Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Discussions :

Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems

Quote Reply
Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems In reply to
Actually, being listed in DMOZ is not something I'd worry about.

In doing a major overhaul of my sites, many of my links are not in DMOZ, and many of the searches I do give no hits in DMOZ. They do not spider, and as such, list only "websites" rather than current events, news, and such. After a few times of not finding valid info, people will tend to use on of the more up-to-date and current engines. Searches on some of my sites yeild hits that return '0' results in DMOZ.

I find the _only_ time I check on DMOZ is for an import.

I would love to see some real stats on this, but DMOZ is more of a repository for other links sites, than an end destination in and of itself. Also, their noseology is a bit odd. And some of their topics are way too deep.

Anyway... changing your site around to get listed with DMOZ is not something you should worry about, unless you know it will make a difference.

Run a search on them, google, altavista, msn's default, or even Yahoo (which is more dmoz-like than any of the others). I think you'll find an interesting difference in the data, depending on the "timeliness" of your searches.

While it may have 4,000,000 links, 500,000 categories, and 70,000 editors, it makes me wonder what they all do... and that means less than an average of 10 links per category, and with some categories having 10's of 1000's of links, it makes you wonder what all the "empty" categories do.

Anyway.... DMOZ seems to be more of a seed site for niche engines, rather than a search directory of itself. Then again, getting listed in DMOZ, would tend to ensure you are listed with the other niche engines if that is your target.

After your directory is seeded, get it listed with google, altavista, yahoo, etc, and if it's a niche directory, you'll find yourself diverging from DMOZ greatly (as you have said you have done).

I find their "attribution" requirements excessive, since after an intial seeding of a directory, *MOST* directories look less and less like theirs, and you end up plugging their site, and making their site look good, based on the work you did. If they had a different attribution "Some data originally imported from DMOZ" or something similar, it might not be so bad.

Also, with our thumbnailer/thumbshotter program, we are able to fill in the gaps from http://thumbshots.org, and even regenerate whole directories of images.

While we can in no way do a million images a day, and we are far from automated, for most targeted/niche directories a few thousand links is all that need to be maintained.

anyway.... this message caught me somewhat down on DMOZ for actually being so "poor" in the search results.

PUGDOG´┐Ż Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.
Subject Author Views Date
Thread DMOZ Problems craven32 3414 Mar 15, 2004, 10:50 AM
Thread Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems
afinlr 3319 Mar 15, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post Re: [afinlr] DMOZ Problems
craven32 3305 Mar 15, 2004, 4:45 PM
Thread Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems
pugdog 3277 Mar 15, 2004, 7:16 PM
Thread Re: [pugdog] DMOZ Problems
craven32 3266 Mar 15, 2004, 10:38 PM
Thread Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems
loxly 3262 Mar 16, 2004, 10:06 PM
Post Re: [loxly] DMOZ Problems
pugdog 3242 Mar 16, 2004, 10:24 PM
Thread Re: [loxly] DMOZ Problems
craven32 3237 Mar 17, 2004, 11:22 AM
Thread Re: [craven32] DMOZ Problems
loxly 3233 Mar 17, 2004, 12:24 PM
Post Re: [loxly] DMOZ Problems
Gypsypup 3233 Mar 17, 2004, 2:18 PM
Post Re: [loxly] DMOZ Problems
pugdog 3131 Oct 1, 2004, 1:10 PM