what the hell it likes, of course. The point at issue is that webmasters were understandably upset when something that actually mattered - Google snippets - began showing DMOZ descriptions.

1. What on earth is a "windows search page"? Where are you seeing that?

2. The site in question is a still under construction site for my sister-in-law. Maybe that's why it says "Site created and maintained by"?

As far as I can tell, DMOZ has adopted a strategy (ever since the Annie debacle when their precious internal forum was so regularly leaked to DigitalPoint, exposing their inherent pettiness to the rest of the world) of sending out trained seals who are given instruction in the DMOZ trolling technique of "distract, diverge, or if all else fails launch a personal attack on the messenger" - a strategy that has worked so well for them at The Resourceless Zone...

 

Did you read the first post in this thread? Google used to hold DMOZ rather highly for a long time. It used to maintain it's own ODP clone, used to have links to it, and employees such as Matt Cuts discuss the directory at random times. With those points, Google is an ODP topic when discussing things on a webmaster forum. The fact that Google's interest in shrinking makes it an excellent point to discuss as well.

I will agree that most webmasters are confused about who their end users are. Many do think that it is the Search Engine, while in fact it is the end user as well. So it is the end user that ALL of us need to be concerned about.

While seeking Google Page Rank is not directly related to the end user, it is indirectly aimed that way, as it does effect SERP, as the higher the SERP, the more traffic, and it's traffic that is the end user (for even DMOZ).

In the end, the end user/web surfer IS the primary need of all of us.

Google also places the end user first, and far above the webmaster. SEO practices are actually highly frowned upon by them (and most other search engines). Every three months when Google updates it's PR webmaster circles are all abuzz trying to figure out just what changed so they can once again reach their desired SERP.

The keyword stuffing of many webmasters to to reach the desired SERP to pull in the end user, and in many cases a loose description is simply not enough for them, and at other times the ODP description is anything but descriptive.

As an example, in Arts: Television: News there is a site listing for "Independent Television News" Nice site name right? Well, check out it's listing:

ITN - Independent Television News
-- http://www.itn.co.uk/ Arts: Television: News ​

Now look at another site that uses an Acronym for it's name...

Open Directory Project - Help build the most comprehensive human-reviewed directory of the web.
-- http://www.dmoz.org/] Computers: Internet: Searching: Directories: Open Directory Project ​

Strangely the ODP is a cooled site, lol. I hope it wasn't an editor that cooled such an affiliated page

Another:

CNN - Cable News Network - Includes US and international stories and analysis, weather, video clips, and program schedule.
-- http://www.cnn.com/ News ​

However, when you google for any of them you should note that it's not the DMOZ description of the pages that is used, but rather the meta description.

Also note that the last two use the acronym, followed by the site name, for the link, then have a fair description of the site. The first one does not have such a nicety.

So as you can see, in many cases the ODP description is much worse then that of the site itself, as a description should be descriptive. Google and other search engines have seen this and have devalued the descriptive powers of the DMOZ editor.

 

Are you talking about this, by any chance?

If so, that's from the Psychlinks home page. Did you perhaps miss that word "ADVERTISEMENTS" right up there at the top before the links?

 

Now you're gettin silly, . Out of 5 million sites you pick out a news station.

The title is ITN, the description is what the letters stand for - Independent Television News. As the content is quite extensive and changing daily if not hourly (as news has a habit of doing) , it would be senseless to add any specific type of description, and I think most people understand what a news station is all about, pretty self explanatory.

Most sites in that category are treated the same way, except for AOL Television, the content of which has a slightly different focus:

AOL Television - Offers entertainment news and gossip about TV shows and TV stars.

 

I searched for "news" at dmoz and it was the fourth listed...I don't think it's all that silly. As if I was looking for news, that is NOT a descriptive description, it's just an extension of the title.

CNN is the same way in that its content is quite extensive, yet they have a more suitable title and description. If all descriptions in the ODP followed the guidelines for editors then it would have a title/description more like CNN. That or CNN should be listed as...

CNN - Cable News Network​

and DMOZ would look something more like:

ODP - open directory project​

I'm just pointing out a possible reason for Google devaluing the project and the use and need for a NOODP tag.

 

Leaked out of context, I might add, and given a little spin in here. Most conversations we have in the internal forums would probably bore you to death. Hell, they bore me to death sometimes.

Once in awhile we get a hot topic going and there's a big brew-ha, people get all pissed off, stomp out of the room, ect. Can't we have a fight and call each other names in private? sheesh

Well, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to call names, make insinuations, or provide personal attacks, and if we were sent here to do that, why have suzy1212, alucard, and myself refrained from doing so? That kind of blows that theory out the window, .

No, showing up over here and our conduct is a personal choice, nothing as nefarious as hit squads being sent out to destroy. Some of us just like to talk, I think.

 

One of the problems is that DMOZ descriptions are written in the context of a directory category name that adds context to the description, and that likely helps anyone viewing it (whoever that may be ). But if Google or one of the other search engines extracts the description and it is viewed out of that context, many of them do look pretty lame.

This is not restricted to DMOZ descriptions, by the way. The same issue applies to the Yahoo Directory and Yahoo now offers a solution to webmasters:

Yahoo! Search Support for 'NOYDIR' Meta Tags

 

No. They were not "leaked out of context" at all. They were discussions about the despicable treatment of compostannie and many of us, including me, had access to complete threads. Obviously, no one was going to quote the entire thread in a DP forum post but I can assure you that what was posted accurately reflected the contents of the threads cited.

The context of the threads was crystal clear. So were the posts from various individual editors and metas - some reflecting honor and integrity and compasxsion but others reflecting a complete lack of anything other than sycophancy.

 

Time for Ivan to step in, that's his field. Just in case he is on holiday, not seen here for a while, Hitler, sometimes called Motsa, has sent in the SS to ensure that all scum bagwebmasters are exterminated.

It's a good job all you guys give me a laugh.

With the sort of sites I review and see the webmasters description, I would sooner have the half broken sentences that Google still spews out even when the sites are 404. They might be able to update new material faster than us, but they seem to have a problem updating older material or they have forgotten to turn on those filters which filter out 404's and ODP clones.

I massively cut down on Google usage when they ceased using as much ODP material as they once did. You could see what you were getting into then, now mostly they just dish up gobbledegook as far as I can see. Oh yes, brings me full circle to webmasters and tagging.

Perhaps the discussion would better be, why has Google going down the road of advertizing etc now devalued itself and not used ODP. For my money, on a very personal level, I think Google has gone down hill. And for what it is worth, I do not mind how much or little they use ODP but my usage of them goes down as they use less.

 

@71

I see nothing wrong with webmasters being able to control their listings for pr or seo purposes, though I think a keyword type of description showing up in a search doesn't give the searcher the kind of info that would benefit them.

I don't click on such sites myself, unless I know the outfit personally and I'm familiar with the site. I've been to sites that crashed my computer, or put me on a spam list, and with all the viruses out there, and schemes, I'm a little cautious about where I go when surfing.

Following links on sites is fairly safe, and submitted sites are filtered, so it's not usually an issue. (though two suggested sites that had been hijacked did crash me).

 

One of my Yahoo directory listings has a description (and title) that was actually never correct for my website and which refers to a group practice with which I am no longer associated. That's a pretty good reason for wanting to have my own descriptions used rather than theirs.

I have seen similar inaccurate descriptions in DMOZ, including those for my own DMOZ listings. I am not necessarily suggesting that the DMOZ descriptions hurt my site - just that they aren't accurate. And I'm not an isolated instance.

Anyone remember DP member I, Brian's dispute with DMOZ? He indicated that the description of his site was not only inaccurate but damaging in its inaccuracy. He was told that the description wouldn't be changed. He then pointed out that it wasn't even in the right regional category. The listing was moved. He then requested that if the description couldn't be changed to something more accurate and less damaging he was formally requesting that the listing be deleted. The response to that request was a refusal with a statement that DMOZ owned the listing and would do what the hell it pleased.

 

I find it a little odd that regular bashers of the ODP and its editors would be so protective of one particular ex-editor. Why would you think so highly of one editor?

I don't think there's any editor who doesn't like annie, but we've actually worked with her, you haven't, so why would you be so incensed with her removal? Which, by the way, is no ones business but annies and the group of metas who removed her.

 

You really do have trouble staying on topic, don't you? There is already at least one thread here at DP about what happened to Annie and what was wrong about it - go find that thread and read it. There were also various blog posts about the issue, which you can still locate via DP or Digg. And if you have access to the DMOZ internal forum as you claim to do you can also read about it there, where many editors at the time, some who resigned over the issue, also spoke out about it.

Indeed, I find it rather astounding and disquieting that you are with one side of your mouth claiming that the contents of those internal threads were leaked out of context, and with the other side of your mouth betraying a lack of knowledge of the contents of those discussions. Go find and read those DMOZ threads too and then if you wish to continue discussing the Annie debacle I suggest you do so in a thread that's focused on that issue. In this thread, it's just one more form of distraction and smokescreening.

And finally, for the record, I still have copies of many or most of those discussions.

 

While you're typing let me give you my view about removed editors.

First, most of us aren't privy to any information the meta community has, so we're in no position to make any judgements at all about removed editors, for or against, it wouldn't be fair.

It takes 5+ meta editors and an administrator to make such decisions, and those conversations are available to all metas and administrators.

Next, metas and administrators are not in those positions because they lack knowledge, experience, and trustworthiness, so any decisions they make, I fully trust. And, they have tools and information that the rest of us don't have.

Next, as far as the discussion of any evidence or proof of wrong doing by any editor, I've stated that if the fox is standing there with the chicken in it's mouth, how much outside discussion is needed. That's not specific to annie, that's in general.

Added - You brought up Annie and her removal in this thread, so I'm responding and asking a very simple question, one that you seem hesitant to answer.

 

and

in the first you seem to accept that Google can do what it likes but resent ODP claiming the same.

And I do not and will not enter into discussion about Annie, if Annie wants that discussion she can come here and start it, but you may think that the threads were taken in context, but I read them most carefully and this site did not do put them in their correct context IMO, just as you have yours. Secondly you may have had access to all the general thread discussions, but I doubt that you had access to all the discussions that I did access to and that certainly put an odd twist on what was quoted here. But you will not draw me into a discussion about the subject nor any deeper about internal threads which were, IMO, despicably displayed here, as Crowbar says, out of context and with some low life editor having no value on privacy.

 

Not at all. It's answered in another long DP thread. Take it there.