google & ODP

[genordell]

ODP shot themselves in the foot

firstly, the directory is extremely difficult to get into -- the time & effort involved in each submit, and then the low likelihood of approval

secondly, many categories are without editors, or they disappear, and so the effort to submit is wasted

thirdly, it is extremely difficult to become an editor, they do not want your help

fourthly, the categories skip many areas of interest AND a page can be in only one category

ODP is basically a closed shop, and their small amount of content has made them increasingly irrelevant -- compared to Google & Fast's one-click fullsite submission and their 2+ billion URL databases

the absence of ODP on Google's main page is an improvement and a wise decision

[cbp]

You really need to spend some time understanding what ODP is about...


firstly, the directory is extremely difficult to get into -- the time & effort involved in each submit, and then the low likelihood of approval

Thats becasue ODP is not a free listing service for webmasters. Do you actually know why it takes so long? (HINT: it has nothing to do with the activity levels of editors and has a lot to do with so many spammy submissions; submission to wrong categories; most sites submitting non-guidleine compliant descriptions etc that waste an editors times.)

It is not the role of an editor to process submissions - they are really only suggestions. It is the role of an editor to build the category.


secondly, many categories are without editors, or they disappear, and so the effort to submit is wasted

Wrong. All categories have lots of editors.


thirdly, it is extremely difficult to become an editor, they do not want your help

ODP does want help, but maybe not your help - it only wants good editors. Its easy to become an editor, if you follow the guidelines. No new editor is going to be approved for a large category (or even a small spam prone category); not going to be approved if they do not submit 3 URLs in the application with typo or non-guideline compliant descriptions (common); lie in the application (common); or worse submit 3 URL's in the application that do not even belong in that category - imagine the damage an editor can do if they do that? Having an editor that screws up additions to the category etc, wastes more time of other editors who have to fix it up.


fourthly, the categories skip many areas of interest AND a page can be in only one category

And the problem with that is ...? Guidelines are explicit. One site = one category (unless it exceptional in which case the editor will decide to add it)


ODP is basically a closed shop, and their small amount of content has made them increasingly irrelevant

... all this just because you did not get a listing? ODP adds 3000-4000 new sites a day - it is achieveing what it set out to do.... I just assume you think it should be doing something else.


-- compared to Google & Fast's one-click fullsite submission and their 2+ billion URL databases

You are very confused ... Google is a search engine - ODP is a Directory - very different entites trying to achieve different things.


the absence of ODP on Google's main page is an improvement and a wise decision

Yes it is. Now many people will now actually think ODP is not so important and there won't be so many spammy submissions for editors to waste time on and people won't come up with such inane understandings of what ODP is about.

BTW, given that the Google version of ODP is now underpinning Google' personalized search, being in ODP is probably more important now than it has ever been.

CBP

[mmltonge]

The one thing i have an issue with is editors that are webmasters of a site in their category as they will always favour their site. The category i have been listed in is :Music:Concerts and Events:Festivals:Reading Festival... Now the editor runs 3 of the sites in this category and all of them are top of the list with his main site being highly ranked in ODP (the gold star thing next to it) which helps him alot in google and hits + profit wise. His site should only be top if it contains the most up to date, relevant and best site in the category. Now my site IS better than his for new content and quality of content but it is not the best in the category, the top one should be the official site or one other which is best unofficial one (efestivals) ...

this type of 'cheating' by webmasters will happen too often in a human edited directory, i feel that editors should not be allowed to own sites in their directory which is why i do not like the way ODP works... but hey its a good idea just needs smoothing out in my opinion

[cbp]

The one thing i have an issue with is editors that are webmasters of a site in their category as they will always favour their site. The category i have been listed in is :Music:Concerts and Events:Festivals:Reading Festival... Now the editor runs 3 of the sites in this category and all of them are top of the list with his main site being highly ranked in ODP (the gold star thing next to it)

That is against ODP guidelines for an editor to "the gold star thing next to it" their own site.

Report the abuse here:
http://report-abuse.dmoz.org

If what you say is correct, ot will get dealt with. ODP takes this sort of thing seriously.

CBP

[mmltonge]

ahhh i never knew you could report that sort of thing. Although i feel a bit petty about it, my only gripe is it helps him make a profit where as the sort of sites we run are supposed to be for music love not for profit :/ which is why i think its bad of him. I'll report it anyway although feel bad about it

[cbp]

I'll report it anyway although feel bad about it

Don't feel bad - I am sure ODP will appreciate it...

Some people come to forums and bag the ODP for the corruption, but when pushed they can't cite one real example .... just don't figure !!!

The purpose of the abuse forum to to allow this alleged corruption to be dealt with - its there for a purpose!!!! - ie to be used.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

I agree! DOMZ shot themselves in the foot....BIG TIME!



but when pushed they can't cite one real example

I can!
http://resource-zone.com/forum/ The forum is FULL of complaints and problems.

They took over 2 years to change the URL of my site and move it to another category.

I sent over 20 email over that 2 year period to DMOZ and to the editor of the category. Not one single reply!

I once spent 2 hours going through a category and posted on Resource-Zone all the dead links, doorway pages, redirects, mirror sites and duplicate listings. That was 6 months ago, not one single change.

The simple fact is the volunteer system doesn't work. They cannot keep up with the growth of the internet. The majority of the DMOZ directory is stale and not showing sites until years, in some cases, after they are launched. volunteer only do what they feel like (because they are volunteers) and some do next to nothing. I fear they will not move away from a volunteer system, which will shoot their other foot soon.

Check you logs, see just how much traffic comes from DMOZ and all directories using it. Mine is less than 1%


Good Move Google.

[cbp]

I can!
http://resource-zone.com/forum/ The forum is FULL of complaints and problems.

Really - I do not see many (? any) to do with corruption. I see lots of whines from webmasters who think DMOZ is a free listing service and demanding that they be listed.

Perhaps this thread might put things in perspective:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12651


They took over 2 years to change the URL of my site and move it to another category.

Most changes and submissions added/deleted happen anywhere between 2 minutes and 2 years. Editors can edit whenever and where they like - they can process submissions; they can update sites listed; they can find and add new sites that have not been submitted (my preference); they can delete spam in the submission list without even adding any sites; etc.


I sent over 20 email over that 2 year period to DMOZ and to the editor of the category. Not one single reply!

I am not surprised. According to the guidelines emailing DMOZ or the editor is NOT the way to update a listing. Editors are encourgaed not to reply to emails.


I once spent 2 hours going through a category and posted on Resource-Zone all the dead links, doorway pages, redirects, mirror sites and duplicate listings. That was 6 months ago, not one single change.

I can't answer that one - but maybe it is a category that no editor has an interest in - maybe the editor is busy behind the scenes deleting all the spam ...can you point me/us to the thread at resource-zone so someone can check it.


The simple fact is the volunteer system doesn't work. They cannot keep up with the growth of the internet.

It is growing at 3000-4000 sites a day.... thats impressive by any standard and is achieving what DMOZ set out to do. It might not be achieveing what you think they should be setting out to do.


The majority of the DMOZ directory is stale

Not its not. If its that bad why are there 100's of downstream users (eg Google, AOL, Excite, ScienceDaily etc being the most prominent) so willing to use DMOZ as their directory.


and not showing sites until years, in some cases, after they are launched.

Why should they? DMOZ is not a free listing for every site on the WWW - it is a listing of selected sites.


volunteer only do what they feel like (because they are volunteers) and some do next to nothing

.... yeah - adding 3000-4000 sites a day is not doing next to nothing.


Check you logs, see just how much traffic comes from DMOZ and all directories using it. Mine is less than 1%

I would assume that is the case for most sites - but thats not what DMOZ is there for.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

Most changes and submissions added/deleted happen anywhere between 2 minutes and 2 years. Editors can edit whenever and where they like - they can process submissions; they can update sites listed; they can find and add new sites that have not been submitted (my preference); they can delete spam in the submission list without even adding any sites; etc.

Between 2 min and 2 year! How does that help the users when half of what they see is outdated.


I would assume that is the case for most sites - but thats not what DMOZ is there for.

If it's not being used it's not worth much.


I am not surprised. According to the guidelines email DMOZ or the editor is NOT the way to update a listing. Editors are ensourgaed not to reply to emails.

Yet they have their email forms where you can "contact the editor". Any Web site that refuses to answer emails is doomed to fail.


I can't answer that one - but maybe the it is a category that no editor has an interest in - maybe the editor is busy behind the scenes deleting all the spam


Exactly my point! Many are just NOT interested. This is the problem with the whole volunteer system.


It is growing at 3000-4000 sites a day.... thats impressive by any standard and is achieving what DMOZ set out to do. It might not be achieveing what you think they should be setting out to do.

If it's set out to fail then I agree. The simple fact is, they are not keeping up.



Not its not. If its that bad why are there 100's of downstream users (eg Google, AOL, Excite, ScienceDaily etc being the most prominent)

Because there is nothing out there any better and isn't it free? Directories are becoming a thing of the past.


Why should they? DMOZ is not a free listing for every site on the WWW - it is a listing of selected sites.

Hey, they dont have to do anything But it's hardly suprising they are been shunted out the back door. They cannot even keep up with selected sites let alone all sites.


.... yeah - adding 3000-4000 sites a day is not doing next to nothing.

How many editors are there?

You can attempt to defend DMOZ but the truth is it's not anywhere near as needed or useful as a few years ago. Google, over the last 2 years, has updated about 4 times. Prior to that it was more frequent. Now they drop DMOZ off the homepage. You must be blind to not see the writing on the wall.

[cbp]

You can attempt to defend DMOZ but the truth is it's not anywhere near as needed or useful as a few years ago.

In your opinion


Google, over the last 2 years, has updated about 4 times.

9 times


You must be blind to not see the writing on the wall.

In your opinion

I guess we will have to agree to disagree....

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree....

Fair enough.

[windharp]

You can attempt to defend DMOZ but the truth is it's not anywhere near as needed or useful as a few years ago.

Usefull for whom?
Marketing guys? You are right. But it never was intended to be a marketing tool.
Users? I disagree with you on that one. Try to define usefullness for the user of a directory. Some possible measures:

1) "size" - aka number of links for a given topic. Still growing, not loosing on that one. [Edit to add: I just read an internal statistic that showed we added more than 200 links each day in the german section of the ODP in 2004]

2) "categorization" - still getting better - new categories created all the time, so that one is okay too.

3) "spam/broken links/..." - We are constantly inventing new methods to reduce spam. But as everyone knows (looked in Google recently?), some so called "SEO" permanently invent new methods to spam. So there will always be some of it around. Broken links are an issue at the moment, that is right. Cause: Due to the charset conversion we delayed the automated linkchecking system (RboZilla).

PS: Sorry, but I won't post a second time in this thread. Previous longer discussions (in another forum) with Dave have not lead anywhere.

[mmltonge]

Well, CBP i posted the abuse i dont know how long it will take to correct but im not expecting anything to be done personally as the guy has covered his tracks his email is different i suspect his name is different. And even if asked to remove the site, he co runs 3 others in the same category which is overruling the other sites chances of getting anywhere. This guy is making a huge profit on affiliate programs because he is doing this in ODP as all 4 of his sites are listed high in google due to the main one having the star... and the others linking from it (PR 5 i think now) on main page etc... all his attempt to overwhelm the subject when it is not even meant to be competitive... just fair and for festival goers to see best possible info.

As for ODP... personally i think i could do a great job of editing, im online daily i would happily check the topic i edit daily and make sure all links are up to date. Unfortunately i must be doing something wrong (probably a slight spelling error) in my applications as i have applied 3 times and been turned down for various categories. I proof read the submission and made sure sites were relevant caps in right place etc... but not accepted, this is what made me feel the way of selecting editors was a bit strange.

Anyways, ODP is very useful, just because your site doesnt recieve much traffic from DMOZ itself, google search ranking benefit hugely if your in DMOZ (especiially top of a cat)

Mark

[cbp]

mmltonge

Do a Google search for become dmoz editor - you will get lots of advice from a number of sources on completing the editors application.

CBP

[mmltonge]

OK i read through some and applied again this time for Festival:Guides as it had no editor and was very small. Hopefully ill be accepted... out of interest CBP are you an editor/senoir editor of the ODP? Just comes accross that you do alot for them.

[cbp]

I edit 3 small categories. All sites are up-to-date. I regularly check and tweak descriptions of those that are listed. No site waits more then 12 hrs for rejection or listing (I check 2x a day) - more than half get rejected - it did take me a while to initially clear the back log when I started. I add more sites from finding them via Google and personal knowledge than from the submissions. I went out of my way to list my "competitors" sites (even though they had not even been submitted) and my site is listed in my editors profile at DMOZ, so everyone can see what "vested interest" I have in the category to keep it all 'above board'.

OK, I am defensive of DMOZ as I am an editor (I have mentioned that numerous times here, so its no secret). DMOZ does have some problems that I agree with, but I have an issue with all those who whinge and complain about DMOZ, when they are basing their issues on a mis-understanding of what DMOZ is (it is not a free listing service for all websites; its editors are volunteers and only have x amount of time; its customers are the users of the data, so DMOZ is concerned about them and not webmasters; submitting a site is not the main source of sites for a category - its actually an inefficient method for editors; etc). A lot of this has come through in this thread here and this thread at resource zone:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12651
I recommended everyone read that thread in total (its 6 pages now).

At the end of the day 3000-4000 sites get added every day (thats impressive), there might be 30 or so status request a day at resource zone and a few of those complain. In all the different forums, there might be a few webmasters a week complain that they do not get listed..... now lets see - 3000-4000 listed a day, with only a few complaints .... thats less than 0.001% of webmasters unhappy with DMOZ - the forums and RS give a very biased view of the reality.

Reading above, Dave and I agreed to disagree. I see DMOZ going from strength to strength and Dave sees it as dieing ... I just think it is wishful thinking to predict the end of DMOZ. Where is the objective evidence it is dieing? (remember 3000-4000 new sites get added every day; OK, the www is growing at a qicker rate than that, but thats not evidence its dieing as DMOZ is not planning on indexing the whole www; OK, Google did drop the directory link off its home page, but it upped the importance of the directory as underpinning the personalized search; there are lots of allegations of corruption, but those making them almost never come up with the 'goods' when asked for eg's; there are allegations that the volunteer systems doesn't work - its working fine from where I sit; a number of former editors make all sorts of allegations, but privacy issues prevent senior editors revealing the truth about that former editor; etc, etc, etc).

In realty the "evidence" that DMOZ is dieing is that they "rejected MY site" and there a few dead links in some categories .... yeah right !!!

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

No Desire to 'fan the flames' again but a couple of points.


Usefull for whom?

I meant users. Like I keep saying, the traffic from DMOZ and ALL those the feed from it is next to nothing. This appears to be the same for all sites, not only mine. Surely that must say something?

As for the PR gain from DMOZ, I for one do NOT believe it holds any more value than any other page with the same PR and same number of links. I also do NOT believe the position of a link has any bearing. Here is what I do believe Google would use in regards to PR only for DMOZ.

Pass on an equal amount (roughly) to all pages regardless of the page catergory PR, number of links and postion on page. I say this as it would be the only way to have Googles statement ring true: "PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web" Now, if a category is PR8 and has only a few links the ones lucky enough to be placed in this category would have a un-democratic edge over those unlucky enough to fit in a category with PR3 and 50 links. I think Google has invested too much time and money in PageRank to let this happen!

However, this is really academic as DMOZ is not there for Webmasters, but for users, correct?




Where is the objective evidence it is dieing?

1) The less frequent updates from Google in the last couple of years.

2) The very low traffic coming from DMOZ and all other directories. Unless of course DMOZ is aiming at having a directory rarely used.

3) The fact Google have removed the Directory link from their homepage and their reasons for doing so. I.e low click throughs to the directory.

[cbp]

1) The less frequent updates from Google in the last couple of years.

2) The very low traffic coming from DMOZ and all other directories.

3) The fact Google have removed the Directory link from their homepage and their reasons for doing so. I.e low click throughs to the directory.

I guess this is when we are going to have to agree to disagree again...

I don't see any of those 3 pointing to DMOZ being in decline.

CBP

[Andilinks]

In realty the "evidence" that DMOZ is dieing is that they "rejected MY site" and there a few dead links in some categories .... yeah right !!!

Being rejected is always painful and it's only human nature to be resentful, I know that my attitude about DMOZ changed after my site was listed.

The earlier rejections did spur me on to improve the site, which is the heathiest way to respond to rejection. Publicly grumbling about being rejected will hurt your own image more than DMOZ's.

But while not dying, the importance of DMOZ and directories in general diminishes for individual searchers as pinpoint searches by Google and others improves. The importance of human editing and categorization however, will not diminish for several decades at least, in my opinion. So DMOZ does face a challenge.

As public awareness of the importance of directories fades when every search begins and ends with Google, a DMOZ editorship will also fade in importance in the public's perception. That will make it an even more thankless unpaid job.

The onslaught of spam submissions and internal corruption are the greatest dangers to DMOZ and they will have to figure out a means to deal with them more efficiently.

At this point in history, what Google does or doesn't do is the most important steering mechanism on the internet and for DMOZ this loss of position is either a wake-up call or a portent of (slow and gradual) doom.

That's just what I think...

Andi

[fathom]

No Desire to 'fan the flames' again but a couple of points.


Usefull for whom?

I meant users. Like I keep saying, the traffic from DMOZ and ALL those the feed from it is next to nothing. This appears to be the same for all sites, not only mine. Surely that must say something?

Surely "traffic" implies a commerical attribute... DMOZ was built on and for research.


As for the PR gain from DMOZ, I for one do NOT believe it holds any more value than any other page with the same PR and same number of links.

Correct - the "single" link is precisely as any other link on the web. The rdf replication across many other web properties means, submit, review
, accept, and duplicated 100's of times over... thus the "value" is doing every single thing you can to conform to the first step "guidelines"... short changing your site there means you really have no research benefit to the web.


I also do NOT believe the position of a link has any bearing.

This isn't quite accurate... link importance runs page top to page bottom and left to right. You can easily prove this by simply taking your "home" buttom and moving it to the bottom right corner.


However, this is really academic as DMOZ is not there for Webmasters, but for users, correct?

DMOZ IS categorically for research in any topic or regional area. For myself (as an SEO) I use DMOZ to gain industry perspective when gaining a new client - and in an industry I have no background.

The noticably less commerical aspect of DMOZ means "I feel lucky" is a better than average bet that I will actually learn something through the reviewed links, and not just "widgets are comparably priced at $14.95".



Where is the objective evidence it is dieing?

1) The less frequent updates from Google in the last couple of years.

2) The very low traffic coming from DMOZ and all other directories. Unless of course DMOZ is aiming at having a directory rarely used.

3) The fact Google have removed the Directory link from their homepage and their reasons for doing so. I.e low click throughs to the directory.

hmmm...

Unfortuately, like any other web property DMOZ has pages and links... like your site -- and few sites use your data, few sites get loads of traffic from your website, and Google never had a button to you... so based on your own objective stance" - your website must be dead - right?

None of these points are really the important parts of this equation.

Googlebot and every other crawler loves DMOZ because they can crawl and reach the important global connections of the WWW easily, and there is no decline here.

[Dave Hawley]

Correct - the "single" link is precisely as any other link on the web. The rdf replication across many other web properties means, submit, review , accept, and duplicated 100's of times over... thus the "value" is doing every single thing you can to conform to the first step "guidelines"... short changing your site there means you really have no research benefit to the web.

Not sure what you are trying to say here??? Are you trying to say that, Google passes on PR for each directory page a page is duplicated on?




This isn't quite accurate... link importance runs page top to page bottom and left to right. You can easily prove this by simply taking your "home" buttom and moving it to the bottom right corner.

I'm only talking in the context of PR from Google, nothing else. I highly doubt that Google would give more PR to a page called "Aardvark" over one called "Zebra" (most links are alphabetical). Like I say, Google has invested millions in PageRank and that would be plain silly. Google aint silly!



Unfortuately, like any other web property DMOZ has pages and links... like your site -- and few sites use your data, few sites get loads of traffic from your website, and Google never had a button to you... so based on your own objective stance" - your website must be dead - right?

That is NOT comparing Apples with Apples, however, I bet money that my Excel pages get more traffic than the DMOZ Excel pages . Compare DMOZ to the Yahoo directory maybe, which BTW brings 10 more traffic than all the DMOZ directories put together. However, if you do want to compare I can tell you now that my Links page directs more traffic to the top placed site than DMOZ does to it's top placed site.



Surely "traffic" implies a commerical attribute... DMOZ was built on and for research.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it, DMOZ is not used very much in the scheme of things. The measure of success for a web NOT selling something is traffic. If there aint much traffic, there aint much being researched.


Googlebot and every other crawler loves DMOZ because they can crawl and reach the important global connections of the WWW easily, and there is no decline here.

Now that I agree on. but let's face it, being important to robots is whole lot different to being important to humans. If DMOZ stopped tomorrow all the little bots out there would keep on spidering, all the pages would keep on ranking and all the worlds searchers would not even know.

[fathom]

Correct - the "single" link is precisely as any other link on the web. The rdf replication across many other web properties means, submit, review , accept, and duplicated 100's of times over... thus the "value" is doing every single thing you can to conform to the first step "guidelines"... short changing your site there means you really have no research benefit to the web.

Not sure what you are trying to say here??? Are you trying to say that, Google passes on PR for each directory page a page is duplicated on?

No... Google, AOL, Netscape, Altavista, Lycos, HotBot, Euroseek, and many other major search engines (that also sport a directory) and many main directories plus a few thousands clones all use DMOZ data as a primary or secondary directory results. DMOZ usually does an new RDF dump about once a month.

A listing in DMOZ automatically includes you in the new data, and as each (many) such web properties don't aggregate their own new listings they periodically will use the RFD dump to remain current.

As the vast majority of these other repositories have less PageRank to start with the "seen" results of a DMOZ links (and of course Google's own) appears to be weighted differently but they are not really.

If you killed off the data shared by DMOZ you would be receiving a single link from DMOZ and the little extra you get from all these others would be gone, thus no different from any other link.



This isn't quite accurate... link importance runs page top to page bottom and left to right. You can easily prove this by simply taking your "home" buttom and moving it to the bottom right corner.

I'm only talking in the context of PR from Google, nothing else. I highly doubt that Google would give more PR to a page called "Aardvark" over one called "Zebra" (most links are alphabetical). Like I say, Google has invested millions in PageRank and that would be plain silly. Google aint silly!

Sorry misunderstood your comment - I stand corrected.




Unfortuately, like any other web property DMOZ has pages and links... like your site -- and few sites use your data, few sites get loads of traffic from your website, and Google never had a button to you... so based on your own objective stance" - your website must be dead - right?

That is NOT comparing Apples with Apples, however, I bet money that my Excel pages get more traffic than the DMOZ Excel pages . Compare DMOZ to the Yahoo directory maybe, which BTW brings 10 more traffic than all the DMOZ directories put together. However, if you do want to compare I can tell you now that my Links page directs more traffic to the top placed site than DMOZ does to it's top placed site.

If Google sees their specific directory as being "less profitable" or more of a burden than its worth - sure you would do the same thing. I see this as being strategic.

Forgetting all the semantics - just because one organization chances strategies this doesn't imply that another organization is at fault or dead, or dying.

Yahoo split from Google is a fair comparison... is Google dying?



Surely "traffic" implies a commerical attribute... DMOZ was built on and for research.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it, DMOZ is not used very much in the scheme of things. The measure of success for a web NOT selling something is traffic. If there aint much traffic, there aint much being researched.

There are different business models and as I understand DMOZ's business model is "non-profit" thus in web circles "of education value"... that said (and keeping it in mind) I have a client that simply loves DMOZ because before DMOZ they averaged 50 visitors a month - after DMOZ (and directly related to their 38 DMOZ links they shot to 40K a day, and from a struggling comapny to a multimillion dollar one.

This didn't happen because they view DMOZ with commercialism in mind - but with education in mind. They added merit to DMOZ under DMOZ's business model and indirectly DMOZ added merit to theirs.

And you know what - they did it without an inside editor, without spamming, without complaining, or degrading a voluntary organization.

While you can say "not much traffic" and use all the above testaments as DMOZ's eventual demise - I suspect the tax write-off will keep it around for a while.



Googlebot and every other crawler loves DMOZ because they can crawl and reach the important global connections of the WWW easily, and there is no decline here.

Now that I agree on. but let's face it, being important to robots is whole lot different to being important to humans. If DMOZ stopped tomorrow all the little bots out there would keep on spidering, all the pages would keep on ranking and all the worlds searchers would not even know.

Perspective is everything - neither you nor I are in the know thus "our view" is extremely narrow - and further I bet the guy that has the power right now to kill that project doesn't have a clue (or care) about PageRank, traffic in/out, bots, or any of another 100 things we feel about DMOZ... all he cares about is paying less taxes (or something along that line).

[mmltonge]

Well, ive noticed a bit of a debate going on here with LOOONG quotes so ill keep mine short and simple

all in all the DMOZ is good, its a great idea and its been run MOST of the time very well considering people are volunteering, you would not find many things where people put so much time in for free

Secondly, although i have had problems in the category i am in, once a submitted the abuse report (after CBP's sugesstion at the top of the page) a chief editor got back to me in just 2 days to find out more and the problem is being investigated which is very efficient.

Thumbs up to whoever helps out its a brilliant project and one that i think will go to help improve not only the search engines but also the web as a whole

[cbp]

a chief editor got back to me in just 2 days to find out more and the problem is being investigated which is very efficient.

Thanks for coming back to tell us this - the system can and does work ...

CBP

[HardCoded]

This isn't quite accurate... link importance runs page top to page bottom and left to right. You can easily prove this by simply taking your "home" buttom and moving it to the bottom right corner.
How does Google know where the link appears on the page?

[Dave Hawley]

Thanks for coming back to tell us this - the system can and does work ...


I have a lawnmower that rarely starts. However, sometimes, for no apparent reason, it does! When people ask me if my lawnmower works I say "not really" :)

[Mel]

This isn't quite accurate... link importance runs page top to page bottom and left to right. You can easily prove this by simply taking your "home" buttom and moving it to the bottom right corner.
How does Google know where the link appears on the page?

When google indexes a page it generates a hit list of every word on the page which includes that words position in the code for the first 4095 locations (all locations after that are recorded as 4096, so this is only strictly true for the first 4095 words) but the efect can still be seen if you move your home button from number 14 to number 4096.

[pedstersplanet]

It's a bit daunting and degrading to see a geocities/lycos/etc free (crappy < can I say that!) hosted site listed in deamonz....ohh sorry, I mean dmoz.. where you keep trying to submit your own and keep getting rejected! What gives. I have given up, poxy ppl (no offence).

Oh btw, categories with no editors are checked by the parent category editor from time to time, whoever asked.... Thats what I undeerstand it to be.

[HardCoded]

When google indexes a page it generates a hit list of every word on the page which includes that words position in the code for the first 4095 locations (all locations after that are recorded as 4096

That's fascinating. Thanks.

Sure, Google can see words linearly as they appear in the source, but I don't think it can tell where on my page it's at. I've taken recently to throwing menus at the bottom of the source code, even though they still appear in the traditional top left.

[Andilinks]

but I don't think it can tell where on my page it's at.

A linear progression of the source is probably good enough for Google's purpose, in most cases the more important stuff will be near the top.

But if they don't already have it, I'm sure they are working on an algorithm that will make finer distinctions, as in the depth of side columns either with tables or css...

This is fascinating.

Andi

[HardCoded]

Wow, Andi...browsers can barely be relied on to figure out where the stuff should go...and that's about their whole purpose in life.

[scot184]

Hey CBP,

I just read through the entire string, and wanted to ask you a question regarding submissions to dmoz. I used to be listed in rec/pets/free_services section of dmoz, but was removed along with a bulk of other sites in that category when they did the major overhaul a year or so back. I understand I was removed due to a lack of content. This is fair, but at the same time, I offer a free pet classifieds site, which lists ever changing ads for people listing various pets for sale or wanted. My question is what defines content? Should it be so strict for a relatively new medium?
I looked through all the categories and couldn't find another match. I can't put the site into pets/shopping because the guidelines require a site that actually takes credit cards/makes transactions.
So I added some "content" about a month ago...a pet names database that lists relevant new names for pets. I am also working on some other related areas of content. Do you think I am heading in the right direction?
And suppose I don't add all this content, where would a site like mine end up?
I think the answers would help others out there who don't have a perfect category match.

P.S. I also found this site, http://www.petwww.com/ under the /shopping/pets category that does exactly what I do, though their site seems to be rather inactive.

Thanks,

Todd

[cbp]

I found your thread at resource zone:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10719&highlight=www.petsell.com

Sorry, I edit no where near the shopping categories, so I can't be much help re what would be considered unique content over there.

The more content you add the better chance that you get in.

This may help:

Why are you refusing to list my site when there are much worse sites already listed?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. First, different people have different views on what makes a "good" site. It is for this reason that we have the ODP guidelines and note that a lot of it is left up to editor discretion.
Second, standards change - years ago, when the ODP was a fledgling directory, the priority was to increase the size as quickly as possible. The focus has changed much more now onto the quality of the sites listed. So there may well be some sites listed which, if submitted today, would not be. In these sorts of cases, random reviews of categories by editors will remove those. If "worse" means "not meeting DMOZ guidelines", then you can use the abuse report procedures on DMOZ itself, or PM a meta as described in the abuse forum.

Third, sites change - what was once a great resource might well have been abandoned by its webmaster or changed to become something completely different. If you find such sites, and wish to help the ODP become a better directory, then please submit the category and site information in the Abuse forum - this will bring it to our attention.

Finally, as the ODP matures, the bar for "unique content" gets raised higher and higher. We don't look at submissions and think "Well, this is no worse than anything else so I'll add it." How does that improve the category? If you wish your site to be listed in a particular category, it should be better than the best site already listed and offer content not offered by any other site already in the category. Don't aim to be second worst, aim to be best.


from: http://resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=odp#faq_beauty


I also found this site, http://www.petwww.com/ under the /shopping/pets category that does exactly what I do

If DMOZ already has a site that does what you do, why would they want to list another one? I am not saying they won't, but the content has to be better than what is already listed in the category.

CBP

[scot184]

That seems a bit problematic. "We are already have a site for that category...we don't need another one." Sounds like a monopoly to me. Where is the so-called democracy of the internet?
Secondly, the site listed is nearly dead by the looks of it.
I dont know who has the best site in my category, or even what category I may belong to...but either way I believe there should be multiple sites in each category to give people a choice and to keep the competitive nature of capitalism alive.
That said, I will continue to improve my site and its content, not for inclusion into dmoz, but to benefit my visitors and the future of my site in general. Thanks for the info.

Todd

[Andilinks]

Wow, Andi...browsers can barely be relied on to figure out where the stuff should go...and that's about their whole purpose in life.

Indeed, and I would expect the Google algorithm to be more sophisticated than a browser, particularly when a bot is far better equipped to deal with code in the abstract than a human being.

The bot only needs to figure out what the webmaster probably meant and doesn't have to display it, and may actually be better at that than your browser.


Where is the so-called democracy of the internet?

It exists, alive and well with or without the ODP. Editorial decisions are subjective, the editor and the edited often disagree. If the ODP makes too many errors it threatens its own credibility, and without credibility it will fade to black rather quickly...

As flawed as the ODP is, it remains the best directory we have. If you don't like it you are always free to begin your own directory. A few of us have. http://hometown.aol.com/mefdid44/smilie3.gif

Andi

[cbp]

That seems a bit problematic. "We are already have a site for that category...we don't need another one."

That not quite what I said... look at it this way - if there were 20 sites in a category, all covering the same thing, but maybe in a different way. What is the benefit to the DMOZ/ODP user of adding one more site that is not really different from the others that are there? (that one site might care, but DMOZ might not and the DMOZ user won't care)

Look at this category:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Basic_Service/W/

There are 788 sites listed under the letter 'W' for web design. I do not know for sure, but guess there might be a big back log to this category (I have heard of a lot of spam and submissions to web design categories). What is the benefit to the DMOZ user if there was 789 sites there .... NONE - editors are better off spedning time elsewhere, or if they do add a site to this category, the site will have to be pretty damn good to add value to the category.


Sounds like a monopoly to me. Where is the so-called democracy of the internet?


What democracy? The 1 site waiting for the W category of web design might care - but DMOZ is not there as a free listing service for webmasters; DMOZ is not there to improve your ranking in Google; DMOZ will not make or break your business; DMOZ does not care if your competitor is listed and you are not; DMOZ does not care about listing a whole lot of sites that are not really different. DMOZ cares about building a category of sites that offer value to that category.


Secondly, the site listed is nearly dead by the looks of it.

You should have a good chance of getting into that category.


keep the competitive nature of capitalism alive.


That is not DMOZ's concern.


I will continue to improve my site and its content, not for inclusion into dmoz, but to benefit my visitors and the future of my site in general.

That should make a listing easy.

How about we have a brainstorm on how to add value to your site:
- what about adding a forum?
- what tips and advice on buying pets?
- can you get a vet to write some articles on things to look for before buying a pet
- what about some Q & A's/FAQ's about buying pets?
- what about running a "silly picture of a pet" competition (other sites might like to link to it)?

CBP

[scot184]

Thanks for the reply. First my disclaimer: This is not a debate, but rather a conversation intended to evoke intelligent response. So I don't want it look any different.

The main thing that bothers me would be the idea that a site is chosen over another site simply because it is already listed. If two sites talk only about the amount of home runs hit by Barry Bonds in the 2002-2003 season, but only one is listed in dmoz, it seems the latter would be rejected because of similar content. While this is still problematic, it is somewhat acceptable because the information is for the most part, objective.

Now if two sites are selling Barry Bonds autographed bats, and one is already listed and the other is not, how can we reject the second site based on duplicate content? Maybe the second site offers better site design, makes the visitor more apt to buy, offers the visitor a better, possibly cheaper product. How can dmoz make that judgement? That's where I see a bit of a gray area.

I think dmoz has a ton of work set out for them...even if the web was fixed, and not dynamic, it'd still be a monstrous task. So I do understand the reason for an enormous backlog.

As far as your ideas for the site, I have actually adopted several that you mentioned. I've been working on the site from behind the scenes for almost a year trying to update everything and fill in the blanks. I appreciate your ideas, they are spot on. Thanks again.

P.S. What category did you think I could get into? I wasn't sure.

Todd

[Mel]

Look at this category:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Basic_Service/W/

There are 788 sites listed under the letter 'W' for web design. I do not know for sure, but guess there might be a big back log to this category (I have heard of a lot of spam and submissions to web design categories). What is the benefit to the DMOZ user if there was 789 sites there .... NONE - editors are better off spedning time elsewhere, or if they do add a site to this category, the site will have to be pretty damn good to add value to the category.

Surely the intent of the DMOZ is not just to include random samples of different categories of sites, but to include the best sites for that topic.

IF this is the case it would seem to me that new sites should get equal consideration with old sites, the web is a progressive place and new sites may just be a better resource than some of the old ones, but in looking at responses as to why ODP does not include this or that new site I have often heard statements similar to yours, but never anything like:

"we have looked at all the sites in the category, decided that yours was a better resource and so have included yours and dropped some sites that were not as good".

I do understand the restraints that ODP has in using volunteer editors, but surely the goal should be to include the best sites, and saying we don't need more sites in that category would seem to be stressing quantity more highly than quality.

[Andilinks]

Surely the intent of the DMOZ is not just to include random samples of different categories of sites, but to include the best sites for that topic.

In a perfect world, every site would get the equal attention of an identical unbiased editor who could grade sites on a linear scale where there could be an objective cutoff.

As an optimum consumer of sites I would like to be given the option of the three best sites and not be bothered by the clutter of more choice.

But the variables that work against such a perfect world are so numerous that I despair of even thinking of them all, much less listing them here.

Some consumers of sites just want to see the first one and will choose it without further research. Other consumers of sites want to do an exhaustive detailed search and carefully weigh all the pros and cons before choosing.

Some categories are so competitive that the submissions become spammy and alike...

Some of the best sites of 2000 are the stalest and most outdated of 2004 but an editor can maintain an unreasonable affection for an old familiar site.

This goes on and on and boils down to, "life is not fair," and "the luck of the draw..."

A category must have a sufficient selection to have credibility, yet too great a selection befuddles the searcher.

Andi

[Mel]

Excellent post Andi, but those are mostly all reasons why it would seem to me that the effort to find and index the ten best sites on a particular topic would be much better and easier than including 400 in the letter "w" subsection. People are more upset that their site was rejected when there are clearly less relevant sites that have been included.

I disagree about the luck of the draw idea, Andi. I know from experience that is no way to run a company, and I strongly suspect that its not much of a way to run a directory either.

[Andilinks]

I know from experience that is no way to run a company
I certainly agree that it is not. I was simply pointing out that in the end it often comes down to that, in spite of all good intentions.


Excellent post Andi...

Thank you sir. http://hometown.aol.com/mefdid44/smilie3.gif

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

A linear progression of the source is probably good enough for Google's purpose, in most cases the more important stuff will be near the top.

What makes you think that? I see most links etc in alphabetical order.

In regards to including "the best sites" who would decide that? IMO "best" is, more often than not, in the eye of the beholder.

[Andilinks]

I see most links etc in alphabetical order.

I don't, I see the more important links nearer the top. Directories often list in alphabetical order, but directories are a small class of website.


In regards to including "the best sites" who would decide that?

While there certainly is a lot of subjectivity to account for, most people will agree on what constitutes "best," or "better." This explains why 20% of the websites get 80% of the traffic.

I am speaking in general terms, I don't doubt that you can come up with the occasional exception to this.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

I don't, I see the more important links nearer the top. Directories often list in alphabetical order, but directories are a small class of website.


I thought the thread was about DMOZ. Anyway, what sort of pages are you reffering to? Also, just because I place a link on the top one of my pages, why should Google believe me that the page is the most important? Google uses it's algo to determine this, not the trust of Webmasters. Most webmasters would direct people to the "buying" page.


While there certainly is a lot of subjectivity to account for, most people will agree on what constitutes "best," or "better."

Sorry, I don't see how one person (DMOZ editor or anyone) can decide for the rest of the world. I also don't believe that "most people will agree on what constitutes best, or better." Everyone has a different need and reason to decide was is "Best". Ask any sports fan what the best team is and see how many different answers you get.

One should also remember that, while 40 out-of 100 may agree on something (winning margin for page "D" and is the most). It also means that the other 60 (perhaps made up of 20 for page "A", 10 for page "B" and 30 for page "C"), don't agree. so most is a VERY loose term.


This explains why 20% of the websites get 80% of the traffic.

Sorry, I don't see how that (if it's true) shows that "most people will agree on what constitutes best, or better". To me it only shows that 20% of the websites get decent rankings.

[cbp]

I don't see how one person (DMOZ editor or anyone) can decide for the rest of the world

Does that really matter though? If they are what someone thinks might be the 10 best sites, will the visitor care?

Dave - do you read Internet.au? - they always have some good collections of the 10 or 20 best sites about <topic> near the back - I would have thought that a directory containing those sites would be of value even if only one person thought they were the best.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

Does that really matter though?

Absolutely if we are to assume (I don't subscribe to it though) that Google also sees top placed links as most important.


Dave - do you read Internet.au?

No, I don't. Worth reading?


they always have some good collections of the 10 or 20 best sites about <topic> near the back - I would have thought that a directory containing those sites would be of value even if only one person thought they were the best.

Of "value" yes, automatically the "best" no.

[Andilinks]

Dave, I think you want to live in the world that ought to be, not the one we actually live in. One person shouldn't be able to decide what is best for others, no human being is competent to do that. But in reality that is how the world works and you'll just have to deal with it.

Dmoz and some other directories put their links in alphabetical order, but most sites don't. I was talking about how Google rates the importance of a link by its position on the page. Alphabetical order wouldn't count.


This explains why 20% of the websites get 80% of the traffic.

This is a natural popularity curve, it applies to almost everything people consume--not just websites. People choose what they think is best, if 80% choose one thing then it is de facto best--not best on an absolute scale since no human being can be trusted to know what is actually "best."

But popularity, though flawed is an often used metric. Elite cliques are convinced that their taste is superior to the average person and sometimes that is true but they also are often duped into thinking the enigmatic is cooler than the popular explaining why the masses think they are crazy.

I am satisfied to use popularity as a metric for most things that don't affect me personally, and some that do.

When buying mass produced goods for instance, often the judgement of the masses can be trusted. An automobile or computer model that has remained popular over a period of time has passed a number of critical tests that an individual couldn't administer.

However companies do sometimes tend to trade off a reputation and sell inferior goods under a familiar nameplate. So one must always be wary of popular opinion...

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

Hi Andi


Dmoz and some other directories put their links in alphabetical order, but most sites don't.

As I asked, what sort of pages? Most link pages and such are in alpha order.


I was talking about how Google rates the importance of a link by its position on the page.

Yes, this is why I said "Also, just because I place a link on the top one of my pages, why should Google believe me that the page is the most important? Google uses it's algo to determine this, not the trust of Webmasters. Most webmasters would direct people to the "buying" page."


Alphabetical order wouldn't count.
So what does Google use then to determine "Importance"?


This is a natural popularity curve, it applies to almost everything people consume--not just websites......

You seemed to have gone off on a tangent. Your own words (This explains why 20% of the websites get 80% of the traffic), which you quoted. Were used by you to explain why "most people will agree on what constitutes best, or better." To this I replied;

"Sorry, I don't see how that (if it's true) shows that "most people will agree on what constitutes best, or better". To me it only shows that 20% of the websites get decent rankings"

I'm sorry, I just don't see Google seeing pages linked at, or near, the top as more important. In fact I think the whole concept is totally flawed.

For example, say a page has only 5 links on it. Listed in what the webmaster believes to be most important to least important. IMO Google would see all those pages (being linked to) as equal in regards to their order. Sure other factors will come into play also, but not the order of the links.

As you say this is the case. Tell me how Google would give more "importance" to link 1 over link 5. For example, more PR, an extra point in it's ranking...???

[Mel]

Google records the position of each word on the page, and it is generally considered that in the google onpage relevancy algorithm words encountered near the top of the page are given more weight than those lower down.

[Dave Hawley]

and it is generally considered that in the google onpage relevancy algorithm words encountered near the top of the page are given more weight than those lower down.


What has this to with Google giving more weight to pages that are linked to at, or near, the top of a page? If a user searches for, say "Apples", Google may give more weight to a page that has the text "Apples" near the top, but that's beside the point.

For the life of me I cannot see why Google would give "give more weight" (whatever that means) to links at the top of a page. Like I say, what happens with alpha links, links that are added in the oder they are found.

[fathom]

Like I say, what happens with alpha links, links that are added in the oder they are found.

Good question!

Sucks to be "ZZZ Beds"! :-)

Actually nothing different than anything else that has both advantages and disadvantages.

Some examples:

1. What happens to the site the doesn't use H Tags

2. What happens to the site that doesn't add anything to the title element

3. If we use DMOZ as your example of alpha links link and one site has A1 and listed first and another Steak Sauce Ltd and listed last - well A1 gets more weight for top of page while Steak Sauce gets more weight for Keyphrase that better matches the search query.

So what's the problem?

There is 100 variables and no single one out-performs the other 99.

[Mel]

Hi Fathom
I agree with you that the text content of an anchor text link might get more or less ranking "points" attributable to the linking page dependant on the location of the link, but I fail to see why it should pass more than the normal ranking to the linked page, if this is in fact what you are saying.

I really doubt that the Google link indexing mechanism includes the position of the link on the page, or for that matter why it should. In the PR context a link is considered a vote and the only considerations affecting the vote are the PR of the linking Pages and the number of outbound links, so in this case there is no

In the case of anchor text links I can see that Google index the url of both the linking and the linked page, and the linking text, but seriously doubt that they add a factor based on the location of the link on the page. Can you give me your understanding of why you think this may be so?

[sparshpolly]

Hi all,
I didnt have time to read all the posts in this thread so please dont mind if I am trying to put forward the same thing.

ODP is time consuming for sure , it is hard to get in and all its other drawbacks but still it remains the major place where a webmaster should aim at getting his site placed.

My site got a listing in ODP (now its not my site anymore) in February this year and from then its PR has risen up from 4 to 7.
Thousands of sites use the ODP data and getting a listing in there means getting a listing in the top notch sites of the web.

And for those who think ODP is crap I have a question : Do you think a free Yahoo or any other reputable directory comes easy ?

Have a nice day,
Sparsh

[Dave Hawley]

So what's the problem?

I fail to see how pointing out those theories goes anyhere near exlaining why Google would give more importance to pages that have top placed links. You are saying that Google might do "A" so it's now fact it does "B".

You have also not answered my question on just how Google would give more importance?



There is 100 variables and no single one out-performs the other 99.

That a very big contradiction considering you are constantly stating anchor text is the king.

Sorry guys, I have seen or heard nothing that would indicate Google give more importance (still waiting on a exaplanation on that) to pages which are lucky enough to have top placed links.

This is exactly the sort of unfounded myths that cause no end of ludicrous spin-offs.

[sfowler]

I have a feeling that the foreign language sections of ODP are not as overloaded as the English ones. It took me a long time to get madurusa.com list, whilst madur.at went quite quickly. This may be simple luck, and maybe www.madur.at/index_gb.html will be rejected for not being the main URL, or for being too similar to madurusa.com. If so, then I will just have to make some changes. I do use the directory myself when I am researching something, but not when I am trying to buy something. The structure does not seem to suit purchase, and why should it? It is not designed for that. I will still try to get any website I am working on into the ODP.

[Dave Hawley]

I will still try to get any website I am working on into the ODP.


Absolutely! As it's free and takes about 5 mins to submit no reason not to. Just don't beat yourself up should you not get in, it's nothing more than a web page with x PR and x links pointing out.

[simonm]

I dipped into the ODP discussion and was glad to see that CBP was standing up for ODP but where was Mr Glover and Minstrel??

CBP will of course remember the ODP discussion that just ran and ran like the Duracell bunny!

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=7646&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=glover+odp&start=0

Interesting that we have the same debate, more interesting that different people almost a year later are making the same comments - ODP has had its day etc etc. Its almost worth staying with WPW in the very long term to see if in 5 years time there are still people saying that ODP is irrelevant and getting very heated about it!

[Dave Hawley]

ODP has had its day etc etc


Probably true. However, it's hard not to believe that DMOZ is of less value now, than a few years ago.

They are miles behind in adding submitted sites in many categories. Basically the volunteer system cannot keep up the the growth of the WWW and simply does not work well.

Google directory updates seem to be less frequent.

Google no longer have a link to the directory on their homepage.

Traffic from DMOZ is now almost non-existent.

Other than a small amount of PR (which you could get from any page with the same PR and links out) there is little going for it IMO.

[cbp]

Dave - lets call a truce before this gets started :-)

I'll just comment on this:

They are miles behind in adding submitted sites in many categories. Basically the volunteer system cannot keep up the the growth of the WWW and simply does not work well.

I came across a good comment from a senior editor the other day - sorry forgot where. But it was something like, that if all the spammy affiliate sites; the duplicate submissions; the massive amount of deeplink submissions (many times there are hundreds of submission of pages from sites; and lots of submission to lots of different categories) were somehow magically removed from the suggestion pool overnight and all submitted sites were actually submitted to the correct category, then the back log of sites would be cleared and listed within a matter of days.

I think what he was trying to say, is that it is all this crap and its investigation to keep out the spammers that is taking up more of an editors time than actually getting on the with job of listing those that are worthy. The volunteer system would work well without the rubbish editors have to deal with.

Don't blame DMOZ - blame those crappy submissions.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

I think what he was trying to say, is that it is all this crap and its investigation to keep out the spammers that is taking up more of an editors time than actually getting on the with job of listing those that are worthy. The volunteer system would work well without the rubbish editors have to deal with.

Totally agree. However, I would suggest DMOZ spell out on their submission page that, links in the directory will do no more good for Google rankings that any other page with the same PR and outward links.

IMO, the reason for so much spam is the fallacy that a DMOZ link is somehow more valued by Google than other pages.

Perhaps also they should introduce some automated system to check if the page being submitted is already included in DMOZ. IMO a volunteer system can only do so much.

[saghir69]

heyas every one is taking a dig at dmoz, so i might aswell add my opinion.

i'm sure they must be doing the best then can, but i think they need to chill out a bit. the editors and mods are way to agresive and are always ready to jump on people who want some info about their submition! and anyone who has been to thier forum would know that!

After looking at the state of the forum i created a thread "yesterday" called "genral chit chat and relaxing zone"
but its deleted now!

[sfowler]

They may not link to DMOZ from the home page, but Google.at still has them in the suggestion for webmasters at http://www.google.at/intl/de/webmasters/1.html#B2
So I don't think they are completely ignored. Mind you, they also mention the Yahoo directory, but no others by name.

[Dave Hawley]

After looking at the state of the forum i created a thread "yesterday" called "genral chit chat and relaxing zone"
but its deleted now!


That is soooo funny and just like Recource (AKA Resource) Zone!


They may not link to DMOZ from the home page, but Google.at still has them in the suggestion for webmasters at http://www.google.at/intl/de/webmasters/1.html#B2

Glad you mentioned that! This is just one of the many reasons why DMOZ editors get so much spam. They see Google single out one site as a "suggestion for webmasters" and then think that's the silver bullet.