Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Google Is Banning Sites That Use DMOZ Data
    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/33761.htm

    Figured could be of interest to somebody

  2. #2
    general fuq mrbshouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Argieville
    Posts
    1,381
    Subscribe to WebmasterWorld Is the page I get (correction...just click on the link above subscribe)

    are they going to bann themselves for using dmoz site descriptions or is thier version of a dmoz duplictae filter? I guess that's the point of the article.

    DO NO EVIL ...editors for free doesn't sound real moral

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador buy_online's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,234
    First duplicate affiliate content, then DM*Z...perhaps Wikipdia next?

    I just wish G**G would get rid of the scrapers and other crap.

    Is it good or bad? Hmmmm.... I find most have a distaste for DM*Z, obviously affiliates, but others as well. The editors over at DM*Z seem to like it (DM*Z) though

    Fred

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    Of course Google shouldn't rank pages that are copies of DMOZ. It just comes back to their duplicate content detection. I read Google's getting better at determining the original source of data so all the copies can be removed. I don't think they should make a special case for DMOZ.

    In my opinion DMOZ is pretty old and outdated. I'm surprised Google is still using that data for their directory. I don't see any value in it at all.

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  5. #5
    http and a telephoto
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,708
    DMOZ data is open source, why should people be penalized for using it? (don't hit me) I don't advocate just copying it or duplicating it, but I created 2 resource directories using specific sections 4 years ago using DMOZ data as a base to get started with, and over the years the data on my sites has been updated and changed, deleted and added to, by my sites users. So most of the original data is gone, but valid sites are still there where the info hasn't been updated or changed.
    Deborah Carney
    TeamLoxly.com BookGoodies.com ABCsPlus.com

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    DMOZ data is open source, why should people be penalized for using it? (don't hit me) I don't advocate just copying it or duplicating it, but I created 2 resource directories using specific sections 4 years ago using DMOZ data as a base to get started with, and over the years the data on my sites has been updated and changed, deleted and added to, by my sites users. So most of the original data is gone, but valid sites are still there where the info hasn't been updated or changed.
    You make a good point lox. I agree that taking the data, using it as a base, and building on top of it is a good use of it. Building any site can be difficult without any data to start with. It's what you do with it to make it useful that really counts. In this case I think Google is setting a poor example by mirroring DMOZ exactly.

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  7. #7
    ABW Adviser Panel Dynamoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Opposite the Slough of Despond
    Posts
    5,465
    Yeah, I read the WMW thread and basically it was so much BS.

    What they seem to be complaining about is sites that have thousands and thousands of pages that aren't being indexed by Google. These are straight mirrors and are pretty much akin to scraper sites. It's possible a side effect of the Big Daddy update.

    I've got a site which is largely based on ODP data.. just a couple of dozen pages, and that's fine. I use ODP data in some other places too, to create relevant resource pages. (And you'll note that Alexa is fine too, which is one of the other big downstream data users).

    So... I'd say that you were perfectly safe to use some (properly attributed) ODP data on your site as a relevant resource. After all, that's what ODP data is meant to be used for. If you've got a complete clone of the ODP then you'll have a problem, I think.
    Innovative advertising with Slimeware Corporation and Telephore. Mail-order fuel with Petrol Direct.

  8. #8
    Plazan Merchant Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 25th, 2005
    Location
    cyprus
    Posts
    1,764
    Me and D*** dont get on at all.
    they cant even spell skin care .
    Find us at shareasale.com 12% commission
    Shareasale Merchant 7191
    PLAZAN SKIN CARE As seen on TV . Used by Jennifer Lopez

  9. #9
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    It just comes back to their duplicate content detection. I read Google's getting better at determining the original source of data so all the copies can be removed. I don't think they should make a special case for DMOZ.
    I would think they WOULD have started by making a special case for DMOZ, Wikipedia, and other known sources of often-copied content. That way, they would have a "known quantity" to bounce algorithmic dup-detection attempts off of.

    Then, as parts of the dup-detection algo were perfected, I'd expect them to roll those out to try to get the scraper sites.

    But, it stands to reason to me that the first sites to get dinged would be those that made extensive use of content that G knows *for sure* came from somewhere else.

    Me and D*** dont get on at all.
    they cant even spell skin care .
    Don't feel too bad. D-blows also doesn't know which bulbs are Good.
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  10. #10
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    If it's just a mirror, it should be banned. If it provides some sort of useful added value, it shouldn't. Google has a hard time telling the difference sometimes.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    April 25th, 2006
    Posts
    52
    Its not dmoz or wikipedia per se, it's sites that have a very high percentage of duplicate content and very little original content.

    Cheers,
    Jeremy

  12. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Dmoz and Affiliate sites
    By JohnD in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 28th, 2004, 07:15 PM
  2. DMOZ Relevant For Affiliate Sites?
    By Nordie in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 27th, 2004, 06:49 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 7th, 2002, 06:36 AM
  4. No DMOZ = No Google???
    By ccme in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: May 24th, 2002, 02:58 AM
  5. DMOZ submissions for affiliate sites...
    By tek1systems in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 5th, 2002, 09:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •