|
Google is no longer suggesting that you should be listed in relevant directories. In fact, they’ve even removed the suggestion from their webmaster guidelines, as Brian Ussery noticed. The page used to have bullet points for:
- Have other relevant sites link to yours.
– Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
Those points are now gone in what would appear to be a slap in the face of directories, but SEO folks are the ones really irritated. Google doesn’t appear to see it as a slap in the face so much, but more of simply a non-needed guideline.
Barry Schwartz points to a quote from Google’s John Mueller in a Google Groups thread:
"I wouldn’t necessarily assume that we’re devaluing Yahoo’s links, I just think it’s not one of the things we really need to recommend," said Mueller. "If people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it’s obviously fine to get listed there. It’s not something that people have to do though 
."
Mueller also asks for feedback, "What do you think – does it make sense? What else should we change / add / remove?"
Regardless of what guidelines are on the page, a relevant link is a relevant link. There are still directories like our own eBusiness Directory that don’t offer paid links, and keep the listings quality without getting flooded by spammy and irrelevant ones by using a strict human-edited approval process (call it a shameless plug if you want, but it’s the truth).
There is going to be a lot of outrage over this, but is it really necessary? Perhaps too much focus has been put on directories like DMOZ anyway.
Personally, I don’t use directory sites. Like most other people, I search, I find it quicker and easier. Directories are great if you have the time, it seems that every Directory is using a different category scheme. That actually means I have to learn a new directory everytime I decide to explore one and who has time now-a-days. Give me my quick fix, and just call me an average person. However, if Google can keep the search results clean and I find what I’m looking for quickly. Then I really don’t care how they do it, just let me rank in the top ten
Wholesale T-Shirts & Blank Apparel Club that’s Open to the Public
Its about time that Google woke up and smelt the coffee, the directories were taking up valuable listings, and only served the intrest of bring people to their sites on the strenght of their constituent sites listings, helping the click through rates on their adverts.
For us websmasters, we can now hopefully ignore listing on directories and concentrate on the search engines….
I don’t know why, but I almost feel relived by the thought of directories veing devalued. They were such a pain and probably useless exept for seo purposes. Good riddance!
Yahoo and Dmoz have helped over years with trust and quality indicators due to the original nature of their business. However, for a low level listing in Yahoo, it seems ridiculous to pay whatever they are asking for. And as for Dmoz, well they take forever to evaluate a site and haven’t cleant their directory in a while. You’ll find a bunch of low quality sites being listed because of the age factor (the year in which they were submitted). Even worse, they have sites listed that domainers are selling for high prices just because of that one link from Dmoz.
I’m glad to see these changes are being implemented and G is moving towards better indicators
I think many of us are going to welcome this development. I have been trying to get my site on DMOZ for over a year. It is 4 years old review site with the original content and reviews and had good PR. Still DMOZ folks did not accept the site and it was frustrating. But personally, I don’t many people who use DMOZ or other directories to search anything. Directories have become a vehicle to make money and promote paid links lately, so I don’t see any reason value them.
shayari
It’s absolutely expected step from Google. Now more important to have natural links from web 2.0 websites, blogs, articles, social media websites.
I think Google is dictator. They tell us what is good or bad in internet.
Bottom line.. We don’t use directories anymore. So why keep them? I am in favor of Google. Directories haven’t shown any quality, value in along time and surely not too convenient of a search. Most people either just Google or Yahoo it! Simple as 1,2,3…
Everyone says according to me everything has been penalized. Well, ha ha, I am right again. Google has devalued every damn directory with the exception of a few and dmoz is a ghost town. I havent had a submission approved there in years.
We had such high expectations from the dmoz years ago and look how they fumbled it. The bright side of the story is that Google is at least trying to be consistent for a change.
How come Matt Cutts hasnt chimed in? or has he somewhere else? what about the google webspam team, are they even allowed to speak, lol
With the amount of relevant data from communities and other sources, this is a great step in terms of providing the best possible results to users rather than seeing if someone is willing to pay the $295 ransom that Yahoo ask for their directory or you wade through the wasteland that DMOZ has become with their non-approvals and non-updates.
This has been coming for a long time. No one really uses the directories anymore. Its so much easier and quicker to use search engines. Directories are dinosaurs! They are just little rip-off money earners for their owners, but no one benefits from them. Adios, directories!
Never had much luck with Dmoz, despite a site that has been running for 8 years with about 200 pages and a pretty unique angle on a popular theme (lyrics). Needless to say, I gave up worrying a long time ago. However, I have more recently come across a directory that also has a news page, plus a good blog directory that compiles RSS feeds of the sites they list. Both are more useful and, i would think, sites with better long-term possibilities.
Google is not able to deal with real spam: 1. blog paid posts, 2. paid text links ads that are seen as natural and 3. link exchange tricks. So instead of devaluing real spam they are after human edited directories.
So let’s imagine paid listings in directories are paid links from now on. If Google does not recommend them then we can get penalized for buying them. That is easier than going after text link ads or paid posts.
What about that company which just bought DMOZ recently? They might have paid top dollar for a soon-to-be worthless asset.
My site logs show google from all different countrys of the world as main source of none direct referals with yahoo & msn as 2nd. very rarely do I get traffic from directorys. The way dmoz is run (or NOT run) should be put on the list of conspiricy theory’s in my opinion.
Google is a company, and it must decide which site better than other to continue its job. There will be always spammer, paid listings… its the nature of internet marketing.
I think semantic web will clarify, not all but some of these problems. There will be trusted web agents, and degree of their trustiness.
"As for DMOZ – do they actually accept submissions? has anyone been able to get an entry into their incomplete directory in the past three years?"
I have NEVER been able to get into their directory!!!
Jan
http://www.asiangirlsandbabes.com
Hmmmm, wonder why you haven’t got any DMOZ listings?!
Okay – I’m assuming you’re joking when you say "DMOZ is highly valued and revelent" – by whom? By themselves, for sure…but not by anyone else. They’re known for their absurd control and self-adoration.
Like many of the other people who have posted here, not only have I had to fight to get my sites listed, but then when it showed an area that NEEDED an Editor that happened to fall within my forte, I submitted a complete, carefully-worded and comprehensive applition to become one. After a MONTH of review, they finally denied my application because they felt, and I quote, the following: "Incomplete response to "Please give details, including URLs, of any sites that you own or have designed or promoted, either in full or in part. Also, mention whether you have contributed content to any site, and give URLs as appropriate."
Now – I have about 10 live sites, and I’ve helped to design about 10 more. I listed each site URL. I listed my involvement in each one. It was a VERY detailed and honest application.
IMHO DMOZ is run, edited and managed by a group of power-driven nerds with huge egos and little, uh…else. Instead of using their intelligence to promote the good that can be found on the Internet, they use it to promote themselves, and give no one else a chance. I think it’s GREAT that Google has cut DMOZ away, and applaud their efforts.
It appears I’m not the only person such things have happened to – look here: http://www.dmozsucks.org/But
It’s interesting to see that directories have had such a huge role to play in ranking. I’d like to know if anyone ever went to DMOZ, and searched for a website there. Yet, webmasters flock to them because Google said so. I still believe that, if you want visitors to your website, list it in places where people actually come looking for it.
Well see – the thing is not that people go to DMOZ – they don’t. However, DMOZ servers, in their words, as the "core directory services for the Web’s largest and most popular search engines and portals, including Netscape Search, AOL Search, Google, Lycos, HotBot, DirectHit, and hundreds of others."
So – if you want to be listed in any of those directories, you need to beg, and beg, and beg, and cajole and beg and…well you get the point…the editors over at DMOZ.
USED to be each of those directories had their own system and search engine, and it was easy to submit your site, and it got posted in a reasonable amount of time.
Those days are gone.
Well – I haven’t gone to look, but from the sound of your website, if you read DMOZ’ and pretty much every other directory and/or search engine’s instructions for "acceptable" domains and subsequent content, that would probably pretty much explain why you’ve not been listed.
The DMOZ is junk, I hope the entire internet tosses them because the idea is great, but their service is horrible. I have submitted many websites to them and not received a simple reply. The moderators I swear are people whom monopolize the dmoz to their benefit. Many of the catagories I have submitted valuable sites to have sites that are 8-10 years old and are 404…
DMOZ Sucks. And has for years!
Google may be stating this but lets see what changes. People have been complaining for a while about DMOZ and how it has gone down hill with rumors of it also being corrupt. But the last time I looked Googles directory was still DMOZ. Google also has an advertisment agreement with YAHOO, so if you ask me I would say nothing is going to change. Google just is not going to advertise their position. This will do a few things for Google. One, they can take the denial road stating that it no longer matters as they no longer have it in writing, and secondly the legal side with them showing favoritism towards certain directories. If I am not mistaken, when the guide was written, DMOZ and YAHOO were the only two authority directories around. Now there are a few more. Google has got to stay non-biased. I would also say that the second reason is the main reason that they no longer have it in writing. Personally I believe that they are still in bed with DMOZ and YAHOO, but they just cannot state it anymore.
The links to my hemorrhoids site has been bouncing up and down like a yoyo.
While my Down Syndrome and History and legends have lost nearly all Google valued backlinks – interesting as they are still performing OK – but the relevance is they were only really promoted by me through directories.
It looks like the directories thirst for paid links may have devalued all directory links
DMOZ was biased in it’s linking. Some sites had multidtudes of links from it, and other sites that were even better couldn’t get a look in. No kidding, one website had well over 100 links coming from DMOZ. Several were from pages with PR7 and no other links coming off it.
I asked DMOZ nicely about this, but my mail was then returned as spam.
I posted in the DMOZ blog about it, and was ignored.I think DMOZ ruffled too many people in the end with it’s favoritism and biases.
Although I am not as ‘search savvy’ as all of you above, I have noticed too that DMOZ has not listed any of my submissions even after waiting the time that they say it takes to get ‘listed’. I don’t know…maybe I don’t cross my t’s right or something!
DMOZ folks said earlier this year that I didn’t have enough experience to be one of their editors. So, I built two sites offering over a thousand links under 60 plus categories. Hard work got my first site to the top of the first page of all of the major search engines in 3 months, without directories, and without paying for it. In real estate it’s "Location". In optimizing, it’s "Content, Content, Content". That and learning from informational sites such as this one are key to success. The time you lose with experimenting could be better spent building content. Search engines "do" love content.
It’s about time the pompous self-righteous arrogants asses at Ropey ODP Dope get what has been coming to them. Now they can go back to being nobodies like they were before their editor applications were approved. So long Kopeki, you dunce. I hope people in the future have an equal opportunity to interfer with your business and your family’s well being.
I have been doing SEO for over 6 years now and I can tell you that quality links can never hurt your site. Regardless of if they are on a directory or not.
- Brad
USA Gambling Network
I know one company with 16 DMOZ listings and guess what? They have a bunch of ex-academics and phDers working for them a lot of whom happen to be DMOZ editors. Of course any company must leverage any legitimate advantage it has; however DMOZ is just not a level playing field.
I’ve noticed that some directories I’ve added my site to have never been crawled by google, or google has never had the intention to consider my entry there as a backlink.
As far as I can tell, even with a small amount of backlinks google has indexed several of my pages and is sending traffic to them, listed on the first google search page.
So I’m not sure about the importance of backlinks after all.
I have submitted my site to dmoz 6 months ago with know reply, amother one has been admitted after a year. There are very few sites in its category which is image hosting : http://www.pic4.us
Still it takes them so long to get a site listed.
I Dont think google can through away its directory listing , otherwise he would have to give up the whole linking process.