DMOZ = traffic?

hi all:
I consider myself fortunate as one of my 96 pages site got listed in DMOZ one month ago in the correct category.
however, I did not see increase of traffic to my site. I m still getting less than 100 visitors per day from SE.
hmm.... I have the impression that listing in DMOZ will help ranking and traffic great deal. So what's could be wrong? Could it be sandboxed?

P/S: I m targetting set of keywords with high KEI, reasonable searches on each page. My site is not banned and i use only legitimate SEO.

Last time I did the maths, across all my sites traffic from DMOZ and its clones was about 0.1-0.5% of total visitors.

A DMOZ link will help your ranking in SE's about as much as any other equivalent link from any other site.

hi cbp,

im not sure about traffic because not many people actually use directories anymore.

does it help in your ranking, i would like to assume so. since google directory and other small directory takes listing from dmoz so there will be more links pointing to your site.

correct me if im wrong guys

cheers.

My experience for several sites I have listed in DMOZ over the last 2 or 3 years:

Direct traffic from dmoz.org - practically zero

Traffic from DMOZ clones - one site got a lot of traffic from a DMOZ clone that was installed as a default home page for all their subscribers by an ISP - the rest get a noticable but very small number of hits from clones in general.

From the Google directory - some but very small

From the indirect benefits of inceased visibility in searches - impossible to know

If I had to make a guess, I would say the $ value of being in DMOZ for the last few years if probably less than $100.

For comparision, I have a site that is not in DMOZ, and cannot be put there since it duplicates the content of a listed site. It has a PR of 2, and the listed site has a PR of 4. But it gets me anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000 of business a year.

dear all:
The conventional belief is that listing in DMOZ will help ranking in SEs, and you should expect traffic to your site increase.
But not in my case, hmm, funny. Probably we should not be too bothered with listing in DMOZ anymore?

A link from dmoz gives two quality backlinks, once from dmoz itself and another from the google directory. These two links worth a lot.

My personal reflections on this are based on two sites. I only have two sites listed in DMOZ - and I've seen big differences in the traffic generated between the two.

The first is a technology based site. Being tech, it's quite low down in the directory structure: Computers/Internet/bla/bla/bla/blaAgain/AndAgain/my site. But I'm not complaining becaus eit's in the right category. It gets very few visits from dmoz. Virtually none from dmoz copies.

The second site has nothing whatsoever to do with tech / it / stuff. It's a clothing thing and is listed high up in the directory structure. This site gets a lot less overall traffic than the other (it's also nouveau-sandboxed) but gets a few hits from dmoz and a surprising amount from dmoz copies - really surprising.

The only conclusion I can draw from this small experience is that, as far as dmoz is concerned, it depends. (how helpful is that!!! )

But, as a big dmoz user, if I apply my experiences to my practices, I can see a tie-in. I use dmoz a lot - but rarely for computer/IT related matters - reason? Too many sites are listed with little to offer. If you're interested in knitting, skirt hemlines or ironing techniques, however, it's the place to be - really!

I love DMOZ - it provides me with endless pleasure but, on reflection, rarely for computer related subjects. Unless it's new technology which hasn't already been exploited beyon belief.

I'm happy with my listings - they're warranted, but I'm happier with my lower traffic, non-IT stuff. It's just so cuddly

m

I heared lot of times the phrase:

"About DMOZ - just submit your site and forget about it. It will take a lot of time to be accepted and the results won't be dramatical. But it's a good thing to do. Just don't bother too much with this."

I consider it's a great point of view.

I would happily pay an editor a $100 bucks to just get approved and find out if its helpful. This is by far the worst run system ever seen and yet it has so much power.

Make that sort of offer and you are more likely to get banned than listed.

If its so badly run, how come DMOZ:
1. Has become the largest directory (just passed 5 million sites listed and no other directory has come remotely close to that)
2. Is the fastest growing directory (adds 1000-2000 sites a day and no other directory comes remotely close to that growth)

Thats not bad for theits obviously better than all the other systems What power?

You do realize you can DOWNLOAD the dmoz right? Rebuild the entire site from scratch on your own domain in less than a Gig of space.

http://rdf.dmoz.org/rdf/

I have more data in MY search engine for searching my own site.

2000 sites a day? Yeah that is why it takes Months to years to get reviewed. 60% of the cat's are seeking editors.

Cat's with editors don't monitor submissions.

2000 sites at 12k per site worth of stored data would be 24Mb per day of NEW sites. Their entire content storage is 300MB. There are cat's that haven't had new content in them in over 4 years in outdoors area's.

Bubba a free directory is just bad business. Good politics bad business.

Power- Google gives great power to DMOZ listed sites. The question is Why?

1000's of micro directories download that data for their site's - Theres a backlinking structure without even trying.
Most PPC scripts use DMOZ data as filler because its free and unmonitored.

You have a very serious misunderstanding of what DMOZ is. Its not a free listing service for webmasters. For eg:

Because editors are there to build categories and procesing submisions is not a priority.Where do people continually get this kind of information from? No category is without an editor. Every category has >200 editors (its in the FAQ's and editors have said this ad nauseum in forums, so I question why it keeps getting restated)Why do you state that? Why did you make that up? Its not even close to being true.

Have you not seen all the posts in forums saying Google does not do that!!!! .... and if they did, have you considered that the very reasons that SEO's complain about DMOZ might be the very reason Googe give "power" to a DMOZ listing (ie its not a listing service).

So is it a OPEN directory.

OR a private tool for a few corporations who don't want to pay wages and benefits?



Editors that don't edit?



Years of inactivity, Lines of people who expect a project started with federal grant money to service the public at some point. Lack of openness or accountability. They shut down the forum that serviced it because of the WAVE of people who were pissed at being held hostage by a Open portal that was never open.

What is your proof of success again? A FAQ that isn't supported by the actual presence of content? Refer to the down load section and get your 300MB copy of the DMOZ



I am not an SEO, I don't apply any SEO other than XHTML compliance to my own sites. I have sites in the DMOZ and sites that are not and KNOW the difference. And frankly a Post said is not proof. This post says differently does that make it fact. By your method yes. Mine No. I want proof one way or other. Netscape(DMOZ backed by Google), AOL (DMOZ backed by Google), Google Directory(DMOZ backed by Google) But there is no Google DMOZ connection wow that is naive thinking

Your avoiding questions(since you seem to be acting as a closet editor) If Google is content oriented and if as you say DMOZ doesn't care about the content submitted to them why is there a relationship at all?

What is the benefit to Google, AOL or Netscape?

When EVER in history has free labor produced a better product than hired and trained employees. Does this irresponsible partnership mean the FTC should investigate Google for their failure to meet profit projections?

Look I am not trying to create an argument here just point out there seems to be a disconnect between logic, reality and usefulness.

I am not comfortable with companies making billions from free labor, there is a lack of accountability on the part of Google by placing DMOZ directory links in their algorithm.

You want to make it sound like they are some above the fray independent org, but they are not. They are partnered with 2.1 Billion dollars a year in search. Who is getting their cut at DMOZ(NetScape), How much is that? Do they still need Federal grants?

Why does Google get a phone number and contact to the management for corporate partnerships but smaller sites do not? Does no one else deserve a chance to do it better than them? How would a better product EVER compete against that much money and market control?

My point is one of independence for a potential of growth NOT a promise of it. Without the independence from the major searches New product ideas will just be absorbed into the big engines and claimed as their own.

Everyone talks about this small time friendly approach. Looking cheesy doesn't mean your not part of a corporate giant.

You are now really starting to show your misunderstandings of DMOZ:

Have you actually read the DMOZ social contract? - you obviously misunderstand what the word 'open' in 'Open Directory Project' means.

Misunderstanding number 2 - you need to read the social contract and FAQ's to understand what an editor does before launching into criticisms.
Here is what I wrote elsewhere about the role of an editor: (the quote is out of context, as it was respodning to something else, but it shold help you understand):


We agree on this - serve the public and NOT the webmaster!!

Accountable to who - certainly not the webmaster. DMOZ is private organisation and as such it can do what it likes, within the reason of the law (so can your business)

Why do you continue make things up like this?. The reason the site submission status was closed has been stated ad naseum in many forums. What are you tryig to gain by not being truthful?

Show me one other directory that has achieved the size and rate of growth of DMOZ?

The ONLY connection between DMOZ and Google is that Google is free to download the RDF dump as often they like (and 4000 other sites do the same). You are welcome to believe in conspiracies.

You are again making things up. My status as a editor is well known here - I am not in the closet (or have you not bothered to read other DMOZ discussions and just jump in with your misunderstandings?)

What question have I avoided?

Make a complaint to the FTC ....they will just laugh you off.

Get over it - neither are accountable to webmasters.

There you go again - making things up. DMOZ gets no federal grants.

Thats nothing to do with DMOZ, but why should Google not give out phone numbers to who they want to!!! I only give my number out to certain people!!

Thanks you just proved my point. The DMOZ is a control valve(My words) and not an actual directory resource for webmasters.(Your words)

The intergration with the major searches allows the ability for a publicly traded company to lay blame for exclusion on a third party "non-profit".

I used the words accountablity (YOU say not to the webmasters) I set you up there. Of course not. That type of free for all has never been anything but abused.

Yes I have read the social contract. Its a point of dictation that at no point in time are they beholdent to anyone but themselves. Making the words Social contract an oxymoron.

They should be accountable to the users in who use the system. If a site is denied should"I didn't like it" be the standard. Not if you believe in free speech.

The point I was getting you to make for me is that this is the unaccountable hitching post for future litigation that is coming down the pipe. We don't allow television, radio or newspapers to control more than 30% market share because it gets abused politically. Why would we allow a search engine to backfill, cross populate and address an even larger share?

In order to prove discrimination of ideas you must prove it alogrytmically. The wild card in that math is DMOZ and is the point where a site is not "ranked properly" when its not DMOZ listed.

If I have two sites with exact same content - One I listed in the DMOZ the other is not.

The first gets ZERO promotion but its in the dmoz. The second gets PPC money, submitted to 100's of directories, HAS MORE BACKLINKS over by a factor of 12. Yet every keyword sought for the first ranks 1-5 and the second doesn't get listed. Is that a quirk?

What if I have done it 7 times on 7 different topics and the same results keep coming up? At what point does it become an eye opener that the DMOZ has morphed into a company that is to take the blame in the future for "social activism". Then the poor little non-profit company will take all the blame for the Billions of dollars that the big guys shuffled around in sales through micro-monopolies.

Never said you were wrong just maybe you shouldn't think that its right or even legal.