In my opinion and observations - yes. In my theory it gives more "points" to your trustrank. Similar as getting a link from a .gov/.edu. Google knows that the links there are all manually reviewed and so IMO uses this as part of their algo. Not a major thing but enough to make a DMOZ listing something extra valuable. I have seen several times that a site ranks higher in the Google SERPs once Google found the DMOZ listing. Right or not, this is what it is IMO. Google also uses the DMOZ descriptions sometimes in the SERP listing.
I certainly agree with you JW. To simplify the term, a better comparison would be like the US Armed Forces and the former Iraqi Armed Forces, same army but the other one is a an "Original" World Powerhouse. That said, it might be true that there are of similar popularity of any league but it is listed in a Leaders of Leaders League which gives it, lets say a Class A listing or a 5 Star rated listing. Not paid, no backlinks or triangular links its just a listing with a Touch of Class.
What "observations"? I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. As for the .gov/.edu "trustrank" factor, Matt Cutts has specifically denied that that IS a factor. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-article-in-newsweek/#comment-5982 : Google must also know about some of the problems with those "human edited listings" and in that context I doubt that they are given any special treatment. I also highly doubt that Google's algorithm would ever give any special significance to a DMOZ link or any other link for that matter. As for higher rankings for a site once it is listed in DMOZ, that is no different from a site showing improved rankings for acquiring other "quality" backlinks. Google uses anything it can find that is relevant to the search query as a snippet, including the meta description tag. It does NOT mean that the source of the snippet figures into Google ranking. Indeed, what evidence I have seen suggests the opposite.
YES! Pages that rank 'high' are better for a link [on a specific topic] than pages that don't rank or rank very low. So to validate your question you would need to find a page on a given topic that ranks equally and get a link there... and then your point would be more validate than mine. One example that supports your position is an equivalent page in Yahoo - but there are others. [usually though there is a price attached for link inclusion].
fathom, this is bafflegab. What you are saying is that any page which ranks well for a given search term is a good page to have link to your page if you wish to rank for the same search term. I have no argument with that statement. But it has nothing to do with a listing in DMOZ or Yahoo or any other directory being better than any non-DMOZ or non-Yahoo link.
And I agree with you on that. [other than "1" you need to dedicate to quality web material or "2" pay for it with "$"]
Exaggerated claims of the value of a link from Dmoz have been made in the past in webmaster circles. Nowadays I see a lot more realism. Still once an idea takes hold, it is difficult to get rid of it. There are a lot of old articles and forum posts still around that new webmasters could take as gospel, preaching that a Dmoz listing is the route to Mecca. I've seen webmasters convinced that if only they could get just one Dmoz listing, they would be in clover. They fret and fume over it. Then lo and behold! One day they are in. And nothing happens. They post in deep disappointment that the expected vast benefits are not accruing. Sound advice is to depend on nothing.
No exaggerated claims... anyone that thinks a "single link" is the secret to success - is an idoit! That isn't what was said.
Actually, Genie is spot on. There are still a lot of webmasters, especially new webmasters, who have the impression that a DMOZ listing is the road to a top 10 search engine ranking. You'll find many examples of that among the posts here at DigitalPoint, or at any other webmaster forum.
My concern was more along the lines of the effects of a removed listing. But thanks for all the input. ~VegasMack
Certainly the Dmoz data gets used in a variety of ways. It's a favourite test bed for experimental search engines. I suspect the reason my site gets bombarded with every bot going is because of its Dmoz listings. (Just how many universities are going to start Internet projects, I ask myself?) The end result is that the Dmoz data has been used in novel ways, for example in Exalead. I still would urge people not to expect any kind of instant gratification from a Dmoz listing.
Yes they do. Especially the Adult section. They deserve special commendation for their efforts. They really do a lot in promoting pornography and assisting the pro-pedophilia community.
I guess every thread needs to be this topic? Close the forum and keep that thread open and then everyone is on topic.
Be nice to fathom, let the editors experience a democratic forum and see the difference with RZ and DMOZ. Who knows, may be after a while being here, they will understand and appreciate what FREE SPEECH means. It seems at present time, the only definition of free speech that they know is about defending pedophile sites.
Well I get that point to. And since we are off topic... Free speak what it is suggests whether I agree or disagree with the content of another website doesn't make it legal or illegal. Additionally, "a link" and "a description" isn't currently an illegal activity. I never reviewed any websites so truly can't base anything on my own observations - I guess I need to take you [and others] at their word that they are professionals in identifying "illegal content"... but it is safe to say that 'most' here are not trained in such matters [course that to is merely a guess]. I will say this: I did note on minstrel's site a bold disclaimer that suggests he is not responsible for the content of the resources listed? I would think anyone with strong convictions towards another organization would in fact demonstrate this same stance? As most websites linking to other sites tend to denote similar disclaimers - I find it refreshing that I have never found any such disclaimer on DMOZ [that does not mean it does not exist - if someone can point it out I would be grateful] which suggests that the organization does hold themselves accountable for what they link to... where most do not. In any case - it would be a major precedence to prove a 'link' and a 'description' is in fact an illegal activity. This is "my opinion" - it isn't right or wrong and while you may indeed disagree with it - that doesn't mean you are right or wrong. It does not suggest I defend pedophile sites - it merely suggests 'you are not likely an authority on the topic', nor likely an authority on legal precedence. I do apologize but I am not willing to just "ad hoc" take your word for the correctness of your opinion in this matter. <added>I am done in this thread to.</added>