You can't afford my sig link. It's reserved for things I care about and want to share with others. Things I'd blog about if I knew how. <embarrassed> They're not for my puny little website(s)
Even if I post you link to local newsgroup? What if I create 2000 pages multilanguage website about puppies?
why do people care sooo much about DMOZ, sure its got a high PR but wow get a few edu and other high pr links form other sites and its worth way more then a dmoz link.
Seems like every forum I go to that concerns search engines or web site development is full of DMOZ haters and defenders. So it must be relevant somehow since so many people make so many posts about it. I am an ex-editor; I don't hate it nor defend it. I don't submit many sites to it as most of my sites are made for profit. But if I have a site that I think will fit their guidelines then I submit it and forget it. If it gets listed, great. If it doesn't I will still live until I die. What I don't understand is why it stirs the passions of so many people on both sides of the fence that they spend so much time to express so much anger at each other. Not trying to cast stones at anybody or either side, I simply do not understand the passion about this issue. gene
PCtec, I've noticed the same exact thing. Everytime theres a complaint...the same old defensive arguments are used. You are right on the dot and I was actually wondering if there are people out there who saw it as obviously like I did.
I once found a thread that posed a goooood question. Ask yourself this: 1.) would there be THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of volunteer editors if DMOZ did not help your SEO at all ---no pr boost, no hundreds of extra inlinks due to odp, no nothing! Would people actually waste there time trying to become editors?? I would also like to know anyone who is an editor or an ex-editor and the requirement of time you had to put into volunteering. I also posted this in another topic that shows that there are unfair editors out there. http://thestatman.tripod.com/ Yes, the above site has been accepted into DMOZ and is pr rank 5 ...its also has free hosting service. Now, I truly believe that no real honest volunteer editor would accept this site, so it leaves me thinking that the person who accepted this site is your typical editor who accepts his own sites and declines others. This site literally has more ad's then content, which I find pretty sad. This category also has been updated a month ago, where as this listing been listed for about a good 1.5+ years. Goto Google, and search for "statman" ---this site, to no suprise is ranked #1. Now look at the top 2-6 sites for keyword statman and ask yourself..."shouldn't these sites be rank higher then this stupid lil tripod one?" For the ones who work hard on there site and submit to categories where you find sites way less qualified then yours and still get no response for your site...then I believe you have a right to be upset...afterall there are thousands of editors that can spot sh*t like this. Of course once you open your mouth and complain, a pro-dmoz person would respond saying "its not dmoz service to webmasters to accept sites...we only ask people to 'suggest' sites" To me, I think DMOZ is great since it helps my 2 other sites that are actually listed. My 3-4 other sites that got no response at all...I'm a bit upset because I truly feel the sites I put effort into are better then cheesy ones that actually get listed. You know the cheesy ones like the statman.tripod site. I have nothing against DMOZ and the ODP, but all I would want is for the value of DMOZ and all its directories that use the ODP dump to count as NOTHING towards Google so that theres more of an even playing field for webmasters....OR if ALL cheesy sites like the statman.tripod one were actually removed...i would feel much more comfortable if I knew the sites I submitted to were competing against sites that had the same quality and/or better then mine. And I only state Google because most of us know that if you do well in Google, you will do well everywhere else. Cheers
Pretty useless term - I doubt anyone searches for this term or that the site in question receives much traffic as a result of the search results. If you've an agenda against the site, go to the page where it's lsisted and submit an update request. It'll get looked at (and probably deleted). No need to post the url in multiple threads.
lol its okay. I was just trying to show an example site. Nothing actually against the person who built it or the person who accepted it. Sorry for posting it in both topics. I'll stop now with this mumbo jumbo.
Not sure I get your drift here. Why should Google (a website that started after DMOZ) censor its displays because you have nothing against the ODP? The ODP existed before Google; why should that count against it? I have nothing against your website, so should I contact Google and ask them to remove it from their displays? What response did you get from Google when you suggested they disciminate against a website that predates them?
I would never waste my time suggesting such a thing as I know it would probably not even be heard. Just not sure why Google makes DMOZ pr 8 even though directories are becoming obsolete. Also they say you can get hundreds of inlinks from being inside the ODP listings...It would be nice if these "extra links" can not give any weight at all since it's repetitive throughout all the directories that use the ODP's rdf dump. Theres also a difference between removing a site from an index and giving it lesser value then it deserves.
'm not sure I follow the logic here. Editors make mistakes plus sites get listed that were the best available at the time of listing but are no longer the best. In fact a site that was listed 1.5 years ago might not qualify to be listed today if better sites were available for the category. Once listed a site is seldom reviewed unless an update is requested or a complaint is received. Does this make DMOZ flawed or bad? Not in my opinion, it just makes it understaffed and staffed by humans who make mistakes. I am an ex-editor but not by choice. I crossed a Meta-editor during a forum discussion who removed me as an editor. He was removed himself a few months later but I was not reinstated. Does this make DMOZ corrupt or me hate DMOZ? No, editors are human, some are corrupt, the corrupt can rise to power faster than those who are not corrupt but they fall even faster as they are caught by the system. I would suggest that you if you feel this deeply about this site you request it be reviewed again. I would then suggest you forget it and just spend your time making your site the absolute best for your niche or category. Once you have done that then submit your site again. You might be pleasantly surprised. Again, this is just my opinion. Most of what I have read here is just the opinion of the person giving it but a few seem to have a very high opinion of their opinions. gene
"They" may say that. It doesn't make it true. Follow my link to "duplicate content filter" in the other thread where you posted this.
Yes. 1. Many editors know little about SEO and care less - it's a hobby to them. 2. For those editors who got into DMOZ for SEO purposes, they were either misguided or they got in at a time when a DMOZ listing had more value than it does now.
I would say that the reason DMOZ editors waste so much time is the same reason we all waste so much time in forums such as this one when we could be working on something.
lol gene, I wouldn't call spending times on forums a waste. You can actually learn something. Also forums are a good way to debate on issues you believe in....its also a good way to see other peoples point of views you strongly agree with. You can aslo spend time on forums asking for feedback. It has many uses! Where as being a DMOZ editor...uhh? I just don't know what the real uses are? Do these editors make it a hobby to review sites and list them? I just don't see the fun or usefulness of that. Why not just go to review sites to give your opinion or even message boards to talk about sites. I just don't know...