Delays on URL submissions and payments to expedite

My current priorities (in order):-

1) I'm struggling with a firmware program at work and work late as a result.
2) I promised a local club a demonstration of the website I'm doing for them.
3) I have a wife that needs 'gruntling', a dog that needs walking and a cat that needs feeding
4) I have a mother that needs visiting and grandchildren to pamper.
5) I have recently received permissions to edit at a higher level in two totally different areas (who did I upset?) and have to get to grips with all that implies.
6) there are 2 small categories to maintain - fairly easy as the submission rate is low.
7) Because of the new permissions, there are a large number of categories I can now edit in that need some TLC.
8) There is the original category to continue building (60% of the listings and 100% of the current unreviewed I went and found)
9) I have a new category I am developing in Test (80% of the listings and 100% of the current unreviewed I went and found).
10) My garden could do with some work, when the weather improves.
11) I have a list of oddjobs around the house, I've been avoiding for weeks (months in some cases).

Now I have provided this information to show that the ODP is a volunteer effort and all editors could supply a similar list.

Unfortunately a lot of people out there, reject the idea that items 1 to 4 or 10 have any validity (11 doesn't). The information on my editing in ODP I've supplied is equally useless since it only covers a handful out of 500,000+ categories and only my view (in the same situation, another editor would order them differently).

At the moment my priority is a Chicken Kurma being prepared by my lovely wife, Janet.

This highlights the problem of perception between even the most genuine inquirers with real problems and editors. I know the side effect the ODP has but I did not join up for that reason. I recognise that it seems callous to go and eat my dinner when I could help solve someone's problem (not yours but someone's) but there are x million problems to be solved and it is only my hobby after all.

regards

Making a submittal is easy if you're not trying to game the system. You find a good site, you find a category that seems to fit it, you suggest it. That's all there is. You potentially helped the ODP editor find a good site; when it matters more than anything on earth to find a good site on that subject, that potentiality will become actuality.

The system says -- any editor can review any site; any editor can add, change, or delete listings wherever he has editing privileges.

The system says -- there's no fuhrer standing around to make sure the editors think Only Right Thoughts, and review Only Economically-Helpful-To-The-Right-People sites. There's not even anyone standing around watching what editors do -- if we had anyone like that, who we could TRUST to CARE to do the right thing -- we'd let them edit themselves!

There's only individual editors, working on whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

This is not a secret. This has NEVER been a secret. There isn't any more, and there is no conceivable reason to LOOK for any more -- except to find a way to commit abuse.

As a webmaster, you have to look yourself in the eye, and ask, "Is what I'm about to do going to help the directory?" And if not, then using dmoz.org functionality is abuse, pure and simple.

And the only concern the editors are going to have for THAT activity is -- how to spot it and stop it.

Thanks for the replies. They were enlightening. I now have a far better understanding than before.

For the record, I was not suggesting anything and was not looking for "a way to commit abuse." I'm still not doing either one.

But what still puzzles me somewhat is the fact the world's largest search engine depends so heavily on the system you all have described and that without your review and approval (for lack of a better word), no web site has much chance with said search engine.

Would any of you care to address the relationship between DMOZ and Google?

And ... without intending any offence whatever, some of you sound inordinately suspicious of outsiders.

The Old Sarge

Eric,

Your list looks very like my own. With a few details amended.

My article on the relationship between Dmoz and Google is here: http://www.building-history.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ODP/Dmoz.htm

Google does not depend on Dmoz. Not at all. The Open Directory could close down and Google would scarcely be affected, except that they wouldn't be able to update their directory from us any more.

The idea that it is necessary to be listed in the Open Directory to do well in Google is a myth. There are sites which have never had a dmoz listing which are doing very well in Google's search results.

It never has been necessary to be listed in Dmoz to get into Google. That idea seems to have arisen because Google's advice to webmasters is to get links to their sites. They suggest Yahoo! and Dmoz specifically. But that does not mean that Google will give a special boost to any site listed in those directories.

As it happens, there is a bit of boost that occurs naturally. Since Yahoo! comes in different versions for various countries and Dmoz has loads of clones, a listing in either directory will multiply. That automatically increases Google PageRank for the listed site. True enough. But getting an equal number of links from other websites (of the same PageRank) would have the exact same effect. There is no magic in a listing in either Dmoz or Yahoo!

The relationship between the ODP and Google is ... defined by Google.

If they think we provide something useful -- then they use it however they think best.

A lot of people don't understand what it takes to make an information source "reliable". They think a dictionary isn't perfect if it doesn't contain all the words ever used. But that is not the purpose of a dictionary. A dictionary is USEFUL if it containse enough words to make it worth checking out (for some class of words), and if it is generally correct in the information it gives. A bookstore doesn't have to contain every book ever written, to be a useful business. It just has to contain a large enough selection to make it worth browsing. (That's true even if some of those books are not worth browsing themselves!)

The web doesn't change the nature of information. What makes the ODP a unique resource is that, on the continuum of "comprehensiveness" and "reliability", it occupies a unique maximum. No other link collection so reliable is anything like as large and comprehensive. No larger resource, of any kind, has such a high percentage of actually useful links.

That's true even though I'd estimate that a quarter to a third of all listable sites aren't listed, and a good tenth of all listed sites shouldn't be. Not perfect, no, but where else will you find anything even close to that?

So the historical use that search engines and portals have made of the ODP is amply justified -- for at least four years nobody in the world has been able to do anything like as well.

That is not a new obligation on the ODP. That is a recognition of how well the ODP has fulfilled the obligations it set for itself.

The Old Sarge said:

... some of you sound inordinately suspicious of outsiders.

Click to expand...

A non-trivial proportion of outsiders are trying to game the system. They have zero-useful-content link farms, for which they are paid $x for each click-through/sale, and want to be listed. To be listed NOW, and EVERYWHERE. You don't sound like such an outsider, but there are enough such outsiders to inspire caution.

Not suspicious of "outsiders" per se, no. That's where we ALL came from!

Suspicious of particular kinds of activity, yes. But that's a very different kind of suspicion. Someone who behaves like an abuse-gamer, will be assumed to be guilty until proven guilty (which with enough eyes is surprisingly easy.) Someone who acts like a real provider of goods and services, will be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (and will attract fewer eyes.)

That's what "human judgment" is. Imperfect, but capable of being surprisingly good at handling incomplete or misleading information.

We've seen patterns of abuse -- some of us have seen hundreds of thousands of examples. We KNOW what abusers do, and what they want us to do. Pretty much, if someone starts asking us for what abusers want, or making the arguments that abusers have made thousands of times already, the only rational assumption is -- we've spotted another one.

But what still puzzles me somewhat is the fact the world's largest search engine depends so heavily on the system you all have described and that without your review and approval (for lack of a better word), no web site has much chance with said search engine.

Click to expand...

That is now a rather out of date view point. Google's algorithms are very secret and no one really knows how it calculates rankings though some aspects can be worked out.

Google depends on income from presenting the best results to its surfers. So only relying on a directory that lists a small proportion of the web would be suicidal. Instead Google adds weighting to a whole range of sites such as the ODP (e.g. probably the BBC, CNN, Wikipedia amoungst others).

The reason that the misconception arises and is perpetrated is that there are a lot of 'get-rich-quick-artists' for whom a listing in the ODP is the only way they can see to get a respectable link. There are also the people who sell links by the thousand on the basis that the more links you get, the higher your Google position. Ignoring the fact that Google is filtering out link-farm links etc., they pin the blame for their lack of success squarely on not having an ODP link. Naturally it is all the fault of an editor who is viciously denying them the opportunity to make money.

There are many forums in which the same out-dated accusations are being made by the same people over and over again without any concession to reality. Unfortunately these misconceptions are picked up by other people and regarded as the truth because the 'experts' on the forum told them so.

Google has changed and the vocal minority have not caught up yet. There are a lot of sites out there which can be more important than the ODP.

Instead Google adds weighting to a whole range of sites such as the ODP (e.g. probably the BBC, CNN, Wikipedia ...

Click to expand...

That is a pretty startling statement. Google has never said that it does anything of the kind. In fact (if we are talking about PageRank here) Google has repeatedly denied that it can or does hand-manage PageRank upwards, though it can impose a penalty on sites by wiping out their PageRank. PageRank is an automatic weighting from the number of inbound links and the PageRank of the pages they come from.

There is always a mass of speculation about Google's algorithm on webmaster and SEO forums. It's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. I'd go to the people who ought to know: http://www.google.co.uk/corporate/tech.html

Sorry if I wasn't being clear, I'm not talking page rank. When Google offers results in a search, page rank is merely one factor. Whilst Google says 'Important pages receive a higher PageRank and appear at the top of the search results.', I often do not find that (appearing at the top) to be true.

[sorry for digressing into SEOLand]

PageRank is far from the whole story, that's true. Google has said that 100 or so factors feed into its algorithm. They keep the recipe for that 'secret sauce' close to their chests.

Primarily Google searches for relevance. Supposing you are looking for something so esoteric that Google can find only a handful of pages with all your search words. It will serve those up first. So a page with PR 1 could come up way ahead of a page with PR9 but not all the keywords you want.

But supposing you are looking for more common words. A search could yield millions of results. This is where PageRank is useful in ranking results which appear equal in relevance. That's a very simplistic explanation, I'm afraid. I apologise to any SE boffins looking in. The search for relevance has become more sophisticated than that of course.

And Google has other tricks up its sleeve. Anti-spam filters can push sites down in search results, even though they are highly relevant to particular search terms and have PR as high as the leading results. That may be the issue you are thinking of? Or perhaps you've been reading about 'Trust Rank'? There's been quite a bit of speculation about whether Google is using that.

Thanks again, folks. I should have found this board a long time ago. I've learned more in the few days I've been here than in the previous 18 months.

The Old Sarge

Yes I was thinking of trust rank and the reverse of an anti-spam filter you mention.

Basically I played with Google for a couple of months when I put my site up last year and worked out how to move my site and others up and down the search result placements..

Conventional wisdom did not always explain the results I got but a new trust rank would [e,g. why are 9 backlinks of PR0-3 worth more than 150 backlinks of 0-6? perhaps because its 'who' the 9 come from].

From my investigations there is one thing that I can be sure of. A loud announcement in the right places stating that you can get a higher PR and Google placement by dancing naked widdershins around Nelson's column at midnight will result in a busy night for the police.

Exactly. That's why we need to be careful what we say.

It is tempting to draw conclusions from the performance of the one or two sites we know best, but the fact is that Google's algo cannot be reverse-engineered, even by experts who watch hundreds of sites. There are too many factors involved.

If Trust Rank is in operation, we can be sure that Google will neither announce its list of seed sites, nor make it easy for these to be deduced. I wish I could say that my site was doing brilliantly in Google as a result of its links from the BBC, ODP and Wikipedia, not to mention numerous universities. In fact it has been blighted in Google for over a year.

Like I say - there is no magic in an ODP listing.

ODP Listing effects

The website I administer has reached a plateau in terms of traffic in the last 5 months (annoyingly). It was included in the ODP over 2 months ago. It's inclusion has not had any effect as of yet in the traffic we experience.

Editors have said that the ODP is not the golden egg. I thought it would help to underline that concept by being just another person who wants to have their website traffic and buisness grow state that such is the case.

So, as Editors have said in the past, if you are counting on the ODP to promote your website/buisness, close your doors now and save yourself the trouble as any website/buisness who depends on a single source of marketing is doomed. If you have delusions of granduer in regards to what the ODP can mean to your website/buisness, I'm telling you now, at least for my particular case it had zero effect in the last 2 months. Maybe that will change, maybe not, but if we depended on our ODP listing to any degree we wouldn't be around to see it change as we'd be out of buiness.

If you want your company/website to see some real traffic increases, spend money. In my case 50% of our online marketing traffic comes from Google. Not our organic ranking (41st listing for the most popular keyword of our industry) but our Google AdWords campaign. You can create similar campaigns in numerous other resources.

A small fraction of that traffic is from our organic listings as we do have numerous #1-#5 listing on various niche keywords. Listings we've had years before our inclusion to the ODP. It is possible to get a #1 listing in Google without the ODP. Those niche keywords don't hit often but when they do the lead they generate is typically very good.

There are golden eggs out there but just like anything else golden, they cost money. How much they cost is up to you and your ability to use those resources effectively and efficently.

My website's company isn't a big one. We don't have vast amounts of cash to throw around in marketing. We've started with a humble Google AdWords campaign and slowly increased our spending on there as traffic and buisness has come from it as well as constantly tuning it to get the most out of it that we can.

Once buisness picks up more we'll probably replicate our AdWords campaign on other indexes as well as further investigate numerous other avenues we've been interested in but don't have money to spend on.

Theres tons of ways of promoting a buisness online, it's a full time job for even a staff of people. The ODP is just one small avenue of a online marketing campaign. Thus anyone who is to claim that their buisness is suffering at the hands of their competition due to their exclusion in the ODP should really spend $40 on a good marketing book and learn just how wrong they are. It's not that you're suffering because of the ODP, it's because "your marketing sucks". (A decent book on marketing btw)

Edit - and btw, while Google is 50% of our online marketing traffic, it's 25% of our total traffic. 50% of our total traffic is from non-referral. We have various traditional maketing campaigns that constitute the bulk of our traffic. Those campigns become more and more effective as the marketing community continues to undervalue them and thus they are not able to ask for the premium prices that they once were able to before the rise of the internet.

NiV23

That's very interesting and helpful Nivik23.

Personally I'm not interested in making money online, so I'm not going to spend on marketing. But the same principle applies that I can reach my audience in different ways.

I want my students to use my site, so I tell them where it is! Other students might be interested, so I've made sure that it is listed in academic hubs. From there it has been added to university intranets. And so on and so forth.