| This 103 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 103 ( 1 2 3  ) || |
|DMOZ is getting smaller|
Dead links being deleted faster than editors can add new sites.
| 3:46 pm on Jun 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Im not sure if this applies to DMOZ overall, however it
does apply to the Shopping Main Group.
Shopping appears be be shrinking at 1 to 2% per year.
In my little neck of the woods (Dmoz subcategory), I used to have 76 competitors a few years ago. It has now been reduced to 46.
Everywhere I look, most shopping categories are looking for volunteers.
I know that bigger is not better, and etailing is a lot more difficult now, than it was in 1999, but is this an indication that etailing is being consolidated amonst fewer players.
Or this just an indication that DMOZ has a lack of editors and they are unable to find quality sites faster, than sites are going out of business or being bought out.
| 9:43 am on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Nonsense. Because of the dump, a link in the ODP can result in 100's or even 1000's of inbound links over time. It puts you into the Google directory. It shouldn't. The whole dump process and the feed off of the information is what has corrupted and debased the ODP. |
But but should. It is exactly what should happen. Google is a licensed user of ODP data. If a website in the ODP dump did not appear in Google Directory, then there would be some sort of bug or glitch in the data feed. (Wome people say there is, given that the Google Directory is increasingly stale; but whatever the problem it does not seem to be at the ODP's end).
|It needs to be cut off to give the ODP a net neutrality. |
You may have the process backwards here. The ODP predates Google. So if anything needs to change, it is the data users who came onto the scene after the OPD's creation. That in includes Google and (probably) most of the contributers to this thread).
Better that they get together and decide their response to the ODP, rather than a continuous stream of critics at WMW asking that the ODP change to suit their needs.
| 11:54 am on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>> The fact that DMOZ submit was down for months last year due to a simple coding error is telling indeed. <<
There was a major crash, not some simple coding error. In any case, the editors do not run the hardware for the ODP site, any more than posters on this forum have any control on how the hardware here is configured.
| 2:23 pm on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>>But but should. It is exactly what should happen. Google is a licensed user of ODP data.<<<<<<<<<
Why? Why is there a dump? Why? The ODP is the most stringent user of the philosophy of why list anything twice. The ODP is death on dropshippers and affiliate sites. Yet the ODP spreads it's own content for duplication. There should be no dump. It clutters up the web.
>>>>>>>>>>Better that they get together and decide their response to the ODP, rather than a continuous stream of critics at WebmasterWorld asking that the ODP change to suit their needs. <<<<<<<<<
If you ended the dump, once again I repeat...there would be no complainers here or anywhere else on the net because it would be only one more static link. The editors of the ODP would be able to develop it in peace because it's relevance would only be as a directory. This is what could save the ODP all of it's headaches. Imagine...no more spamming to get in...Your submissions would drop by 90% (I imagine). Think about it ...no more complaints.
But this still does not answer the question. If the ODP is growing as a whole...why is the shoppping category not growing, at least in a relevant percentage. Indeed, it is shrinking disproportionately.
| 8:30 pm on Jul 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Why? Why is there a dump? |
It is exactly the same concept as an RSS feed. Anyone can access the ODP data in a easily parsable way, and restructure it to add value.
Most of the clones add zero value: that's unmistakable. Some add some useful value (such as Google recasting into PageRank order). The opportunity for others to be more creative with the data still remains open.
There simply is no reason why the ODP should withdraw its RDF-style feed. RDF feeds and the semantic web are part of the future. The ODP should not get stuck in the past.
|If you ended the dump, once again I repeat...there would be no complainers here or anywhere else on the net because it would be only one more static link. |
If you ended Google, most of the complains about the ODP would fade away. Let's try that first. (Remember, the ODP dump predates Google, so logically the solution should start with the entity the gave rise to the complaints -- and that was not the Google-free ODP dump)
|But this still does not answer the question. If the ODP is growing as a whole...why is the shoppping category not growing, at least in a relevant percentage. Indeed, it is shrinking disproportionately. |
A parallel question is why are several categories on WMW shrinking disproportionately? Perhaps due to the volunteer posters not taking much interest in answering questions on those topics (perhaps other factors too). But the answer is not (presumably) to close down parts of WMW's service?
| 12:06 am on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Why must you compare the ODP with Google? One is NOT relevant to the other. And certainly the ODP and WebmasterWorld have nothing to do with each other.
The question has been continuously side stepped. I tire of this.
Just my last remark. I asked a room full of people today (all use the web daily) if they knew what the ODP was or did DMOZ ring a bell. Not one knew. 16 people. Several worked with Dell. Some worked on systems in other companies. Two had their own websites. I explained what it was and the general attitude was "what is the point".
To answer my own question. The ODP will never end it's dump because it would become so insignificant that no way, no how would it exist for even 6 months. If Google ended it's directory (which is just as useless)..The ODP will die anyway.
| 4:43 am on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Texasville, in a way what you say is true. From the beginning, the ODP's sole purpose has been to produce the RDF dump. And therefore, obviously, anything that gives up its sole purpose, is going to lose significance.
But if the question were, "why would anyone start providing such a thing in the first place?" -- it was based on the concept of Open Source Software. You get people to give you their effort, because YOU PROMISE TO GIVE IT AWAY ALSO.
That's why public-spirited people stand in line to help the ODP, because it's not a matter of someone trying to monopolize and monetize their efforts: everyone, even the patron, is giving something away.
AOL has never advertised on dmoz.org -- as I remember, it's only been within the last year or so that they even included a "patron link." But 10 years ago, AOL needed a directory (as did every other portal and wannabe-portal), and no doubt the ODP provided something better, and cheaper, than their hireling directory builders. So AOL surely saved money, and of course we have no way of knowing how many of the licensees might have subsidized AOL's hosting support. No doubt AOL is better off with the ODP than without it.
But has Google made more of the ODP than AOL (financially speaking)? Maybe. And Microsoft: how much money did they save, when the AOL drove the annual license fees down by a seven-figure figure? (Of course, that savings was at the expense of Looksmart.)
There are lots of financial implications, and I can't know all of them. But ... I don't have to worry about them. Anyone, including me, can take advantage of all our effort. Nobody can bottle it up for their own exclusive advantage.
Well, some people try to use it, and don't make much of it. That's OK. Morons ought to have freedom also. And every good thing has evil uses. (Some e-mail spammers use random snippets from Project Gutenberg texts as a way of varying e-mail messages to avoid spam filters. What can you say? They are pond scum. They'd be scum if neither Project Gutenberg nor the internet were there. They'd just be scum doing some OTHER contemptible thing.)
So the Open Directory RDF is a win-win for cooperating people, lose-lose for competitors. And that's the appeal, aimed directly at the class of volunteers who were envisioned as cooperating contributors. It doesn't appeal to everyone. It doesn't have to. It just has to appeal to the right people.
| 2:50 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Back to the original post about dmoz getting smaller, particularly the shopping category.
Could it be that not as many sites are being submitted?
When editors have to go out and find sites to list in dmoz, sites that are not already listed, it probably takes alot more time than it would if they had a big pool of submissions to pick from.
Maybe dmoz's many years of treating webmasters with contempt, suspicion, and indifference has caused most webmasters and web design companies to give up on submitting sites to dmoz. After a period of time all these webmasters and web design companies stop even talking/complaining about dmoz. This could bring us to a point where not very many people have heard of dmoz, especially people that are new to the website / webmaster game.
As much as we hear editors complaining about submissions, I think all those submissions might make it easier for dmoz to grow.
| 3:15 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There are probably plenty of submissions especially in shopping but most of them are MFA and affiliate junk and I doubt any real business has DMOZ in there marketing plans. :-)
As for the shirking there is simply not enough editors anywhere in DMOZ and they are quiting or are being removed for daring to object on how things are run by metas and admins - no DMOZ is not community run, everything is governed by metas and admins who don't have to answer or explain to anyone their actions no matter how flawed they are.
Editor numbers have been drooping for the past few years without anyone bothering to change whole nature of how things are done, new editors after few days or weeks of waiting for their applications to be approved or rejected are basically lost on what to do since there is very little or zero tutoring and most of them simply give up and forget about DMOZ.
| 6:54 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>> When editors have to go out and find sites to list in DMOZ, sites that are not already listed, it probably takes a lot more time than... <<
Actually, ODP editors are out on the web all the time doing whatever they do, and if a noteworthy site is seen, many will do a quick check to see if it is already listed in ODP, and then suggest it or list it there and then if not.
Some sites get listed by editors without ever being suggested by the owner or by the general surfing public at large!
| 7:53 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Some sites get listed by editors without ever being suggested by the owner or by the general surfing public at large! |
Or articles within sites, in some cases.
| 8:03 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|When editors have to go out and find sites to list in dmoz, sites that are not already listed, it probably takes alot more time than it would if they had a big pool of submissions to pick from. |
Not at all in my experience.
Take today. I stopped by to jot down the URLs on the notices in a local church porch. When I got home, I reviewed them all and listed just over half....The others being under construction, or already listed.
If I'd tried reviewing the suggestions pool for the locality, I know from experience, I'd list under 10% -- the rest being spam, under constructions, duplicate submissions, mis-categorised, dead or parked sites.
My editing today was much more efficient because I had a quality pool -- the church porch notice board -- to work from.
| 1:48 am on Jul 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Their branding is shrinking. |
That's quite true as either Google prefers the Yahoo directory or Yahoo is aggressively addressing SEO for Google. Either way, in my niche area I'm competing with Yahoo for some major keywords and DMOZ is nowhere to be seen or languishing in the 30s.
The true irony is that Google uses DMOZ and has since demoted it off the front page, you have to play hide and seek to find it, and it's not promoted even in their own SERPs like you would see other SE's promote their own properties ahead of competitors.
Not a good sign.
| 12:42 am on Aug 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The true irony is that Google uses DMOZ and has since demoted it off the front page, you have to play hide and seek to find it, and it's not promoted even in their own SERPs like you would see other SE's promote their own properties ahead of competitors. |
What about sites created (on average) at the same time, same content, same link popularity etc. - does google give extra credit to the one listed in dmoz over the one that's not?
| This 103 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 103 ( 1 2 3  ) |