DMOZ Top Listed Domains

[dvduval]

I know there are some opportunists that are editors, and to some degree there are checks and balances, but I believe certain Metas pretty much do whatever they want. Some of these can be justified, so please don't think I am saying these are not supposed to be there (judge for yourself). Here is a listing of the domains with the most listings in DMOZ:
http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html
If you look, I think you will find some real winners (sarcastic tone of course). :)

[dannysullivan]

This is a great list, but it implies that those with many listings are abusing the OPD in some way. No one gets a listing withing the OPD without an OPD editor approving it. If there's any abuse, the OPD editors themselves shouldn't be approving so many listings or should be locking further submission from a particular domain, if they sense they are getting spammed. To imply that someone is getting hundreds or thousands of listings through some type of backdoor isn't flying with me. IE, that is a site that doesn't have some particular editor on the inside working for it. That's always possible, of course.

[dvduval]

If you look deeper into the list, you will see lots of porn sites.

I don't think the ODP is very "open" anymore. If they really want to be "open", I suggest they mark which listings belong to editors for public view, not actually show the editor's name, just mark all sites that editors have signified they have an interest. That way it will be much easier to find abuse. There would not be so many complaints if there were more checks and balances in place.

[Nacho]

This is a great list, but it implies that those with many listings are abusing the OPD in some way. No one gets a listing withing the OPD without an OPD editor approving it. If there's any abuse, the OPD editors themselves shouldn't be approving so many listings or should be locking further submission from a particular domain, if they sense they are getting spammed. To imply that someone is getting hundreds or thousands of listings through some type of backdoor isn't flying with me. IE, that is a site that doesn't have some particular editor on the inside working for it. That's always possible, of course.Danny, I completely agree with this. It is the same reason why it was reported back in the Can you have more than one listing in DMOZ? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1094) thread, which also points the same list as dvduval's.

[dvduval]

We really have no way to check ODP. If checks and balances exist for upper level Metas, I don't think we will ever know the full story.

[AussieWebmaster]

This is an intriguing list... though obviously the popular domains are not necessarily all from the same people.

[cbp]

I don't think the ODP is very "open" anymore. If they really want to be "open",
As you have claimed to be an editor, you should know exactly what the "Open" in the name means. Why make it want to mean something else?

[morepro]

DMOZ is a joke... too bad we need it. Btw - how do we signup to get paid, (oops) I mean signup to be an editor.

[Marcia]

That list has been around for several years - I remember when it was first put up.

How come all of a sudden, after all this time has elapsed since it's initial introduction, this is suddenly now news? Any particular reason why?

I believe the members over at Cre8asite forums are asking the same question about this same post that was posted over there

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25797

[Nacho]

How come all of a sudden, after all this time has elapsed since it's initial introduction, this is suddenly now news? Any particular reason why?Last kicks of survival for DMOZ, maybe? Another round of critiques to spot the obvious biggest failure for this directory, while the success of it starts to diminish (sadly)?

No idea :confused:

[dvduval]

That list has been around for several years - I remember when it was first put up.

How come all of a sudden, after all this time has elapsed since it's initial introduction, this is suddenly now news? Any particular reason why?

I believe the members over at Cre8asite forums are asking the same question about this same post that was posted over there

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25797

I think a better question is ...Why is it STILL news?
Could it STILL be a problem?
Yes, there are other forums discussing it too. ;)

[MikeDammann]

That list has been around for several years - I remember when it was first put up.

How come all of a sudden, after all this time has elapsed since it's initial introduction, this is suddenly now news? Any particular reason why?

I believe the members over at Cre8asite forums are asking the same question about this same post that was posted over there

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25797
How can an unresolved issue ever become old? And why would it matter if it's been posted elsewhere as well? Forums are there to discuss issues as well as raise awareness.

[dannysullivan]

Just to further clarify some things, I jumped over to the Cre8asite thread, which in turn pointed at a blog post from someone I assume is an ODP editor, talking about multiple listings: http://www.dummies-guide-to-dmoz.org/wordpress/2005/06/19/listings-in-multiple-categories/

This caught my eye:

DMOZ does not allow multiple submissions and a site owner who does so, might be considered to be spamming. Submitting to one Topical category and one Regional category, and submissions for multiple langauges are permissable.

Really? That was news to me. I've been writing about the OPD since it was literally born, and I didn't recall there being a flat out rule against multiple submissions. In fact, I'd been told in the past that if you had a relevant, unique URL that deserved to be listed somewhere, you could submit it regardless of whether you had a different URL listed somewhere else. I always advised people not to immediately jump in and try for 10 listings at a time, much less 100s or thousands. But increase the overall representation of your site in the ODP in an appropriate manner? Of course you would submit.

So how about them rules. I looked at the submission page:

Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory. Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.

That doesn't mean don't do multiple submissions. It means don't do multiple submissions of the same URL/resource in various places. If you have completely different content on different pages, I don't read that as a violation.

Digging further, I found this:
http://dmoz.org/help/cats.html#howmany

ODP categories are specialized enough so that in most cases a site doesn't need to be listed in more than one place. If a site offers information on a wide variety of topics, it will be placed in a broader category rather than in may specialized subcategories. For example, if you have a site selling tickets for concerts, football games, and amusement parks, the site would not be placed in all three categories. It will most likely be placed in a category for site selling tickets to entertainment events.

Which is just stupid. If you're a major site of interest equally to those buying football tickets and concert tickets -- and you have categories on those specific topics -- why wouldn't you multilist the same site or appropriate page within the site in those areas? But rules-wise, it would seem to suggest not to do the multiple submisison.

Over here
http://dmoz.org/help/submit.html

You should submit your site to the single most appropriate category that is directly relevant to your site's content. Please only submit your site one time. The ODP editors reserve the right to use their editorial discretion to determine which category or categories your site will ultimately be placed.

So here's the deal. Despite those rules, if I wasn't listed in another place I thought I probably should be in, I'd probably submit again. I'd especially be likely to do that if I ran a web site that I really felt was equal to another web site in quality and saw that the editors of the ODP were rewarding that site with multiple listings. Moreover, I'd contact an editor about this. I wouldn't immediately assume I was being penalized and someone else favored. I'd assume that I might need to educate the editors about why better listing of my content was in the interest of the audience the ODP aims to serve.

So that covers what a site owner might be doing in violation of the rules to get multiple listings -- or more accurately, to submit for multiple listings. Whether those actually get in depend on the editors themselves.

How about editors that are abusing? If this list has some entries that seem due to editor abuse, that page also lists the reporting form:
http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

Disappointingly, finding that form through browsing the ODP help files isn't easy. In fact, I didn't find it at all. The best I found was this page:
http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html#abuse, which linked to this different form that isn't specifically about reporting suspected abuse: http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi?

Overall, the multiple listings issue has been around for a very long time at the ODP not to mention Yahoo. http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2166961 covers how bulk content was included back in 1999 from places like News.com, Wired and Time.

I think the problem for the ODP or any directory is when do multiple listings cross the line into crawler territory. Have they really reviewed thousands of subject specifici listings that one provider may have and continue to modify that, to ensure they are relevant. Should or shouldn't every category have a Wikipedia link, if one's available? Where do you draw that line?

[MikeDammann]

What I don't get is the need for 1,000s of cnn.com listings which lead to a "Content Moved" page.
Almost everytime I search for something like let's say "India News", I click on the cnn.com page listed and ... sure enough, the content which once got that page listed .... POOF gone!

I am wondering why nobody at the ODP has caught it yet and notified the editors not to list pages like those. Wouldn't it be smarter to just have a cnn.com search box on every DMOZ page out there? (just kidding, or semi-kidding)

There are also many sites that do have listings in several categories. Here is one I can think of: <snip>

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do their job, but isn't it time to apply some common sense rather than posting the guidelines again and again.

Mike Dammann

[morepro]

Danny - Thanks for all of the info regarding the multiple listing rules... It seems that they don't know one way or another which it should be.

Based on my own experiences using DMOZ (and seriously how many people search directly from DMOZ.org), I don't use the category links to find what I'm looking for. I type in a search query and then analyze the results that come up; using the category links is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

It would seem that your site would come up in those results whether you had one listing in DMOZ or 1,000; why the need for so many? The only reasonable answer I can think of is for SEO purposes. There is very little need to have your site visually appear in 1,000 categories.

Does anyone have data to support how DMOZ is most frequently used, whether it be through searches or through the category links?

DMOZ has been something like a "golden ticket" into Google and I personally think that there are site owners (aka Editors) out there that are, and have been, using the directory for personal gain.

I applied to become an editor once - never heard back from them. I submit sites all the time - never hear back from them. Despite all this, I see sites added in categories that I submit to all the time. I've even gone so far as to stop adding keywords & optimizing my DMOZ description in hopes that it will be added more easily - still nothing.

Just frustrated...

[MikeDammann]

DMOZ is being used quite frequently for research (by students, scientists etc.) looking for specific categories in which they prefer hand-edited results. There are many valuable categories within DMOZ and they are being searched for thru the search function as well as the catagory option.

Therefor, if you look at things from a user friendly perspective, multiple categories do make sense to me when the most applicable url from the site appears in the right results. The problem is that editors are being switched around and you cannot rely on what you get from editor to editor. The ODP has turned into chaos. There is no serious supervision and accountability, just opinions, interpretations and a lot of egos flying around.
A major clean-up would be more efficient than adding more editors and sites without taking care of current issues. but then again, who has the power to take charge and change things? Mostly we see editors and webmasters fight and argue while those who could change things (AOL/TimeWarner) seem to deny responsibility and don't really acknowledge ownership.
Mike

[AussieWebmaster]

This blog does not seem too active but there is some interesting stuff there:
http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/

[NetinsertGuy]

I think the problem for the ODP or any directory is when do multiple listings cross the line into crawler territory. Have they really reviewed thousands of subject specifici listings that one provider may have and continue to modify that, to ensure they are relevant. Should or shouldn't every category have a Wikipedia link, if one's available? Where do you draw that line? This is a very interesting question indeed for a directory developer. In my opinion directories should in general not deep index sites since deep indexing is already made at the site level. Most sites come with their own indexing system in the form of menu navigation, site maps, or some other form of site search. The purpose of a directory is to provide high level entry points into information resources in a given subject category. Each resource/web site has its own indexing and can be viewed as being a "micro directory" for the information resources contained in the site. In this way, a subject driven web search will be a hierarchical process which starts at a top level general directory and cascades through more specialized directories down to a web site with its own micro directory which will ultimately provide the web page that the user is looking for.

Deep indexing sites in a directory may bloat the directory with redundant information which will be provided anyway down the hiearchical linking chain. Then there are other issues such as deep link maintenance which, if left unattended, quickly tends to turn into deep link rot (unless you have an automated directory with continuous verification of directory listings).

[PhilC]

DMOZ is privately owned, and they can do what they want with it. They are not responsible to anyone outside DMOZ, and they are not there to help websites. It helps for a site to be listed in it but it's not of any great importance.

I knew of sites that have hundreds of listings, but that list was quite an eye-opener for me. Even so, it's not something that anyone outside DMOZ should complain about or has any need to complain about. For instance, one of my competitors had hundreds of listing when I only had one, but I was still all over the top of Google and doing very well - until Bourbon :(

When I was an editor, multiple listings were allowed apart from the usual one regional and one topical, provided that each entry merited it. Some sites have many entries because most of the listed pages are not available from the main site, or from each other. Others have multiple listings for distinct areas of the site when the areas, or even individual pages, merit being listed in specific categories, even though they are available in the main site. There is no hard and fast rule about it, and each submission is evaluated on its own merit, although other entires from the same site are obviously taken into account.

The bottom line for us is that no site or page has a right to be listed in DMOZ, and it's not really our business that some sites have a massive number of entries. Also, if some editors are abusing the system, they are abusing DMOZ, and not anyone else. Being listed in DMOZ, and the number of listings that some sites have, just isn't important enough to bother much about.

[dvduval]

I think is could be successfully argued that the greatest benefit to being listed in DMOZ is Google ranking.

I think it could be successfully argued that the structure of DMOZ itself is based on the idea that volunteers are helping to promote the greater good, casting selfish tendencies aside.

If anything, DMOZ is sort of a private Google club (IMHO).

[Jeff Martin]

Moreover, I'd contact an editor about this. I wouldn't immediately assume I was being penalized and someone else favored. I'd assume that I might need to educate the editors about why better listing of my content was in the interest of the audience the ODP aims to serve.
Danny, in my observations of the ODP, if you try to "educate" an editor, especially in the forums (when parts of it weren’t closed) you could be harassed, insulted, banned and wind up getting your thread locked. And that’s with a highly professional 'tone' and not resorting to the forum practices of certain editors who act so unprofessionally.

How come all of a sudden, after all this time has elapsed since it's initial introduction, this is suddenly now news? Any particular reason why? My colleagues have it right, this is a problem that has resurfaced due to a new wave of criticism aimed at the general practices of the ODP. These issues never got resolved (not that they can be with things staying the way they are) which still make them valid.

Some times we, in the US, dont focus on the issue of Social Security...doesnt mean its still not a problem or that is doesnt deserve attention.

They are not responsible to anyone outside DMOZ, and they are not there to help websites. Well that’s not entirely true...some editors are there to help websites...when it is personally profitable.

I know that there are those in the ODP who, God bless them, do the best they can with what they are given and just try to do the right thing. To them I say thank you and endeavor to persevere.

[dvduval]

Jeff, first of all, I want to thank you for bringing it to our attention that often threads are locked when we are trying to "educate" an editor in the forums. I would like to take that one step further, and say they there are well respected forums outside of the Resource Zone where this practice takes place as well.

Second, forgive me for loving your message and repeating, comparing the problem with ODP to Social Security is a GREAT example. I believe there are people who feel that they have already answered to these questions/allegations, and that everything should now be resolved. It is NOT resolved, and it is not going away, and I think it wonderful to see well respected industry professionals continuing to visit this issue.

In closing, we as industry professionals need to take care of the problems we see or it really ends up affecting all of us. There is an old saying that a few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel. Can you think think of industries that got a bad name because of a few bad apples?

[PhilC]

Well that’s not entirely true...some editors are there to help websites...when it is personally profitable.Cynical, but occassionally true :)

in my observations of the ODP, if you try to "educate" an editor ...that often threads are locked when we are trying to "educate" an editor in the forums ...In closing, we as industry professionals need to take care of the problems we see or it really ends up affecting all of us. There is an old saying that a few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel.Those comments are indicative of many people's attitudes towards DMOZ, and the reason for much, if not all, of the frequent 'conflict' between 'us' and 'them'.

(1) It is not our place to "educate" the editors in the way that I am sure it was meant. DMOZ is theirs - not ours - not the web's - not the public's - not anyone else's. It is theirs and they are free to do what they want with it.

(2) dvduval. We "as industry professionals" don't have a problem with DMOZ. Nobody has a problem with DMOZ. There is no rotten apple, and there is nothing to take care of. Many outsiders do, however, have a problem with themselves. They have certain unjustified expectations concerning DMOZ, and they believe they have certain rights concerning DMOZ. If they are not met, it is, in their misguided opinion, DMOZ's fault for not doing it as they should do it.

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to "educate" you now. What happens inside DMOZ, and what sites they list and don't list, is nobody's business but theirs.

[dvduval]

(2) dvduval. We "as industry professionals" don't have a problem with DMOZ. Nobody has a problem with DMOZ. There is no rotten apple, and there is nothing to take care of. Many outsiders do, however, have a problem with themselves. They have certain unjustified expectations concerning DMOZ, and they believe they have certain rights concerning DMOZ. If they are not met, it is, in their misguided opinion, DMOZ's fault for not doing it as they should do it.

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to "educate" you now. What happens inside DMOZ, and what sites they list and don't list, is nobody's business but theirs.

When a business grows to play a large enough role that mismanagement or dishonesty couldn pose a threat to the public at large, it very much our business what goes on. And that is why the government created organizations like the SEC and the FTC to protect us from businesses that engage in dishonesty or negligence.

To say that DMOZ editors can do whatever they want and is none of our business does a great job of illustrating the protectionist stance used by editors. Just what are they protecting?

And again, we all know that one of the main (and surely the biggest) benefits of an ODP listing is how it helps in Google search results. And again, we know there are people spending scores of hours per week "volunteering" on ODP. I don't think I need a sentence to even conclude this paragraph.

As stated above, God bless the honest editors. I know there are many.

The system itself is based on the expectation that people will serve the greater good, and cast aside self interests, AND do it on a volunteer basis. The system is flawed!

[PhilC]

DMOZ doesn't play a large enough role on the web to make what happens inside it anyone's business but their own - and there is no "threat to the public at large". The effect of a DMOZ listing does help a little, but nothing like as much as some people imagine.

To say that DMOZ editors can do whatever they want and is none of our business does a great job of illustrating the protectionist stance used by editors. Just what are they protecting?What makes you think they are protecting anything, other than their right to do with their private property whatever they want to do with it.

The system itself is based on the expectation that people will serve the greater good, and cast aside self interests, AND do it on a volunteer basis. The system is flawed!The system is private - end of story.

I may sound as though I am a friend of DMOZ, but I'm not. I'm looking at it realistically. I do have the advantage of having been on the inside briefly, but I got bored with it and I timed-out. I do find fault with DMOZ is some of the areas where they invite public participation, and I've argued against them on those things. But it's a private directory, and what goes on inside it is their business, and nobody else's.

[dvduval]

The system is private - end of story.

This "private" system is flawed, as stated above:

The system itself is based on the expectation that people will serve the greater good, and cast aside self interests, AND do it on a volunteer basis. The system is flawed!

If a private school denies my children equal access, is that none of business?

Ok, so it is private...yet all the information is public on DMOZ and Google, and many other sources. Will the public simply just accept a flawed system. I think not...

BTW, I am a member of the public. ;)

[PhilC]

This "private" system is flawed, as stated abovePerhaps it is - but it's private, and has nothing to do with us.

Ok, so it is private...yet all the information is public on DMOZ and Google, and many other sources. Will the public simply just accept a flawed system. I think notThe public can accept or not accept whatever they like. As is normal, the public are free to vote with their feet if they feel they are getting stuff from a flawed system.

[kctipton]

this is a problem that has resurfaced due to a new wave of criticism aimed at the general practices of the ODP

It's "resurfaced" due to someone being removed as an editor and then starting a lot of threads about this topic.

The CNN bulk-list thing sucks. It's been noticed, complained about in the internal forums, and essentially been put on hold. No new big bunches are being added AFAIK, and no big bunches are being deleted. Someday, someway, the sites will either be killed or properly updated. But, there's nobody at CNN maliciously filling ODP with broken links.

Barring the CNN weirdness, multiple listings and documentation about same need to be a tad more understandable to those who would start threads like this all over the net every few months or so.

ODP is as decentralized as any bunch of ants you'll ever meet. No way that a little guy working in X will ever automagically know that another listing from the same site happens to be in Y -- but it doesn't matter! It's not abuse, not collusion, not a violation of the editor guidelines.

But, if a submitter thinks that he's going to send every page and subsite into ODP hoping for a few adds, that's spam. Sending appropriately content-rich, spam-poor links into ODP is not frowned upon. It's wished for, but the guidelines are what they are: editors will hopefully add plenty while submitters are encouraged to submit few, as long as content guidelines are met.

As for citing the blog, it's one editor's blog and apparently a little wrong (but not a lot). Keep in mind that there's much more wrongheaded advice being given about "how to submit to the ODP" by self-styled SEOs than what editors are writing.

PhilC has it right that internet entities trying to index the web may build themselves any way they choose. Get used to it, get over it; if you can't beat 'em or infiltrate 'em, build your own.

[MikeDammann]

I think the problem is that there are way too many vendettas between webmasters who are not DMOZ editors and DMOZ editors and it kills good communitcation. I like the tone in this thread however. So let me add 2 more cents :) :

There definitely is corruption within DMOZ, I have seen it, it happens, it's not isolated cases, it happens quite frequently.

I believe that the vast majority of editors is NOT corrupt, but still the number of corrupt editors is larger than it's acceptable.
I also get the feeling that those who are in charge of DMOZ just don't care one bit (last thing I've heard was that the new spider to detect dead listings was broken).

I personally get a headache from all of this and wished that Google would stop using DMOZ results. But until that ever (if ever) happens, the saga will continue I guess.


One thing that gets me is the amount of adult listings from the same sites.
I am not in the adult industry and believe that if you sleep with dogs ... you know what you get.

but allowing this to penetrate (no pun intended) DMOZ is to me outrageous and makes me wonder who really runs the ODP. It also makes me look at the average editors as pawns and front people for an operation with many financial interests from certain groups and people.


I would love to see some postitive changes, but quite honestly cannot foresee that in the near future. I have sites in DMOZ and sites that are not and I truly don't have a personal grudge anymore. But the fact that I have been in threads like these as far as 4 years ago and IMO things have gotten worse with DMOZ, shows me that there is absolutely no one willing to take any responsibility and make changes.

What would be the solution? A petition to AOL?

[PhilC]

There definitely is corruption within DMOZ, I have seen it, it happens, it's not isolated cases, it happens quite frequently.The point is, it is within DMOZ, making it their own private business, and not ours - unless we want to take advantage of it, that is ;)

It's "resurfaced" due to someone being removed as an editor and then starting a lot of threads about this topic.Is that why the identical 2 post were posted in various forums? Sour grapes. Thanks for letting us know.

Marcia recently started a thread here saying that she was sick of DMOZ-bashing threads around the forums - some forums seem to encourage conflict. There were posts in this thread that gave the impression of trying to "stir it", and it now appears that that's exactly what the intention was. I don't know about the other forums (mine went down for a few days), but it's good to know that this one didn't rise to the bait.

[MikeDammann]

Marcia recently started a thread here saying that she was sick of DMOZ-bashing threads around the forums .
Oh I think everyone is sick of those except a few same old faces who apparently enjoy those kinds of arguments. Those threads are pointless, but I believe that good discussions can bridge a lot of animosities and misunderstandings between the 2 sides :)

[dvduval]

I think it is clear that DMOZ has issues. I don't see anyone stepping up and explaining DMOZ's affinity to porn listings, which are clearly sites that are all about profit, with several "families" of sites on teh same server ip.

It's definitely a private directory and they can do whatever they want, including choosing their friends wisely (ex. the porn industry). Have you actually looked through the pages (http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html) and seen all the porn? There is a ton of it, and I can see why lots of people would not want to be associated with DMOZ.

[PhilC]

Then surely the best thing is not to be associated with DMOZ. It seems to me that you should be happy about that, and not trying to grind your axe all over the place ;)

[Jeff Martin]

Then surely the best thing is not to be associated with DMOZ. Absolutely right. That should probably go for all SEs using DMOZ as well. If G and the rest were to turn away from DMOZ and set it back down into the 'normal web' instead of the pedestal they have made it out to be (probably unintentionally) then maybe much of this 'pointless banter' (as some of the editors put it) and maybe some of the editors who have gotten 'to big for the britches' (as some non-editors put it) will cease to butt heads.

After all, if a DMOZ listing only means another PR3-6 directory listing, then what’s all the hoopla about? But if it means any type of special consideration that other directories/sites don't receive, then we can expect this till the cows come home. (For you non-Texans...that’s a really long time.)

So maybe PhilC has it right, the best thing is to not be associated with DMOZ.

[MikeDammann]

Probably so. But the reality of things is that DMOZ issues will not go away. With it being the most sought after directory, there will be more and more "How do I get into DMOZ?" questions answered with "You won't, DMOZ is corrupt and sucks." and from there another thread will turn into a war zone of 30+ pages without a solution at the end (not this forum :) ).

So the "just leave DMOZ alone" argument is great, but realistically I don't see that possible without Google taking away whatever significance they have left.

Mike

[dannysullivan]

(1) It is not our place to "educate" the editors in the way that I am sure it was meant. DMOZ is theirs - not ours - not the web's - not the public's - not anyone else's. It is theirs and they are free to do what they want with it.
Just to clarify, by educate, I meant to explain to an editor the role you see your site playing in its particular space and why you feel it would help those the editor is trying to serve to carry it.

IE, if I'm Nike, and you're making a list of major shoe manufacturers and don't carry me, I'm going to explain to you we're a worldwide operation that many people would consider essential to the list, so if you are trying to show important sites, you might want to include us.

Editors of a category may not be expert in a particular area. Even if they are, they may not see everything. There is nothing wrong in trying to help an editor understand your role in this way. In fact, it is absolutely your place as a site owner to push for someone to consider your site in an appropriate way.

That doesn't mean you'll get listed. But sit back and think it's not your place to point out an obvious omission? Not at all.

Having said all that, I'm with you, Phil -- I don't think the directory is of any great importance for people to worry about it. But some do, and if they want to make contact, so be it.

What happens inside DMOZ, and what sites they list and don't list, is nobody's business but theirs. The system is private - end of story.

Yes and no. Agreed. They can and they will list what they want. The ultimate decision rests with the editorial staff. But the ODP has a self-stated social contact: http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed. We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement.

We will make every effort to build a high quality and comprehensive directory. We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory.

and

We foster a self-regulating community governed by community-driven standards. We encourage the community to regulate itself, and to provide the checks and balances needed to ensure that its members follow mutually accepted codes of conduct and editorial standards. We depend on the honesty and integrity of the volunteer editors to ensure the directory is high quality, user-friendly, and free of abuse.

It's a community that's highly editor driven, but by no means does it say whatever the editors do, that's fine with us. The self-regulating part especially speaks to things going beyond this just being a private editor playground.

[PhilC]

So the "just leave DMOZ alone" argument is great, but ...That referred to my comment about not being associated with DMOZ. I meant actually being associated with it (e.g. being an editor), and it was addressed to dvduval, who apparently was an editor before he was ejected. There's no reason not to submit sites to DMOZ, but that's not being associated with it.

I wasn't aware that you used the word "educate", Danny. My response quotes 2 other people, and I read their posts as meaning to teach editors (and DMOZ) how they should really be doing it; i.e. how *I* think they should be doing it.

Something from those "social contract" quotes tickled me:- "We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory." It reminded me of a recent thread here where some editors, including a meta, openly admitted that they treat their unreviewed list as an unimportant source of new websites, and they choose to find sites elsewhere.

The social contract had fine ideals, but it is not a contract in the legal sense of the word, and it is not legally binding (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, editors who go against its stated intentions and ideals are only letting DMOZ down - privately and internally, and not the rest of the world, imo.

[AussieWebmaster]

It is still working in its limited way and thus we keep submitting.

[seobook]

What happens inside DMOZ, and what sites they list and don't list, is nobody's business but theirs.
surely it is not wrong to discuss that what you feel might be important?

The effect of a DMOZ listing does help a little, but nothing like as much as some people imagine.
I would like to agree with you, but some of the algorithms point in the other direction.

there is a one page whinge site about effexor located here:
themarketingyoudeserve.com
it is listed in DMOZ here:
http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly_Unethical_Firms/One_Complainant/
it has a DMOZ listing, DMOZ clone listings, one mention on a forum, and one scraper site link showing up in Yahoo!'s linkdomain search and currently ranks at #17 for in Yahoo! for "Effexor"

to me that is an amazing rank for a single page site with that link profile.

[MikeDammann]

There is a discussion that has been started in Clasione's Court Forum (http://www.courtforum.com/showthread.php?p=364#post364) about the legal issues of listing adult sites without the 2257 code that U.S. Law demands to prevent material from girls under 18 :)

[sarahk]

It's more than that. As webmasters I imagine most of us have no idea if we have any legal obligations in the countries where our sites MAY be viewed.

What is the consumer protection legislation in Saudi Arabi, Britain, Thailand, Australia?
What is considered inflammatory, obscene etc

Our sites are viewed in these countries. Do their laws have any impact on our content? Could we be called to account?

Sarah

[PhilC]

surely it is not wrong to discuss that what you feel might be important?Of course it isn't wrong to discuss it, but the discussions don't tend to be just discussions; they are often accusations by people who think that DMOZ is denying them some rights, which they don't have. In this particular case, I don't believe the original post was made with a 'how interesting' attitude. I have no doubt that it was made specifically to stir thing up against DMOZ, especially since the identical post was made in several forums.

There are times when people can rightly find fault with DMOZ, and justifiably rattle their cage. The recent thread about some editors virtually ignoring sites that are submitted to the cats they edit is an example. DMOZ invites people to spend some of their time in submitting (suggesting) sites to them, and then the submissions are ignored. That's not on, imo. Another example is when they invite people to apply to be editors, and either ignore them, or treat them with a great deal of coldness. In both cases, DMOZ invites the public to participate, and in both cases DMOZ displays a great deal of discourtesy. But, for the main part, people wrongly believe they have certain rights concering DMOZ, and the discussions are really accusations.

I've never heard of the word "effexor", but high rankings can be achieved with IBLs, as you know. A single listing in DMOZ provides 2 decent IBLs, one from DMOZ and another from the Google directory, plus many IBLs from the DMOZ clones that get crawled. They are helpful, of course, but no more so than other IBLs.

We used to think that a DMOZ listing gave pages some sort of unnatural boost, but that idea died. I had a site dumped from DMOZ after I added a load of affiliate stuff to it. At the time I expected both a PR drop and a drop in rankings to follow, but neither occured, and the site stayed at the top.

[AussieWebmaster]

We used to think that a DMOZ listing gave pages some sort of unnatural boost, but that idea died. I had a site dumped from DMOZ after I added a load of affiliate stuff to it. At the time I expected both a PR drop and a drop in rankings to follow, but neither occured, and the site stayed at the top.
Interesting that they had time to check your listing and drop you.... must be a very small niche and no one else is submitting sites etc.

[PhilC]

hehe... not really. The site orginally provided only phone numbers as a means of getting in touch with the accommodations, and the DMOZ description said so. After I'd added the affiliate hotels, online booking was available, and I asked for a description change. That's when it was dropped. I didn't know their attitude to affilliate stuff at the time.

[seobook]

I've never heard of the word "effexor",
hehehe. your not as black as I once envisioned. I thought all the aggressive SEOs (which is how I picture you, and I consider aggressive a good thing usually) knew all the major drugs by trade name and chemical name :eek:

Effexor is a member of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor class of drugs. prescribed for depression, and the drug companies try to work their way out to getting drugs like it prescribed for stuff like it for seasonal affective disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and sometimes even PMS

Effexor XR is create by Wyeth pharmeceuticals, a 60 billion dollar company. they sell a bunch of Effexor.
The company said Effexor recorded first-quarter sales of $868 million, up 12% over the same period last year. Sales growth is "moderating," partly because of "negative publicity" regarding antidepressants.
source: http://www.thestreet.com/_mktwrm/stocks/robertsteyer/10218710.html

but high rankings can be achieved with IBLs, as you know. A single listing in DMOZ provides 2 decent IBLs, one from DMOZ and another from the Google directory, plus many IBLs from the DMOZ clones that get crawled. They are helpful, of course, but no more so than other IBLs.
I would suggest looking through the link profiles of the top ranked sites. most of them have many more inbound links. sure most of the links are not high quality, but 27 vs 1,000 is a big difference.

I have seen other examples of sites ranking well with limited linkage data and a DMOZ listing.

We used to think that a DMOZ listing gave pages some sort of unnatural boost, but that idea died. I had a site dumped from DMOZ after I added a load of affiliate stuff to it. At the time I expected both a PR drop and a drop in rankings to follow, but neither occured, and the site stayed at the top.
there could have been other factors at play as well

[PhilC]

hehehe. your not as black as I once envisioned:) I never was. I got the reputation due to some of the whitehat preachers saying that I'm a blackhat SEO - because they don't like my views, and they want to rid the world of BH stuff. I approve of BH if it's necessary, but I use the techniques *very* rarely. I don't even remember the last time - probably before Google appeared. Shades of light grey, maybe, but not black.

[MikeDammann]

So you were one of those Alta Vista cloakers huh? hehe

[PhilC]

Nope - not even that. The only cloaking I've ever done has been very light grey. I was caught in an AV update that became known as Black Xxxday (I forgot which day it was). If my memory is correct, it dumped stacks of traditional doorway pages, and the sites along with them.

[AussieWebmaster]

Nope - not even that. The only cloaking I've ever done has been very light grey. I was caught in an AV update that became known as Black Xxxday (I forgot which day it was). If my memory is correct, it dumped stacks of traditional doorway pages, and the sites along with them.
August of 2002 and then April 2003 were the two major change periods of Alta Vista.

[PhilC]

It was a long time before those, and was big at the time.

<added>
The best I can find is that it was around 1998/9 - and it was late in the year - Novemberish :)

[Marcia]

Mod note: Posts on other, unrelated issues were split off to another thread.

[mcanerin]

I think is could be successfully argued that the greatest benefit to being listed in DMOZ is Google ranking.

I think that's the issue - people mixing up cause and effect. More and more often, I'm reading posts that imply (and occasionally outright say) that the Google rankings that they are unhappy with are the result of not getting into DMOZ. (God forbid the problem might be their site quality or some other issue that could be link to it being their own fault!)

There is an assumption that there is a coorelation between your rankings in Google and your DMOZ listing, and therefore DMOZ editors should be blamed for your Google rankings.

Nonsense.

The same logic implies that since most DMOZ editors find sites to include using Google (rather than submitted sites), a high Google ranking is the most effective and direct way to get a DMOZ listing :eek: Therefore we should complain to Google if they don't add your site to DMOZ!

Interesting theory. Sounds good. Can't help but think there is a logic hole in there somewhere, though...

In the meantime, Googleguy, I'd like to have a little chat with you about my DMOZ listing.... ;) j/k

Ian

[PhilC]

You're right Ian, but taking the bit you quoted at face value, it is correct. A decent IBL from DMOZ will improve the rankings in Google. Even if it doesn't get a page past the one ahead of it, it will get it closer to getting past. The same can be said of any decent IBL - it's not something that's unique to DMOZ. Whether the person you quoted meant it quite that way, I don't know.

[mcanerin]

It's possible he didn't - I'm not sure, so apologies to the poster of the original quote if it's a misrepresentation of the actual intent of the post. I personally don't think it is in context of other posts by the same person, but I could be wrong.

Please assume that the quote is without attribution to a specific person for the purposes I was using it. Normally this is an unfair practice so PhilC is right to call me on it. Mea Culpa.

The quote (by itself and without context) was simply a concise description of a relatively new problem - people who seem to blame their G rankings (or lack thereof) on directories and sites who don't/won't link to them, rather than G or (gasp) themselves.

I agree that DMOZ is a bit of a special case in that there are so many sites that use a DMOZ feed to "seed" the site initially, causing an unusually strong link weight to be attributed, especially if you are in an area that is often used for seeding.

I know it's not intentional, but DMOZ is the worlds largest "link farm", in the sense that getting a link in the main site also puts you into many other sites automatically and usually without any qualification or review by those sites.

In effect, the links are not "votes of confidence" for the link and site itself, but rather for DMOZ (ooooohhh... URL cloaking - taking a vote for DMOZ and then sending the link pop somewhere else...).

I'm being tongue-in-cheek about the "link farm" and "URL cloaking" of course, but the net effect is eerily similar.

Ian

[PhilC]

I wasn't "calling you" on it, Ian. I was merely continuing the discussion :)

Your last thought crossed my mind the other day with respect to this thread. One listing in DMOZ is one vote, but it's counted as a lot more votes because of the sites that use DMOZ data. Most of them are nothing more than duplicate directories, and their votes shouldn't count, imo.

We haven't really been talking about those in this thread, but, if Google has flagged directory-like sites, then they may also have had those sites in mind. I am in agreement with taking out pseudo-directories, including those that are just PPC links, scraper sites (which look pretty much the same as directories), and all those DMOZ mirrors.

[mcanerin]

Most of them are nothing more than duplicate directories, and their votes shouldn't count, imo.

I agree completely. If there is no indication of actual thought put into the choosing of a link, then it's no different than a FFA directory.

The quality of sites linked to might be generally higher, but the owner doesn't actually *know* that. A DMOZ "seed' is little more than a site scrape, unless the owner actually edits the results by hand once he/she has it.

There are good quality sites in many FFA directories that were placed there by clueless, ill-informed, but well meaning, webmasters. That doesn't mean that FFA links should count as votes of confidence, either.

Ian

[PhilC]

I hadn't thought of it before this part of this thread, but I suppose that the DMOZ duplicates are no better than the myriad of new, meaningless directories that come out every day with only a handful of listings. The difference being that the DMOZ clones start life with a stack of listings, probably because the owners are technically able to use the DMOZ data.

I know we're meandering a bit off course now, but another thought just occured to me - about the fundamental nature of DMOZ. Why create a large directory that isn't particularly intended for people to actually use, but its primary purpose is for other sites to create clones and use its data? It suddenly strikes me as a very strange idea.