Search Engines

[Guest]

A serious point, why do you list Search Engines when they do not have any original or unique content?

[Guest]

Well, for one thing, we can't safely assume that we have links in our own directory to every site listed anywhere by any search engine.

[giz]

Search Engines provide a unique service to users, they are each different in the way that they operate, additional features, and what they find. They also don't tag their own affiliate code on to the end of each search result found.

[beebware]

They do have unique content though. For example, Google has it's unique PageRank algorithm for determining the 'ranking' of sites (Altavista has its own system etc etc), they offer something different (very few now only offer search engine facilities - usually image search, USENET search, news searches etc).

 

_If_ Altavista returned exactly the same content as Google, then we wouldn't list one of them (or both). But I bet I can type a search term into Google and I'll get different results than Altavista.

[Guest]

Besides, if we didn't list other search engines, folks might start thinking we weren't impartial or something...

[Guest]

Thanks for your replies, very imformative, thank you. And now that most search engines take "paid for advertising" what are your views on this?

[Guest]

We list lots of sites that make money, unless of course the links themselves are affiliates. Now why do you ask. You aren't into that nasty old affiliate linking, are you?

[giz]

We can list whatever fits the Guidelines.

[beebware]

Most sites have advertising of one sort or another (banner ads, pop-ups, 'text links ads'), but most search engines try to distinguish between 'paid for' results and their standard results. Indeed, I believe there is currently some sort of 'agreement' being made in the States where search engines _have to_ distingish between 'real results' and paid for.

 

If a search engine was _just_ paid for results, they'll have to:

a) have lots of them (over 5,000 different sites I would guess)

b) have some sort of 'ranking' algorithym and

c) have some other sort of unique content worth listing.

 

But I'm sure you don't really want all search engines to be _just_ "Paid for" results do you - as that'll stop the common-to-honest small-business person from getting their site listed and only people that are willing to spend money to promote their site (no matter how good or poor it is) in a 'spammy method' (ie getting their site listed under keywords or categories that have nothing to do with their site) will be listed.

 

But, would anyone find a search engine like that worth going to for search reasons?

[giz]

... or would anyone find that going to a Directory made entirely with paid for (or even just all affiliate) links useful, either? Probably not.

[Guest]

More interesting replies, however a web site these days can get premium exposure on the biggest search engine bar none with little expense. How do you view this development?

[giz]

You're back quick; just time for a quick reply in between removing more inappropriate submissions.

 

If you mean Google, then that is first seeded with quality sites, that are already listed in the ODP; which is why people try any trick in the book to get listed here.

 

If you mean adwords, then let them pay for that service, it doesn't interfere with the normal search view. The highlighted sites seem clearly marked out that they paid to be there.

 

 

However, where exactly is this all leading?

[Guest]

Yes, they are clearly marked out as having paid to be there as "Sponsored Sites" assuming everyone knows what sponsored sites mean, folks might quite understandably assume that they are sponsored by Google rather than the other way round. How would you differentiate between a Search Engine that takes paid for advertising rather than one that doesn't? Obviously the one that doesn't accept payment is totally impartial and one that does accept payment is promoting advertisers over other sites no matter if it's clear that they do. Folks will see the "advert" and choose to click on it rather than a "normal listing". If this wasn't the case they wouldn't be able to sell advertising space?

[Guest]

Some people will click on the advert, maybe. Personally, I've always tended to avoid them, finding the regular search results more useful.

[Guest]

You interestingly agree that some people will click on the advert, how then do you differentiate on DMOZ between search engines who take advertising and those who do not?

[giz]

>> Obviously the one that doesn't accept payment is totally impartial and one that does accept payment is promoting advertisers over other sites no matter if it's clear that they do. <<

 

Hmm, they are only 'promoting over other sites' if they are actually pushing normal results off the bottom of the page, or try to deceive you that the paid for listings are just normal listings, or present listings that are not what they appear to be. I don't see that happening in major search engines or directories. This is much the same idea as the many sites with tagged affiliate links with the affiliate code 'hidden' from view that some people try to get the ODP to list. Those are deceptive, and don't get listed.

[beebware]

We don't. We differentiate between search engines that are _all_ affiliate laden links and sites which have a degree of advertising. If an editor can not tell what is advertising and what is 'real content' (be it proper search engine results or just a review), then the site will get rejected.

 

Unique content is the name of the game, but if we can't see the content due to heavy advertisments or affiliate links - then it's doubtful it'll get listed. Especially if a webmaster tries to hide the affiliate links using 'onmouseover' events and the like - it just makes an editor even more suspicious that a site has something to hide: and, hence, make them even more reluctant to list it.

 

If, for example, a shopping directory site had a large number of affiliate links - then it would not be listed, but if it had reviews of the majority of the sites, then it _may_ be listed. No site is guaranteeded a listing, but if you can "show the editor" that it has content which is useful to the third parties, then it probably will be listed.

 

[edit: corrected spelling of suspecious to suspicious]

[beebware]

More interesting replies, however a web site these days can get premium exposure on the biggest search engine bar none with little expense. How do you view this development?

 

This sort of question is probably more suited to sites such as http://searchengineforums.com/ or http://www.webmasterworld.com or one of the many other chat and forum sites dedicated to generic search engine optimisation and the like. This board is run in an unofficial capacity by volunteer ODP editors, and while it has not 'official' connection with ODP we do aim to keep the topic of conversations ODP specific.

[Guest]

A shopping directory with affiliate links? I seem to remember one of those coming around here not long ago.

[Guest]

I can see the point if a site had a large number of affiliate links that outweighed the other listings. If a DMOZ editor had any doubts in that regard would they check to see how many sites linked to the site in question or would they assume, at first glance, that they were correct in the assumption that the proportion of affiliate sites to regular non affilated sites was overbearing. For example, take a site that had say 1760 links to it, it can be assumed that since search engines do not show affiliate links that such a site has been linked to by totally independant sites who find it worth linking to?

[apeuro]

Moving this thread to the Member's Forum . . .

[Guest]

Interesting how you try and swamp one contributor with submissions from an over bearing number of editors, the lonely contributer feels quite overwhelmed.

[Guest]

It seems to me they would look at a few of the links and use those as a general indicator of the general link quality. Affiliate sites link to each other all the time, though, and not always with affiliate tags, so link popularity could be faked nicely. I think the system of just looking at the site is the most effective. Why do you ask, though?

 

<added> What do you mean, swamping? No one's dumping anything on anyone else here-- we're all just contributing, right? You can't blame us for wanting to be extra helpful on such a popular issue <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> </added>

[Guest]

I'm sorry since I seemed to have got you all in a tiz over an objective and interesting debate, but I have to ask, where do I find the members forum where this thread has been moved to?

[beebware]

I can see the point if a site had a large number of affiliate links that outweighed the other listings.

 

It is impossible for an ODP editor to check every single page of every single site - therefore most of the time, we take a random sample. We pick two or three sections of a site and see the content. If those randomly chosen sections are 'under construction' or just filled with affiliate links, then we would take that as a good cross-section of the site. Ok, a site may have only 3 out of 10 categories dedicated to being just affiliate content, but without spending hours upon hours on each site (and letting the already quite large backlog of unreviewed sites grow even larger) it is not possible for an editor to do that. If a section is marked 'Under construction' or 'The following pages are provided by sponsers/affiliates' then we _may_ avoid those sections (dependent on the editor).

 

If a DMOZ editor had any doubts in that regard would they check to see how many sites linked to the site in question

 

Each site is judged on it's own merits. Just because 1,000 other sites (which could just be by the same webmaster or by getting their 'button' on the bottom of each page by some sort of link-agreement) link to one site, doesn't mean that the content is good.

 

totally independant sites

 

You'll be surprised at the number of times we (the hard-working volunteer editors of ODP) hear this phrase and then, when we look into the sites 'in-depth', we find out that they aren't quite as 'totally independent' as first appears. Take, what seems to be this thread's 'token example' - a shopping directory. You may say a web design orientated company that specialises in GIF images and Adult websites is a 'totally independent site' which links to the shopping directory - but editors have, due to experience, know where to look for 'links' like this.