Value of a DMOZ link

Experiment:

A very informal and biased survey of debatable worth appears to show that there is nothing magical about a DMOZ listing.

http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Pets/Rabb...ts_and_Forums/
12 sites
Google SERP 1 "rabbits chats and forums" = 0 site.

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/K/KISS/
18 sites
Google SERP 1 "KISS band" = 1 site.

http://dmoz.org/Home/Cooking/Fruits_...tables/Pawpaw/
10 sites
Google SERP 1 "Pawpaw recipes" = 3 sites.

http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Scien...ies/Nefertiti/
6 sites
Google SERP 1 "Nefertiti" = 2 sites.

http://dmoz.org/Home/Cooking/Holiday...s/Gingerbread/
18 sites
Google SERP 1 "gingerbread recipes" = 2 sites.

http://dmoz.org/Business/Aerospace_a...airs/Software/
29 sites
Google SERP 1 "aircraft maintenance software" = 2 sites.

 

If you wanted to prove that there is "nothing magical" about a DMOZ link, there is plenty enough scientific method in your investigation to convince me.

 

There are only 2 sites that google actually recommends you get a link from. DMOZ and Yahoo.

 

Reference, please?

 

Personally I believe that when my site got listed in DMOZ it helped, but I have no facts to prove it. One thing I am sure of is that if you sell your website a DMOZ listing will add value.

As for your results, interesting, but how did you pick the catagories? Were they random or just one's that fit your hypothisis? I think you'd need a much larger random test group to determine a pattern.

 

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769

 

I don't take this to mean there is "extra love" for these links.

 

For starters, Plantation probably owns a pet rabbit and is a KISS fan.

 

If google trusts dmoz enough to use its titles in the serps then its pretty clear it trusts the links as well.

 

There is no evidence that Google trusts the links more than the ones I put in my websites.

 

Then what you take for extra love?

 

It not hard to get into dmoz listing you need to have unique content on your site

 

You're asking the wrong person. Helleborine is no longer an editor and she wasn't that kind of editor to begin with.

You might ask one of the current editors. Elsewhere at this forum, it's been suggested that the going rate should be no more than $10 maximum.

 

mad4, indeed you are correct.

But are you aware that DMOZ editors detest, or more to the point are disgusted by the fact that webmsters want their websites listed in the directory. I am not sure if you are aware of this fact?

Is google not misleading webmasters?

Google does indeed suggest DMOZ as a primary favored database and encourages webmasters to get links from there.

So where do webmasters stand regarding this confusion?

 

I too would like this question answered. I'd also like to know how old that recommendation was. Don't forget, there was a time a few years ago when Google actually featured the Google Directory (and regularly updated the DMOZ dumps) - but that was a few years ago. Now, it's even hard to find the Google Directory unless you are specifically looking for it and the last time they updated the DMOZ dump was a long time ago.

 

No, they were methodical and fitted the pattern of a random process.

I hope that helps.

 

I'm not sure this is a fact. I list an awful lot of submissions every day.

Maybe this is an opinion that only applies to some DMOZ editors?

 

Absolutely correct. Some of the nicest people you can ever know are there. But I encountered a few that thought they were aloof.

 

True, a very small group indeed and thus should be weighted so and given the same amount of relevance.

 

I don't know the true value of such a link but I own an older domain which has a DMOZ listing and about 5 other links left. It has PR 3 even though it had no content whatsoever for over 1 year.