It's 2012 --- is DMOZ still relevant at all?

Can't quarrel with any of that silencer .

To repeat comments I've been making for several years, some old SEO advice was that an ODP listing would make money fall from the skies. That might have been true last century and maybe even the first half of last decade but I don't believe it's true today. The problem is that some desperate website owners believe that old advice which is also promoted by SEOs looking for excuses.

If the success of a business depends upon the behaviour of anonymous and uncontrolled ODP volunteers working to their own time scales and ODP's objectives, it should close down right now and cut its losses. If consulted, its financial advisors would agree.

OTOH, if it doesn't depend upon an ODP listing, why all the fuss, invective and insults?

 

The three points I had above that...

Are you saying those things never happened?

The boards here on Digital Point had a wave of posts how Google devalued directories in general as well.

Why? There are several directories with single editors out there that you can submit to. Sometimes you get lucky in a few months when the owner pops in, some you never get listed in. Are you suggesting that those are good to submit to as well?

 

Which could be more the fault of the structure of forums than anything else, since people read something written by someone at a time in the distant past and say "ZOMG! that must be true!". There is never any evidence supplied to back up claims or any background given by the poster to indicate they have some sort of authority on the matter... hence these "SEO myths" perpetuate into gigantic fallacies.

Agree which is why I cannot understand the "chicken with its head cut off" approach utilised by most posters in this forum who were unable to gain a listing. Maybe if they spent more time focusing on their business and less time whingeing on forums about not getting a listing, they'd be a success. They sure as hell wouldn't be talking about DMOZ because they'd be too busy talking to their clients - the one's that make them money!

Indeed. So flawed business models then... hahaha.

No. But I clarified them for you, since you take them at a literal standpoint and don't bother to analyse or understand why they happened.

Google removed their ODP Clone - because no one used it. MC explains this in his video. No one was interested in a clone directory whose only value add was to filter via pagerank. If you watched the complete video you would also hear him state that in some countries they kept the clone, because people DO use it. He alluded to the fact that it was quicker to search that way based on non-english characters.

Google stopped suggesting we submit to ODP - because people thought they HAD to submit to it, and if they weren't included somehow it would affect their Google result. Google removed that suggestion (and also the Yahoo one) because they wanted to correct the misconception. People thought that Google recommending DMOZ was them saying it was a super-sonic-ultra-mega-important-must-have link. Google just removed the suggestion, which took away this misconception. You misinterpret this as a suggestion that it is negative to be listed in DMOZ. Well Google doesn't suggest being listed in anything anymore, so does that mean all websites are negative to be listed in? Perception is everything. All Google has done is level the playing field. DMOZ is for all intents and purposes the same as any other website. It doesn't have mystical properties and 1 listing isn't going to magically rocket you up the rankings... I'd say removing the suggestion cleared up that misconception. Nothing more.

Google said it holds no more sway than any other site Correct. It doesn't. They've cleared that up. But you are suggesting it's worthless. Which in itself is a misconception. You think it's a see-saw. DMOZ was up, now it's down. No. That's wrong. What's happened is DMOZ was at the top of the see-saw and now its in the middle, the same as everyone else.

So your evidence, isn't evidence at all. You've merely quoted or pasted something you've read without actually investigating it at all. I OTOH, have delved into it in depth. Whilst DMOZ no longer has an aura, and people shouldn't think about it in a way that puts it above other websites... it is still an aged domain website, with authority and as such a listing in it is good.

Is it better than a listing from another aged website, with authority. Nope. Is it worse. Nope. It's just the same.

 

The boards here on Digital Point had a wave of posts how Google devalued directories in general as well.

That was the leftover, unwanted quote of mine...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Goo...97dc4a44095abb&bpcl=39580677&biw=1366&bih=602

MANY directory owners have shown (see the search above) that their directories were hit on some level within the last couple of google updates. If they were, there is a pretty good chance the ODP was. Or is there failed logic in that too?
Duplicate content was affected with both the penguin & panda updates, the ODP is (or was) the king of Duplicate content with their RDF files and dozens of clones.
Irrelevant content, and spam, two things that DMOZ is finding more and more of within it's pages were both hit by the updates.

Yes, DMOZ still falls within the a link is a link is a link category, but it is also a directory, and directories in general have taken a hit over the last few years, which leads to the idea the ODP is failing, as all directories are. Granted, a few 3rd world countries still think it's top notch, and they might be right, where they are.

And for people submitting to free directories still, that IS what the OPD is for the most part, so yeah, submit... the chances of getting listed are about the same as the other free directories that are no longer maintained.

 

Im intrigued as to how DMOZ is the King Of Duplicate Content????

Google and the downstream users of the RDF had the duplicate content....we have the original content Thats why Google removed their use of the RDF, because they couldnt punish everyone for using duplicate content whilst retaining and using our content, which would be duplicate.

I think this is a far more accurate view of what has happened.

 

A king has many subjects does he not?

The king has control over those subjects as well, does he not?

Would father of duplicate content be better? I mean, the entire ABOUT page and Social Contract are about those that use the duplicate contact.

 

You are changing your inference Twisting it yet again.......

 

Great thing about an inference, it's meaning changes based on who is reading it.

 

DMOZ holds control over their duplicate content through the use of the RDF dumps and copyright licenses... so they are the king of their duplicate content, and the leaders in duplicate content, or used to be, as the ODP was the leading cause of such things at one time.

So no, they are the king of duplicate content.