Is DMOZ dying and/or dead ?

[LJVF]

According to many blogs and forums, dmoz was once supposed to be important, but their results don't seem to drive much on the web any more.

A friend of mine who works in the SEO field says that it's become a hair shy of a non-factor. I've also noticed that a lot of the local florists that show up in Google's top results for my local keywords are nowhere to be found on dmoz. The directory seems to be sparse of florists and a lot of solid brick and mortars are not listed.

For those who are not familiar with dmoz, "it's the largest human edited open directory of the web". Getting listed is usually near the top of most generic "to do" lists for SEO.

There must still be value in dmoz, the question is, how much?

 

[CHR]

Why not find out for yourself? Go to http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_...iness_and_Economy/Shopping/Flowers_and_Gifts/ and click "Becoming and editor" in the upper right corner.

 

[Mac]

I have two clients (not in the floral industry) who I do SEO work for where there is a premium key-phrase overlap. In that regard, one of the clients is listed with DMOZ & and the other is not. The client who is not listed In DMOZ has always ranked better than the client who is.

The only time I've noticed that DMOZ has benefited a site is when a crawling issue ensues. On that, when there is an issue, often times the real-time Title-tag posted in the search results will revert back to the Title-tag that DMOZ originally gave it.

Other than that, I haven't noticed DMOZ's weight in the search results.

 

[theRKF]

DMOZ is still widely regarded as useful source, and their links carry weight. The problem is getting in, as there are often too few editors and long backlogs. <Although there are techniques that can definitely help.>

Latest rumour is that BOTW will be buying DMOZ from AOL. Fitting, since BOTW is the best directory (and LOCAL directory - hello, florists!!) and they have hired all the old-school DMOZ editors anyway. BOTW folks are also some of the coolest people you'll ever meet in search, and throw the BEST parties. (there's a picture of me with a cutoff of Danny Sullivan somewhere on the interwebz that was taken at a BOTW party. I'm happy that it's NWTFB at the moment!)

 

[bloomz]

According to everything I can find and ascertain, DMOZ is fairly well a dead issue. I wouldn't worry about it.

Other than a single link from a PR 8 site, that's about all its worth any more. The data isn't being used that much anywhere of significance any more. I notice google built the noodp tag about 2 years ago, at least partially to counter the stale information in the dmoz directory. If you don't use that tag in your meta tags - you should, by the way. (<meta name=”robots” content=”noodp”>)

Bruce Clay's Search engine relationship chart no longer shows them as feeding data. http://www.bruceclay.com/searchenginerelationshipchart.htm

Google now has their own directory. Back in 2003 they fed google data every week.

That was a time when it was a necessity, but I think that time has long passed, and their "technical difficulties" a couple years ago made it all the worse, as it shrinks into web obscurity.

I know a bit about this - I was an editor there for a few years, for 6 states, spent hundreds of hours editing florist listings, with the intent of giving myself an advantage. Myself and other editors rejected many floral sites for what I now believe to be truly bs reasons, other than to gain an advantage. The justification was - I was the one spending the hundreds of hours. No one with a wire service site was allowed, which it inferred somehow made them less of a florist. (the standard cut and paste reason for delisting or non inclusion was "template site lacking unique content") I no longer believe having a wire service site is any kind of judgement of quality of a florist, and many great florists have and use them.

When they finally fixed the tech problems I think it was already shrinking into a non issue. The tech problems exacerbated and hastened its demise, as the data grew very stale.

There are only 478 US florists listed there now. Oregon shows only 23 florists (I believe I added most of them), the third largest - California the largest with only 62, next to Florida which has 58. Many states show 3, 4, 5 florists in the whole state. The criteria for inclusion makes it inaccessible for about 95% of florists. It never was "friendly" for the public to use - go there and search for "florist yourcity, state"
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=florist+portland+oregon
and it can't find you - the only way is to drill down thru the categories and not many people even know how to do that, let alone have the will to take the time figuring it out.

Maybe if it gets bought it will get revitalized by paying editors, but it just became too much volunteer work for many of us to continue.

So the short version is - IMO - If you're not already listed, I really wouldn't worry about it, unless you think a single link from a good PR site will push you up enough to matter.

Just bloomz opinions, and you know...

opinions vary

OK time for bed...nite all.

 

[CHR]

I'm on a flight to New York in a couple hours so there's little time to post.

Couple things:

The directory has a set of guidelines to which each editor must abide when including/listing sites. The guidelines can be read here. Failure to follow the guidelines can and does cause editors to lose permission to edit in the directory.

The directory indexes unique content, which is clearly stated under Sites to include.

Original, unique and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject.

A site should not mirror content available on other sites.

IN Shopping, this means sites whose content (products) are clones of products from other companies, like wire services.

Also see Sites Generally Not Included.

Florists are listed in many places, depending whether they sell unique products online, primarily consist of a unique portfolio or (if featuring non-unique product content) and/or are relevant to the location where their business operates, like this page from Denver.

Google uses the DMOZ data as a clone and it can be seen here.

If you see a site that fits a category, feel free to suggest it, or better yet, apply to edit the category and improve it.

Editors are like librarians placing sites on the right shelves (in the right categories). Sites can and do change content after being listed so if you see a site that no longer belongs in a category, report it using 'update listing'.

AOL sucks as the owner of the directory and has let the technical aspects languish for far too long. They are working on new software and bringing in new hardware. Hopefully, the changes will make editing easier and revitalize the project.

Some good editors did leave to BOTW, but there are many good ones left. They need more volunteers to help so feel free to apply.

 

[LJVF]

The directory has a set of guidelines to which each editor must abide when including/listing sites. The guidelines can be read here. Failure to follow the guidelines can and does cause editors to lose permission to edit in the directory.

The directory indexes unique content, which is clearly stated under Sites to include.

Aren't wire service arrangements branded products? So are you saying that dmoz won't index websites that carry the same branded products of any manufacturer including non floral? For example, will dmoz not index drug store websites that carry Johnson & Johnson products? Or all book websites that carry books published by Random House?

 

[CHR]

No. Read the guidelines. Typing from phone here so sorry to be brief.

 

[LJVF]

No. Read the guidelines. Typing from phone here so sorry to be brief.

I think they could be open to interpretation. I'd also like to point out that there are several FTD template sites listed in dmoz, does this mean that the directory is dated?

I'm convinced that Google is aware of the many flaws of this once powerful directory and has made weighted adjustments to account for it.

 

[goldfish]

I just discovered that our site is in the list (one of the only 23 florists in NY). I didn't ask for it. Starnge.

 

[bloomz]

Aren't wire service arrangements branded products? So are you saying that dmoz won't index websites that carry the same branded products of any manufacturer including non floral? For example, will dmoz not index drug store websites that carry Johnson & Johnson products? Or all book websites that carry books published by Random House?

Pretty good analogy - before I "left" I tried to argue that point - many many vendors use factory shots to sell branded products, and to me they were unique by the differing locations they serve. It is not a good criteria.

What it does is exclude florists based on technical acumen, something most do very poorly at, not the quality of their businesses or products or service. Like I said there are some awesome florists who use wire service template sites stocked with wire service images.

Problem is - it leaves 800TFTD to glean those orders (their unique images, right) because the florists weren't allowed to compete with them there.

I think they could be open to interpretation.

Totally, and they are. I know this because I did it first hand. Until they have robotic listings, he human factor will always create interpretations that give one's self an edge. To think otherwise would be just, well, silly.

I've read their guidelines many times and the intent as I see them was unique stuff for the directory and by their nature each shop is unique to their location. Product photos they choose to use have nothing to do with their uniqueness.

I'm convinced that Google is aware of the many flaws of this once powerful directory and has made weighted adjustments to account for it.

This is why it doesn't matter much any more - the quality just isn't there and it isn't a good resource for google or for the public - in our case - trying to find a florist, say in Medford Oregon, where there are several very good florists.

I can only assume it extends way further than just the florist category or google would be still actively using their data feeds.

 

[CHR]

I think they could be open to interpretation. I'd also like to point out that there are several FTD template sites listed in dmoz, does this mean that the directory is dated?

It's always dated, as is every directory, since it's impossible to stay current with all 4.5 million hand edited, human written listings. Content changes, sites get sold or hijacked and some black hats submit content to pass approval and then change it once listed. Every directory and search engine has similar issues.

I'm convinced that Google is aware of the many flaws of this once powerful directory and has made weighted adjustments to account for it.

If a category is no longer relevant, I too believe G decreases the PR.

I just discovered that our site is in the list (one of the only 23 florists in NY). I didn't ask for it. Starnge.

Sites do not have to be submitted to be listed. In fact most editors prefer finding relevant sites to wading through submissions which can consists of hundreds of spammy sites, mirrors or worse.

Since it's pretty apparent I'm an editor, I might as well out myself the rest of the way. You can see my profile page here. You can read my queries about becoming an editor here. (Yes it was 5 years ago this week.) The first sites I ever added to the directory were those of my fellow local florists in Anaheim.

I have more than 8000 volunteer edits to my credit.

I'm also very proud to have received some very nice awards from within the editor community for my work to clean up and add content to flowers categories throughout the directory.

When I became an editor, the senior Flowers editors routinely deleted any florist submitted that used a WS template (with or without unique content) but had an entire category called 'Wire Service' that was filled with nothing but OGs using FTD & TF pictures. Turns out some of the editors had multiple sites listed in that category. Not only were those sites NOT unique content, they also violated the guidelines of offering primarily affiliate products. The idea is to offer unique choices, not 50 sites with the same FTD or TF products all trying to make take a cut before passing the orders on.

The self-serving editors were banned for abusive editing and the 'Wire Service' category was disbanded. Not by me, but by 3 Metas (very senior) editors who couldn't believe Flowers categories had been run the way they had.

I don't have time to go into all the discussions about flowers and florist taxonomy, but know that little was ever discussed for the first 5 years of the directory. Local florists got the shaft and OGs cared most about their own listings.

Is DMOZ dead? No. Is it great? Right now no. It needs help from editors who will honor its guidelines. Don't like them? Start your own directory.

As always, there are far more volunteer critics than volunteers who actually do the work.

 

[bloomz]

The self-serving editors were banned for abusive editing and the 'Wire Service' category was disbanded. Not by me, but by 3 Metas (very senior) editors who couldn't believe Flowers categories had been run the way they had.

That wasn't me, by the way - I dropped off when it sort of went dead for about 6 months.

Tho I was admittedly self serving - the whole reason I put hundreds of hours into it - to gain an advantage.

Other than a single link from a PR 8 site, that's about all its worth any more.

Correction: the drilled down to the state florist categories only carry a page rank of 3 now.

 

[BOSS]

since BOTW is the best directory

Huh?? Help me out here...

It seems the BOTW list is somewhat incomplete??

 

[CHR]

I think they could be open to interpretation. I'd also like to point out that there are several FTD template sites listed in dmoz, does this mean that the directory is dated?

I need to make it clear that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with a template-based site. It's the CONTENT and not the packaging or hosting company.

Some florists customize the templates to make them unique. The easiest place to start is with the 'About Us' page where a shop can include specifics to the operation - photos, background details, business hours, etc.... Many template-based florists sites are listed in the cities in which the florists are located. (Regional categories.) Some are also listed in Shopping categories.

For stores with online sales, unique products matter since in Shopping (as opposed to Regional) categories, the product is the content focus.

For custom design studios, a portfolio of previous work says the company is unique.

But florists shouldn't craft their sites just to be listed in DMOZ - the same uniqueness issues can also matter when it comes to search engines. Ryan has been blogging about these in http://www.floristseo.com/ and the articles on duplicate content are right on point.

 

[CHR]

Causing buzz in the search engine world:

Google Removes Directory Links from Webmaster Guidelines

A quote from Google's John Mueller:

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. 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 .

 

[bloomz]

I thought so.....

thanks for posting that.

 

[CHR]

Goggle's 2001 Search flashback gives us a strong glimpse into why OG's dominated Google's (and other search engine's) SERPS in the early days - especially for local keywords.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the 'Wire Service' category carried a PR6 - while the highest local florist category was ranked a PR4. Create some doorway pages with city names and - viola! - they would appear ahead of most every real local florist in a town.

A PR6 inbound link was pretty powerful in those days (and still is).

All a company had to do was omit their physical address (i.e. not admit to being a real local florist) and their site could be listed in the "Wire Service" Category. 'We serve/deliver to the world'.

If a street address was added to a site, the site got removed from the category and placed elsewhere based on the location. Sick and twisted, huh?

The ultimate Brick and Mortar penalty.

IMO SE's still suffer from the miscategorizations and poor taxonomies of "florists" and "flowers" that go back to the early days of Search.