What Google says the Value of a link from DMOZ is.

From Matt Cutts at Google:

“The last thing to know about DMOZ is that it’s not the case that there’s some special boost or some kind of reward for being in DMOZ,” says Cutts. “A link from DMOZ is worth the same as a link from anywhere else. It’s just the Open Directory tends to have a little bit higher PageRank. So as a result, a link from DMOZ might carry a little more PageRank, but if you get a link from a very highly reputable source…that can easily carry just as much or more PageRank than getting a link in the Open Directory Project.”

What that means in plain speak:

A link from any other PR7 website is worth the same as a link from DMOZ.

 

that is not what it means...

Regardless of Page Rank, a reputable site can be worth the same as anywhere else, so long as the link is reputable....

Showing two things.
1st: PR is over rated and not as important to google as many believe
2nd: Dmoz is highly over rated based on point one.

 

Havent the Editors always said that DMOZ Link is not the "be all and end all of links"? Many webmasters obsess about it, generally the newbees or less experienced ones, but a fact is a fact.....its merely a link.

It was never designed to be the "golden link" and "cure all for seo" that some webmasters think it is.

 

How can it be bad a link from DMOZ? I guess for small sites, i dont know

 

I've been waiting months for my submission to DMOZ to be accepted, so I can't really judge how it will affect my site. I'm hoping that it gives me a bit of a boost.

I know that the Yahoo Directory hasn't necessarily changed my life, that's for sure!

 

And a link from DMOZ will not make any noticeable difference either....its merly a link. DMOZ was never designed to strengthen SEO of a site.

 

This is sooooo true, DMOZ was started before search engines, and has not updated since.

 

as a conclusion is the link from Dmoz still good after the update of google or not ?

 

Its authority of domain that matters from which link is coming not matter its Dmoz or any other domain.

 

Well this make sense not been updated this is probably and maybe why the algorithm hit some people and others not! "I say maybe"

 

I agree. that is what it means in plain speak, and that is how he has chosen to define a link/listing.

People are saying DMOZ is worthless, outdated, and doesn't mean much. If they are using that framework to define a website with a huge backlink profile, high PR, and endless forum threads asking "how can I get listed?", then aren't they pretty much saying that any website with less profile than that is even more worthless. Because if they aren't they are hypocrits and/or completely stupid.

If you start calling DMOZ a lame duck, then it stands to reason that all the lamer ducks (and that is a significant portion of the web... e.g. I'd auto-lump everyones websites in this thread in that "lamer duck" basket unless you can prove you are better than DMOZ) are less worthwhile than DMOZ. Can't have it both ways peeps

 

What it also means if that if my site is about widgets, a link on a 15 year old PR3 website about widgets is worth more juice than a DMOZ link.

Pagerank is so last year.

 

DMOZ is dying, its growing slower and slower in an internet world growing faster and faster. It IS a lame duck, and any directory of lesser value IS a lamer duck.

Yes it has a higher PR, but the main reason it is being linked to is due to the hype and power it used to have. the key there is USED TO HAVE. It does not hole the power it once had. I can remember a time online when most everyone I knew heard about google. Now a days, many people do not even know what a directory is.

Google knows that and to say otherwise is kinda just feeding the old hype. Google has removed it's suggestion to submit to it, has removed it's own copy of it, and has devalued directories as a whole...making ALL directories lame ducks on some level. But yes, some are lamer than others.

 

It works as fast as it ever did, people still want to collect sites for a hobby as they always did. Editors collect sites as their hobby and if others want to use the data, good, if not we still want to collect the sites. Not sure where ducks lame or otherwise figure in that.

 

Why even waste your time on a corrupt site like DMOZ.

 

Here we go again....another imbecile making blanket comments Let me guess, your site isnt listed and for that reason, DMOZ is corrupt.

 

That scenario has always been the case. And yet, we are discussing this in terms of the quote you've posted. To that end, it's a very strong link to obtain, albeit one that is difficult, and has an ever diminishing strength.

Any website could fit in that box.

This is one of those phenomenons that showcase the flaw in the PR system. There used to be a directory called LII (Librarians' Internet Index). No one really knew much about it. We had it listed in a niche section for years... Then it went PR6 and peeps starting talking about it. Then it went PR7 (because peeps kept talking about it being PR6)... then it merged with IPL and it went to PR9.

The higher the PR the more likely it is to climb because of that proportional relationship. For DMOZ the existence of this entire separate forum, just for them, indicates that same proportional relationship. Whilst it might seem ridiculous, that's one reason they are still relevant. People are still clamouring to get in.

Google removed the suggestion, because people were panicking if they couldn't get listed in DMOZ (they removed Yahoo too remember). They removed their own copy of it, because it was a dud copy. MC admits that. Their "value add" was to order the listings via Pagerank. Woop-de-fricking-doo. They actually still keep the directory in some countries.

I agree that removing that "suggestion" from their WM guidelines devalued directories. But in reality, directories were over-valued, so what has happened is a balancing out. The thing is, they don't suddenly have a recommendation for another link-type in it's place, so yeah I think the removal was more about leveling the playing field. If they wanted to denounce directories they'd have offered that suggestion...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think your perspective is skewed one way, and perceptions of what something is will often differ.

 

Here we go again with resorting to insults...

Nope they arent never bothered to submit them there.

 

Why wouldnt i insult you and call you an imbecile? You are telling me DMOZ is corrupt and given im involved in DMOZ, you are making a blanket statement saying i and every other volunteer Editor is corrupt. You dont think that is insulting to me and every other Editor?

If you are pointing to a specific Editor that you feel is corrupt, feel free to name him or her and it will be rectified. But provide some proof.

Like i said, a misinformed imbecile

 

So they are corrupt because you say they are corrupt. Sounds like something from Alice in Wonderland.