1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Why can't Google directory ditch DMOZ???

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by peppy, Aug 22, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #121
    Ah, scavenge for sites from outside of your pending bin.
    Lets see what we have here.

    You’re adding site without asking owner permission in spite of the fact owner never asked you to add his site to DMOZ Index in a first place and then claim his site as your own property. The fact that you are obliging Google and other directories, which use your data to provide attribution on their pages, clearly states that you made such a claim.

    I’m sure you know that the only time you have right to claim all data in DMOZ Index as your own if these sites suggested for inclusion and site owner agreed to the following:
    In another words when you find site on Internet you cannot edit or alter that site Title and Description and you must add that site as is because site owner never granted you permission to make any changes. Every time you make any changes you are violation the right of the owner to have his site Title and Description intact as he has proposed them.

    Now, and that is the fact, when you’re asking Google and other directories to place that ugly attribution box, you are committing fraud by claiming that data you are providing is Proprietary and obtained lawfully in accordance with your Terms and approved by site’s owners.

    Here you have it.
    If you adding sites to your directory without permission, then you cannot claim them as your own thus you cannot ask for attributions to your beloved DMOZ

    I'm sure your AOL lawyers will tell you that you are in violation of your own Terms
    not to mention Copyright Laws.

    ;)

    fastreplies
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2009
    fastreplies, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  2. caprichoso

    caprichoso Peon

    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #122
    Note another obscure spot here: There is no way DMOZ can be sure a site is submitted by its owner and copyright holder. Therefore, when a DMOZ editor lists a site taken from its suggestion queue (a copyrighted site), DMOZ starts violating international laws.
     
    caprichoso, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  3. peppy

    peppy Active Member

    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    75
    #123
    DMOZ data needs to be taken off Google. DMOZ can continue their own little directory building project but it has no business deciding who is and who is not allowed to be in the Google directory.

    Especially when editors tell me never to submit my site again and get permanently banned because some editors don't like me.

    I hope you read my Ezine Article that I posted yesterday about getting your competitors banned permanently. We should all go on all the forums and get all the best sites permanently banned so the quality rating of DMOZ drop and Google will have one extra reason to drop DMOZ.
     
    peppy, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  4. Pixelrage

    Pixelrage Peon

    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    128
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    My guess is that G directory is a forgotten project. Google has a ton of other stuff that is taking a much higher priority, like Wave, Analytics, etc. All of those projects probably have teams, but I'm willing to bet the Directory team is not more than a couple people who don't do anything but monitor it.
     
    Pixelrage, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  5. peppy

    peppy Active Member

    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    75
    #125
    This is why Google need to get rid of it.

    People here say DMOZ is dead (and it is in terms of quality and freshness), but many people are still receiving huge benefits from being listed, especially getting into Google's own directory. THIS is what needs to die, no more unfair advantages to corrupt editors adding their own sites and getting a free ride into the Google directory.
     
    peppy, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  6. Agent000

    Agent000 Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    506
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #126
    Could you please explain why there are so many threads here and on other forums that say there is no or minimal benefit to being listed in DMOZ or Google directory? Are you saying that there is a big benefit from being listed?
     
    Agent000, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  7. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #127
    I’m sure peppy won’t mind if I will answer your question

    In old time when some directory site would use DMOZ index (data), Google would count link from DMOZ and every other directory thus giving listed in DMOZ clones sites maybe like 20, 30 or what so ever backlinks. Since Google start ignoring DMOZ clones, your site start getting only 1 backlink from DMOZ and that’s it.

    Some stats.
    Compare to DMOZ 1 backlink, our AMRAY directory will give your site 4 backlinks all of which indexed by Google

    ;)

    fastreplies
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2009
    fastreplies, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  8. nitin22

    nitin22 Active Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #128
    I think Google not having its own directory is a tactical decision. Google always insists thats its SERPs can never be bought. If they start a yahoo like directory and start giving more weightage to sites listed in directory, then it will imply that anyone can pay G $299 or whatever and can get better ranking in SERPs.
     
    nitin22, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  9. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #129
    Rubbish idea.
    People who are buying Adsense or Adwords have no SERP privileges what so ever.
    Why would Directory be any different?

    :confused:

    fastreplies
     
    fastreplies, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  10. nitin22

    nitin22 Active Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #130
    Directory will be different, because from directory you are getting a static link. And since you are getting the link, this link will help you in getting good SERP. That is why people pay dollars to BOTW and all these directories so that they can get link. That is why people are praying to DMOZ, so that they get link from top PR pages of DMOZ and then due to this link they eventually get better SERPs.

    Adsense and Adwords are not used for link building. Directory is used for link building. When google allows you to advertise at adwords, it is not giving you link from Google.com But if it has a directory it is giving you a direct link from directory.google.com or whatever and hence passing its own PR to your site.

    I hope it makes clear to you the difference between adwords and directory link.
     
    nitin22, Sep 4, 2009 IP
  11. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #131
    Now you are presenting foolish argument.

    People pay Yahoo $299 knowing Yahoo won't give them any leverage in SERP.
    Why will Google be any different?

    :confused:

    fastreplies
     
    fastreplies, Sep 5, 2009 IP
  12. 415

    415 Peon

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #132
    I have a better argument and that is why google doesn't give more weight to many other directories other then a very small few. As for google and dmoz, well google has always done things there own way and no matter what we think they are going to run there own biz the way the like.
     
    415, Sep 6, 2009 IP
  13. nitin22

    nitin22 Active Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #133
    Gosh.. Will you ever understand using a better language than foolish and stupid.

    You are confused. Goggle gives lot of value to DMOZ listing. That is why at the first place, people started giving weightage to an obscure directory like DMOZ.
    GOogle gives lot of value to yahoo directory listing / dmoz directortory listing and all other similar high quality directory listing.
    It is such a basic stuff that I hate to explain to someone like you who has this much of experience and still is saying as yahoo doesnt give weightage to dir listing, why Gogglwe will give.
    Answer is G already gives lot of weightage to dir listing specially yahoo and dmoz listing.
     
    nitin22, Sep 7, 2009 IP
  14. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #134
    Well, Mr. Knownothing

    If you have any idea what you are talking about then explain the following.
    AMRAY is not listed in DMOZ and Yahoo and yet you can try Google for:
    best free directories (page 1)
    best free directories list (page 1)
    free web directories (page 2)
    free web directory (page 3)
    free directory listing (page 2)
    free listing (page 2)

    and list goes on.

    Now Mr. Talkingtomuch, G. gives DMOZ and Yahoo NO more than power of 1 backlink, that's it no more no less and no special privileges of any sort.

    Oh, and while you're going to come up with some kakameny explanation,
    tell me, how come DMOZ is NOT COMING up for the same search terms that are placing AMRAY on page#1 in Google

    :rolleyes:

    fastreplies
     
    fastreplies, Sep 7, 2009 IP
  15. RDNA

    RDNA Banned

    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #135
    Been listed in DMOZ/ Google directory is a big bonus but it doesn't guarantee the first place in Serp. Lots of sites have good listing without it.:)
     
    RDNA, Sep 7, 2009 IP
  16. peppy

    peppy Active Member

    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    75
    #136
    That is the key phrase there. Google needs to ditch DMOZ because of self-favoring editors adding their own sites to get that free big bonus.

    Kind of like starting off climbing a mountain, we all start at the bottom, but these corrupt DMOZ editors adding their own site get a helicopter ride half way up the mountain. I think that's unfair.

    It's fine if they actually EARNED those links OR if Google would let anyone have the chance to get listed (a possible fee?), but I believe it's bad business when editors can just freely place their own sites when no one else can, especially when editors and metas at DMOZ have told me not to ever submit my site there again.

    This is also bad business for Google and any visitor using results from DMOZ since the sites listed there are NOT representative of the best sites on the web, most don't even come close and should never have passed "human edited" guidelines.
     
    peppy, Sep 7, 2009 IP
  17. nitin22

    nitin22 Active Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #137
    Gosh! Some people are just ridiculous, whose only claim to fame is bad mouthing. Your post doesn't deserve a response.
     
    nitin22, Sep 7, 2009 IP
  18. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #138
    I'll tell you what...
    I would rather to look ridiculous than stupid and.... talking about "ridiculous",
    when I made my statements in Public Forum, I make sure they are supported by the facts.

    In my post, I have presented them for Public scrutiny thus giving you and others
    an opportunity to prove me being wrong.

    Now, lets see who is ridiculous in here.
    Prove me being wrong

    :rolleyes:

    fastreplies
     
    fastreplies, Sep 8, 2009 IP
  19. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #139
    If you are going to say something is wrong and offer up nothing other then saying it's wrong, how does that prove anything?

    FANTASTIC! So you admit that you don't bother with the queue either? SUPER, GREAT, I knew I was right!

    FORGET TO SUBMIT is the new motto!

    Though, for the record, you only got me half right... I generally say that editors do not have to look at the queue, or that many do not, I don't ever recall saying NO EDITORS do, as that would be a lie, as I certainly used mine while I was an editor. However, I can say that according to most of the threads here and other places the wait time for suggesting a site or NOT bothering too often result in the same wait time... "up to two weeks or more" so *shrug*
     
    Qryztufre, Sep 8, 2009 IP
    fastreplies likes this.
  20. fastreplies

    fastreplies Banned

    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    99
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #140
    I hate giving Red Negs.... well, mine just have not enough juice, but that guy deserves any little bit I have

    ;)

    fastreplies
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2009
    fastreplies, Sep 8, 2009 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.