| 7:02 am on Oct 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'd hate anyone to think that there aren't any, so I'll mention this example of many. Our Swine Flu category [dmoz.org] was created within days of the first outbreaks in Mexico and it continues to grow.
It's not a commercial or 'popular' category, but the kind of thing that ODP often does well :).
We don't yet have a 2016 - Brazil category within Summer Olympics [dmoz.org] which surprised me. Perhaps nobody's thought of adding it yet or maybe there aren't any proper websites so soon after the announcement, just news reports.
Further reading [www.]
| 12:40 pm on Oct 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Jim. I'm sure there are other exceptional sections, but if people both inside and out of DMOZ aren't aware of them that's a problem.
Regarding the swine flu section, I wonder if DMOZ gained a reputation for "snap editorial organization" of topical links if more people would begin to look to the ODP for topical information?
| 8:32 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Summer Games/2016 - Rio [dmoz.org] now exists - and no, it wasn't me.
[edited by: engine at 8:12 am (utc) on Oct. 12, 2009]
[edit reason] fixed link [/edit]
| 11:19 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The Rio link, at least in current form, requires a login.
| 12:20 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Oops! Too late to fix. Please try Summer_Games/2016_-_Rio [dmoz.org].
| 12:45 pm on Oct 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The H1N1 / swine flu category came into being very quickly and had some good sites listed very early
| 1:44 pm on Oct 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|if DMOZ gained a reputation for "snap editorial organization" of topical links |
It's just a hunch or an idea, but as a "large scale editorial organization", DMOZ's ability to investigate, review and organize "timely information" - in an editorially reliable and accessible/understandable (by many ~IQ levels) way - just might offer DMOZ the type of media-atttention-utility-leverage . . that could bring the main DMOZ directory back into the mainstream, in part by demonstrating the value and values of editorial review/expertise/interest/etc.
DMOZ might work out an arrangement whereby other media outlets would either credit or link to DMOZ for the relevant topic . . then DMOZ could archive that content . . and . . . well, . . just a thought.
A far out thought, I know, but . . . wouldn't it be something to watch? ;)
| 1:30 am on Dec 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I actually use DMOZ as a user on occasion when I'm looking for detailed information that I can't find with Google. Most of the time it's a wasted effort, but once in a while it works out. My problem is the number of dead links and spam sites I run across. It seems like the editors review new sites, but never review the current listings.
| 2:11 am on Dec 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree with Freelist
I have come across the occasional great resource that should deserve publicity as the effort that has gone in is nothing to do with user submissions but just because someone is keen to list great resources.
My own example of a great resource on DMOZ is a serious illness my wife suffers from and the resource has been created by someone who has a good understanding of the illness and has listed great sources of help and information. " and seems to take great pride in keeping it updated " I have since met the guy on a forum related to the illness and understand why has done a great job. I do know that he only works on that one category ( Sorry not willing to include resource link as illness is a personal issue).
I do wonder if part of the problem with DMOZ has been multiple fold
1. Allowing User Submissions
2. Allowing editors to edit resources that they are not directly related in or do not have a deep understanding of
3. Moving in to highly competitive markets where greed or financial gain allow corruption.
I would love to see DMOZ re-emerge as a major force on the Internet but suspect it would take a major clean up of both the data and the editorial staff.
Although Wikipedia does have problems and I do worry about some of the content it is a great resource as a starting point providing you take the time to double check the data. They continue to refine how, who and what can be included which is why I suspect nearly all the search engines are giving them more exposure, I would love to see DMOZ move closer to WIKI than the way it has evolved.
I am sure there are many more great categories on DMOZ but because the number of poor spammy resources with dead, changed content or outright corrupt links far outweighs the gems, the time to find those great resources makes it not worth trying. I am sure I am not the only one that feels this way and suspect it is the same reason Search Engines do not give DMOZ more credence
PS sorry for such a long post