Howdy,

Finally!! Google updated it's DMOZ based directory! No idea when it
happened though, but we all know it was way overdue!

It had been a while since I checked my possition in Google. And I
only checked because I went from third spot to first for my most
important keyword in Google search, which is a big deal for me because
I've been stuck in third kinda like forever! In Googles Directory I
am now second best. An overal improvement except that unfortunately
does not reflect in PR.

Is the Google Directory gaining importance again? Was it ever
important concidering it was based on DMOZ entries?

Anyone who knwos when the next PR update is due? I've been stuck on
PR4 for two years now, I could do with a boost!

Kind Regards,
Timmermans

On Sep 19, 8:24 am, Timmermans <steventimmerm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Finally!! Google updated it's DMOZ based directory! No idea when it
> happened though, but we all know it was way overdue!
>
> It had been a while since I checked my possition in Google. And I
> only checked because I went from third spot to first for my most
> important keyword in Google search, which is a big deal for me because
> I've been stuck in third kinda like forever! In Googles Directory I
> am now second best. An overal improvement except that unfortunately
> does not reflect in PR.
>
> Is the Google Directory gaining importance again? Was it ever
> important concidering it was based on DMOZ entries?
>
> Anyone who knwos when the next PR update is due? I've been stuck on
> PR4 for two years now, I could do with a boost!
>
> Kind Regards,
> Timmermans

done be daft or hold your breath for a PR update... Matt Cutts says
theres none planned (as i suspect theres things afoot with universal
search / gphone etc)

mark
www.ihype.co.uk

"Timmermans" wrote ...
> Is the Google Directory gaining importance again? Was it ever
> important concidering it was based on DMOZ entries?

No and no; it really makes little odds; but while it exists, it's good that
it's up to date.
For today, at least ;o)
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

> No and no; it really makes little odds; but while it exists, it's good that
> it's up to date.

It would only be up to date if DMOZ were up to date.

Which it sure as hell isn't.

"Phil Payne" wrote...
>> No and no; it really makes little odds; but while it exists, it's good
>> that
>> it's up to date.
>
> It would only be up to date if DMOZ were up to date.
> Which it sure as hell isn't.

1. That's a meaningless statement when applied to a directory; it is what it
is.

2. Name one directory that's more 'up to date' in your terms, and state how
you can tell the size of their waiting list

3. Excluding any directory that would be an unfair comparison - let's say
exclude any directory less that 10% of ODP's size (generous enough?)

4. Don't you ever get bored with ODP bashing? Just submit, walk away, and
try not to get your smalls in a knot.
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

> > It would only be up to date if DMOZ were up to date.
> > Which it sure as hell isn't.

> 1. That's a meaningless statement when applied to a directory; it is what it
> is.

No. The real world is "what it is" - that's what's called "reality".
DMOZ will always, per se, differ from reality - that's only to be
expected. There's bound to be a lag. But it differs from reality so
much that it's pretty much worthless as a "directory" of what's really
going on.

> 2. Name one directory that's more 'up to date' in your terms, and state how
> you can tell the size of their waiting list

Not my objective. It may well be that DMOZ outperforms the others,
but I consider all such attempts futile.

> 3. Excluding any directory that would be an unfair comparison - let's say
> exclude any directory less that 10% of ODP's size (generous enough?)

See above.

> 4. Don't you ever get bored with ODP bashing? Just submit, walk away, and
> try not to get your smalls in a knot.

Oh, I've submitted. (Not my own site, BTW.) How long should I wait?
Is, e.g., eight years enough?

(And - giggle - my smalls were in a knot an hour or so ago. Because I
frequently go on long trips and have learnt deep mistrust of airline
baggage handlers and hotel laundries, I have a _lot_ of smalls. 30-
odd sets of underwear and socks. I washed a batch today and found
myself untangling then to get them hung out on a washing line.)

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:12:41 -0700, Phil Payne
<phil@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:

>> > It would only be up to date if DMOZ were up to date.
>> > Which it sure as hell isn't.
>
>> 1. That's a meaningless statement when applied to a directory; it is what it
>> is.
>
>No. The real world is "what it is" - that's what's called "reality".
>DMOZ will always, per se, differ from reality - that's only to be
>expected. There's bound to be a lag. But it differs from reality so
>much that it's pretty much worthless as a "directory" of what's really
>going on.
>
>> 2. Name one directory that's more 'up to date' in your terms, and state how
>> you can tell the size of their waiting list
>
>Not my objective. It may well be that DMOZ outperforms the others,
>but I consider all such attempts futile.
>
>> 3. Excluding any directory that would be an unfair comparison - let's say
>> exclude any directory less that 10% of ODP's size (generous enough?)
>
>See above.
>
>> 4. Don't you ever get bored with ODP bashing? Just submit, walk away, and
>> try not to get your smalls in a knot.
>
>Oh, I've submitted. (Not my own site, BTW.) How long should I wait?
>Is, e.g., eight years enough?
>
>(And - giggle - my smalls were in a knot an hour or so ago. Because I
>frequently go on long trips and have learnt deep mistrust of airline
>baggage handlers and hotel laundries, I have a _lot_ of smalls. 30-
>odd sets of underwear and socks. I washed a batch today and found
>myself untangling then to get them hung out on a washing line.)

TMI!

BB
--

http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.kruse.co.uk/close-ended-questions.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-software-review.htm

"Phil Payne" wrote ...
>> 4. Don't you ever get bored with ODP bashing? Just submit, walk away, and
>> try not to get your smalls in a knot.
>
> Oh, I've submitted. (Not my own site, BTW.) How long should I wait?
> Is, e.g., eight years enough?

It's eight years too long.
It obviously hasn't occurred that the problem just may be with your site?

Just submit, walk away, and ...

You are concerned with the real world? Square that with waiting for a
directory you hate, even though you admit none are better.

Real life is too, too short, it really, really is, it simply doesn't matter
.... get over it.

--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.