Google Revert??

[mlmleads]

It seems to me that Google has reverted from its move towards anchor text and back links back to it's favortism of DMOZ and sites which some how (don't ask they never list mine)get listed in DMOZ. I know at least for my keywords that's what they did..

Anyone else have a thought on this?

[achronister]

I highly doubt Google will ever put more weight into sites with DMOZ listings. Simply due to the fact that Google touts the fact that the SERPs are completely based on an algorithm, and DMOZ is controlled by humans. It would be moving in an opposite direction than what they have always proclaimed.

Inbound links/anchor text with proper on-page optimization still seems to be the way to go.

[mlmleads]

Originally Posted by achronister

I highly doubt Google will ever put more weight into sites with DMOZ listings. Simply due to the fact that Google touts the fact that the SERPs are completely based on an algorithm, and DMOZ is controlled by humans. It would be moving in an opposite direction than what they have always proclaimed.

Inbound links/anchor text with proper on-page optimization still seems to be the way to go.

While you may be right I still think my theory holds true. Case in point is my website. In Yahoo and MSN I have top spots a 2 and 3 listing prespectively. In Google on the same term I'm probably not in the top 50. While I used all the techniques that were supposed to help in Google. IE Inbound Links/anchor text with proper on-page optimization it hasn't helped much there except for on less competitive terms. This same optimization has the positive side effect of the yahoo and msn rankings I have. I'm even higher in the MSN beta which is a good sign. I'm pretty sure some of my competitors were dropped from MSN beta because of ad-words being on their site.

That being said one of my competitors with far less inbound links as reported by google has a number 2 listing, right under the number one listing, which is DMOZ. Trying to figure out a reason I discovered that the site in the number two position has a listing in DMOZ under the keyword he ahs the number 2 spot.

Before the last Google update (I think it was Florida) all of the top pages for any keyword ahs DMOZ listings regardless of any other SEO. This was obvious because of the Categorey link that sat under their web page that did not go under anyone that was not listed in DMOZ.

[tcampione]

For my primary keyphrase, my 7.5 month old site ranks #39 in a pool of 2.5 mil. The top 10 sites are all either DMOZ listed, are .edu's (with very little content) or are sites with .edu BLs, or a combination of the above.

My interpretation is that the top 10 are *trusted* sites, in that they are older sites (5 + years) they have links from non-commercials, and they've avoided SEO 'tricks'.

[cbp]

My views on DMOZ and being an editor is well known around here....

I agree with Achronister, I do not think Google gives any extra weight to a DMOZ listing.

HOWEVER (1), it is highly likely that if both Google (by algorithm) and DMOZ (by human) are doing their jobs, Google should rank at the top the better sites and DMOZ should also have listed in the category the better sites. So any relationship between Google rankings and DMOZ listing may be because the sites are good.

HOWEVER (2), a listing in DMOZ gives you around 4000 backlinks in all the clones. A surprising large number of them are listed in Google and have PR in the deeper categories. The duplicate content filter will ping some, but most format them different enough to not be filtered. So, while there may be no extra weight given to a DMOZ listing, that listing can give a few thousand backlinks --> especially if site title included keywords (ie anchor text)

HOWEVER (3) - maybe Google should give extra weight to a DMOZ listing as a way to get rid of spam. Take this as an eg: I recently did the rounds of a few hundred directories out there and was struck at how many had several spammy sites on mesothelioma listed (this cancer represents big bucks for attorneys) - I checked the sites and most were involved in ludicrous link exchanges and in every link exchange program/scheme going to try and rank (a number had hidden keywords, one I checked was cloakng etc). They are heavy purchasers of Adwords (just have a look at how many lawyers purchase them). There is bugger all content on mesiothelioma on a lot of the sites. If I was a searcher at Google and wanted info on mesothelioma, I would not want these crap sites. When you search Google for mesothelioma, fortunately, you do get good quality sites come up. Look at the DMOZ category for mesothelioma and they are all good quaility content sites (the spammy attorney one won't get in).... so maybe one way for Google to deal with this spam is to give more emphass on DMOZ listings....

CBP

[mlmleads]

Originally Posted by cbp

My views on DMOZ and being an editor is well known around here....

I agree with Achronister, I do not think Google gives any extra weight to a DMOZ listing.

HOWEVER (1), it is highly likely that if both Google (by algorithm) and DMOZ (by human) are doing their jobs, Google should rank at the top the better sites and DMOZ should also have listed in the category the better sites. So any relationship between Google rankings and DMOZ listing may be because the sites are good.

HOWEVER (2), a listing in DMOZ gives you around 4000 backlinks in all the clones. A surprising large number of them are listed in Google and have PR in the deeper categories. The duplicate content filter will ping some, but most format them different enough to not be filtered. So, while there may be no extra weight given to a DMOZ listing, that listing can give a few thousand backlinks --> especially if site title included keywords (ie anchor text)

HOWEVER (3) - maybe Google should give extra weight to a DMOZ listing as a way to get rid of spam. Take this as an eg: I recently did the rounds of a few hundred directories out there and was struck at how many had several spammy sites on mesothelioma listed (this cancer represents big bucks for attorneys) - I checked the sites and most were involved in ludicrous link exchanges and in every link exchange program/scheme going to try and rank (a number had hidden keywords, one I checked was cloakng etc). They are heavy purchasers of Adwords (just have a look at how many lawyers purchase them). There is bugger all content on mesiothelioma on a lot of the sites. If I was a searcher at Google and wanted info on mesothelioma, I would not want these crap sites. When you search Google for mesothelioma, fortunately, you do get good quality sites come up. Look at the DMOZ category for mesothelioma and they are all good quaility content sites (the spammy attorney one won't get in).... so maybe one way for Google to deal with this spam is to give more emphass on DMOZ listings....

CBP

CBP the reason so many are spamming that keyword is because the adword pays $75 per click so that translates to at least $20 click for an adsense publisher.

Anyhow onto the more important question. Since you are a DMOZ editor and all. How come I can't get my site listed in there http://www.mlmlead.net I submitted it in the most relavent content section

http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Marketi...ing_Lists/MLM/

I've made 3 submissions in the last 12 months and the editor ahs not made one addition to the section in the last 12 months. I think either they are biased and own one of these sites or they are simply not doing their job. Is there anyway you can help?

As you can see from my site it is more than relavent and not designed like garbage.

[cbp]

Anyhow onto the more important question. Since you are a DMOZ editor and all. How come I can't get my site listed in there http://www.mlmlead.net I submitted it in the most relavent content section

http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Marketi...ing_Lists/MLM/

I've made 3 submissions in the last 12 months and the editor ahs not made one addition to the section in the last 12 months. I think either they are biased and own one of these sites or they are simply not doing their job. Is there anyway you can help?

You realy need to go over to www.resouce-zone.com to ask the status (please read gudielines their before posting) - I don't have full access. All I can tell is that your site has been deleted from a couple of the other categories you submitted to (bad move) - are you sure its only been 3 submissions? You should only submit once to one category (as per guidelines).

CBP

[mlmleads]

Originally Posted by cbp

You realy need to go over to www.resouce-zone.com to ask the status (please read gudielines their before posting) - I don't have full access. All I can tell is that your site has been deleted from a couple of the other categories you submitted to (bad move) - are you sure its only been 3 submissions? You should only submit once to one category (as per guidelines).

CBP

CBP that page does not load. Is the URL correct?

[mlmleads]

Originally Posted by cbp

You realy need to go over to www.resouce-zone.com to ask the status (please read gudielines their before posting) - I don't have full access. All I can tell is that your site has been deleted from a couple of the other categories you submitted to (bad move) - are you sure its only been 3 submissions? You should only submit once to one category (as per guidelines).

CBP

CBP I'm sure which categories was it deleted from? I was never listed in DMOZ so don't know how I could of been deleted.

[cbp]

CBP I'm sure which categories was it deleted from? I was never listed in DMOZ so don't know how I could of been deleted

You were deleted from the pool of sites waiting for review for a couple of categories.

CBP

[tcampione]

Originally Posted by cbp

HOWEVER (3) - maybe Google should give extra weight to a DMOZ listing as a way to get rid of spam.

My gut tells me this is exactly what is happening, more so with this last update and for all the reasons you so eloquently describe. Spam is a huge problem for Google, probably even more than it is for ODP because an algo has to figure it out rather than human review.

As GG tightens the rules to trap spam, some good sites will get caught up in the filters. There’s plenty of evidence of that even now. I think GG would love to own ODP, but knows that even if Netscape were to sell, 90% of the editors would bail. Next best thing, leave well enough alone, but have a higher degree of confidence that if a site is ODP listed, there’s a good chance that it’s not spam.

[minstrel]

As cbp well knows, he and I have very different views of DMOZ...

I cannot see Google elevating the DMOZ factor in the future. On the contrary, I'm betting that they will decrease it further as time goes on.

One of the reasons is all those mirrors, as cbp notes: Why would Google or any search engine aiming at "democratic relevancy ranking" want to award several hundred or a few thousand points to a single directory listing? It's not as if DMOZ is unbiased or even close to comprehensive.

If anything, you might see Google moving to its own directory in the future. I'm inclined to doubt that but it's more likely than Google continuing to place any reliance on a rapidly rusting apparatus over which it has no control.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by mlmleads

I've made 3 submissions in the last 12 months and the editor has not made one addition to the section in the last 12 months.

Uh-oh.
You don't know what you're starting here mlmleads.
It is about money, pride and honesty, bonded together. It takes some time to understand.

Anyway, on the other side, I heard of several DMOZ editors that things are not as they were before.
Newly DMOZ listed sites could be put aside from the Google results for a while.

[mlmleads]

I think it is possible Google's favortism to DMOZ listings is because of the human review. The problem is the human review process stinks. Further more a professional of technology that has been around since BBS would probably get denied as an editor.

Someone should start a counter-DMOZ directory.

[cbp]

Further more a professional of technology that has been around since BBS would probably get denied as an editor.

Only those who can not write guideline compliant titles and descriptions in their applications; who submit inappropriate sample sites in their application; or who are not honest in declaring their affiliations get denied as editors.

CBP

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by cbp

Only those who can not write guideline compliant titles and descriptions in their applications; who submit inappropriate sample sites in their application; or who are not honest in declaring their affiliations get denied as editors.

Honestly, CBP, as much as I respect your opinions on many things, that seems like such a blatant party line statement and it is so much at odds with any one of a hundred posts in various forums that it's very difficult to believe.

[cbp]

Over 100 new editors have apparently (don't have exact numbers) been accepted so far this year.

From what I understand (as I am not directly involved), is most editor applications that get rejected are due to not complying with the gudielines for tites/descriptions for the sample sitesasked for in application or submitting 3 sample sites that are inappropriate for the category applying for. Imagine the work involved in cleaning up the mess if a new editor can't get those right. Editors more senior than me are involved in looking at editor applications and in cleaning up the mess when they get it wrong.

CBP

[greeneagle]

IMO - Google definitely prefers DMOZ listed sites (with and without...here)!!!!!!!!!

Ken