is letting DMOZ be an influential factor in it's business! Google needs to drop DMOZ like a bad habit and replace it with something in-house. Possibly creating it's own directory. DMOZ has to be one of the most corrupted and worst run directories in the world. Most editors join for the only reason of trying to get their sites or friend's sites accepted into the directory. All you have to do is look through the directory listings and it becomes apparent. For example, they say they don't accept sites with no original content and tons of just affiliate links, but take a few minutes to look through the directory and you find ones that do. In addition you find "doorway" type domains with no affiliate links, and they do have original content but their only purpose is to get listed into DMOZ and then link to the actual site that was intended to benefit from the listing. In addition these doorway type sites are never updated once they get listed and have the 1990's style designs to them. Another reason, DMOZ has had domains waiting to be listed for a long time....I've heard rumors of 2 years, not sure if this is true or not though. On the web two years is like 50 years in real life, things continually change and if you can't keep up then basically you shouldn't have that much influence, especially influence to the biggest Internet company (Google)!

Should I keep giving more examples??? Hopefully someone points one of the high-ups in Google to this post as a little insight. I know they are probably aware of it, and I hope they really are, and are already in the works of doing something about it. But then again it could be something political as to why they haven't dropped DMOZ after many years, because it really is out of the ordinary compared to Google's history of really being on top of things!

is letting DMOZ be an influential factor in it's business
They do? And here I was thinking the data was free ;)

Google needs to drop DMOZ like a bad habit and replace it with something in-house. Possibly creating it's own directory
Why would making a directory be good or better for Google? IMHO, you seemt o think DMOZ is more than it is,a nd this assumption has led to a line of thinking that is questionable.

They do? And here I was thinking the data was free ;)


Why would making a directory be good or better for Google? IMHO, you seemt o think DMOZ is more than it is,a nd this assumption has led to a line of thinking that is questionable.

http://dir.google.com/

All from DMOZ. Should I explain more.

Maybe you should, because I am lost.

What percentage of revenue does the directory generate? What level of traffic? Does it even matter in Google's future?

Have a look at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdir.google.com%2F&url=dir.google.com and you can see that less than 1% of Google's traffic goes to the directory.

Given that directories cost a lot of money to run, and require a lot of humans, why would Google, famous for the automated approach, want to muck around with a directory? Why bother?

Surely, getting rid of the directory fullstop seems a much better approach, and is far more likely, than starting there own.

Of course, I am sure the higher ups will read this post, get teh insight and make a move ;)

Maybe you should, because I am lost.

What percentage of revenue does the directory generate? What level of traffic? Does it even matter in Google's future?

Have a look at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdir.google.com%2F&url=dir.google.com and you can see that less than 1% of Google's traffic goes to the directory.

Given that directories cost a lot of money to run, and require a lot of humans, why would Google, famous for the automated approach, want to muck around with a directory? Why bother?

Surely, getting rid of the directory fullstop seems a much better approach, and is far more likely, than starting there own.

Of course, I am sure the higher ups will read this post, get teh insight and make a move ;)

Well either drop the directory full on or make their own directory to replace DMOZ. Either way, I just don't like Google using DMOZ when it very poorly run. It seems out of character for Google to keep using them.

Hardly your call though, is it? I mean, Google are free to do whatever they like, as it is their site, right?

If Google feel that having the directory adds value, and given its supreme lack of importance in either revenue generation or traffic, then it might simply be it adds value in other ways (usability perhaps), then it sure isn't a huge issue, at least IMHO.

Well either drop the directory full on or make their own directory to replace DMOZ. Either way, I just don't like Google using DMOZ when it very poorly run. It seems out of character for Google to keep using them. Sorry that you do not like it, but is that by any chance an opinion influenced by the owner of a site that is *not* listed in ODP, and whose Google rankings are nothing to write home about?

C'mon, we're all friends here, so let's be open and honest with each other.

I think the point is more than if they are going to have a "section" dedicated to this directory and also let DMOZ influence SERPs (more so in the past than now, I believe, but it's still a factor) then it's certainly fair to comment or suggest that Google should weigh this directory less than it actually does.

We all know the problems going on at DMOZ and we don't consider it nearly complete or un-biased, so why give folks a hard time for complaining about the fact that Google uses it?

So, maybe his site isn't listed in DMOZ... It's not the easiest thing to get listed in when there is generally a high likelihood of long delays, or a category you care about having an inactive editor or, worse yet, a competitor lacking ethics.

I'm surprised folks, including the forum moderator, are more concerned with discrediting the question than discussing the good that would come from Google appreciating these concerns as much as we do.

well put exposuretim

sure, maybe his rant should have went more along the lines of "google shouldn't include DMOZ listings in ranking calculations because it's hurting honest webmasters like me," but we're all old enough to figure that out, right?

pixelstreamed: i've got sites that have been in DMOZ for almost a decade and sites that can't get in DMOZ, and it doesn't make much of a difference.

honesty: my strongest site is one of those that has been in DMOZ for almost ten years. by 'strongest' i mean it gets the most free, organic traffic from search engine rankings when compared to all other traffic. MSN sends me more than double what google does, and it converts comparably.

DMOZ isn't worth the stress.

I think far too many people put way too thought into DMOZ as a ranking factor. It is a trusted site, and gives high PR links, which is what helps in ranking, but a number of other places share the same weight.

Forget DMOZ and concentrate on getting relevent trusted links from other sources, your time will be far better spent.

This reminds me of a question brought up in the Organic Listings Forum (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/006907.html) at SES Chicago:7. What do you think about the ODP (Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org)?

Todd Friesen - It's not as important as it used to be - submit your site and then forget about it.

Bruce Clay - Submit your site every quarter if you haven't been added, although if the category doesn't have an editor you're unlikely to get in. Alternatively, submit your site to a category for your city/town and the editors are more likely to move you into the correct category.Yahoo Directory (http://dir.yahoo.com) and Best Of The Web (http://www.botw.org/) seem to be of higher importance for both traffic and ranking these day, not DMOZ (http://www.dmoz.org/).

I'm sure that the remarks made above were simply a misunderstanding; thinking that PixelStreamed was trying to present something as factual rather than simply a personal opinion.

:cool:

Rob