homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.161.112
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 ( [1] 2 > >     
DMOZ Offline?
403's rather than the usual timout...
yetanotheruser




msg:476927
 4:40 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey ho..

Am I the only one who is getting 403's for the whole of DMOZ!?

edit: sorry.. didn't notice the very similar thread right in front of me! being a bit 'offline' myself today ;)

 

HuhuFruFru




msg:476928
 4:47 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

yes:

"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."

peterdaly




msg:476929
 4:53 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's horrible how critical that a site in this overall shape, both in terms of lack of editors and hardware, the cornerstone for building traffic to a website is in.

Want good traffic from Google? Step 1 - get a listing in DMOZ.

This is a real problem. I have a few sites which either have been declined, or have been in a queue for months without a review.

The "system" for getting traffic is broken.

-Pete

PS - I ran into this problem this morning as well.

kctipton




msg:476930
 6:56 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

A few weeks ago I recall Google throwing off errors for a while. Anyone start a thread about that? Nobody's perfect and nobody has 100% uptime.

creative craig




msg:476931
 7:00 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am having a few problems at the moment getting to the site.

If you are having any problems with your site not being listed after two or three weeks then head on over to resource-zone (read their TOS) and ask in the URL submission forum, a meta will take a look and see if the site has been declined or if it is still in the que.

Craig

cornwall




msg:476932
 7:05 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Nobody's perfect and nobody has 100% uptime.

Very true, however a site of DMOZ's stature should be able to manage better than the industry average for downtime.

Even you would have to admit that downtime is worse that other major sites, and that today has been particularly bad for DMOZ.

It has not been possible for anyone to get entrance vis the public conduit for virtually the whole of today.

I am frankly surprised that you even try to defend that!

motsa




msg:476933
 7:30 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you are having any problems with your site not being listed after two or three weeks then head on over to resource-zone (read their TOS) and ask in the URL submission forum, a meta will take a look and see if the site has been declined or if it is still in the que.

Wait at least a month after you submitted, not 2 or 3 weeks, to inquire at Resource Zone. An editor (usually an editall or meta but it could be a regular line editor in that area) will check for you.

rfgdxm1




msg:476934
 9:17 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Want good traffic from Google? Step 1 - get a listing in DMOZ.

Anyone who believes the above is clueless. Step 1 should be to get some decent PR links from sites where this is easy for you. Ask your cousin Kim for a link from her PR6 personal site. I have just today been in a private mail exchange where we were discussing how trivial it is for anyone who is reasonably active online to get good PR by all sorts of numerous, honest ways. He mentioned knowing a teenage girl with a PR6 blog, and some amateur sites he was familiar with who managed to get a PR7. Put bluntly, if an ODP listing is material for your site to do well in Google, that means you just don't really understand how to do well in Google.

Philosopher




msg:476935
 11:20 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>I am frankly surprised that you even try to defend that!

I have to agree. Every site has downtime, and yes I remember Google's as well. If memory serves me, there were a ton of posts in regards to it.

However, DMOZ is positively horrid about server problems lately (past couple of months). Virtually every time I visit DMOZ it takes 4 or 5 attempts before I actually get the page to load. The other attempts I get the generic "cannot find server" error. For a site of DMOZ's stature, this should never happen.

kctipton




msg:476936
 12:16 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Rumor is that the server had a hardware failure today, namely a hard drive crash. It's not a connectivity or software issue.

rfgdxm1




msg:476937
 3:10 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

>However, DMOZ is positively horrid about server problems lately (past couple of months). Virtually every time I visit DMOZ it takes 4 or 5 attempts before I actually get the page to load. The other attempts I get the generic "cannot find server" error. For a site of DMOZ's stature, this should never happen.

I know. :( I think the problem is that AOL just considers the ODP some mistake Netscape made years ago. However, they aren't willing to kill it off because they think the bad will this would cause them would be even worse then paying to keep it going. Thus, AOL gives Netscape as little resources as possible.

Jon_King




msg:476938
 3:18 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

If DMOZ doesn't send you traffic, and gives but one small PR incoming link... why fuss with it in the first place?

cornwall




msg:476939
 9:25 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's still down today - must be bad to be u/s for 24 hours :(

Powdork




msg:476940
 9:42 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

A few weeks ago I recall Google throwing off errors for a while. Anyone start a thread about that? Nobody's perfect and nobody has 100% uptime.

Yes, this 158 post thread
[webmasterworld.com...]

dmoz has a horrible track record. Google has an outstanding one.

Dynamoo




msg:476941
 10:01 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Actually what suprised me is that there appears to be only one machine running dmoz.org, rather than a cluster.

<sigh>.. the world's 157th most visited site offline for a day because of a dodgy hard disk.

Powdork




msg:476942
 10:21 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

If DMOZ doesn't send you traffic, and gives but one small PR incoming link... why fuss with it in the first place?

Because Google says so (I'm not saying its a valid reason, but it is a main reason for the fuss)
Because in many cases you can get a free pr 6 or higher link
Because this link usually and eventually will also come with dmozpr+1 link from the Google directory
Because many other sites mirror dmoz results
Because it is supposed to be an efficient way to categorize the web
Because if your maintaining a site by the hour you can have months of work just to get this one link;)

hstyri




msg:476943
 12:59 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

the world's 157th most visited site offline for a day because of a dodgy hard disk.

The site does have a few mirrors. One of the official mirror sites is ch.dmoz.org [ch.dmoz.org]

yetanotheruser




msg:476944
 1:29 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well I never! .. I never knew about ch.dmoz.. Cheers hstyri! :)

I don't think I've seen DMOZ being this perky (ch.) for a year...

IMHO DMOZ as a credibility that shouldn't be wasted because AOL can't be bothered to support it.

PS. Still down as of 1pm GMT (sun!)

cornwall




msg:476945
 2:01 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ref "One of the official mirror sites is ch.dmoz.org"

As the main URL is and has been down, perhaps it might be an idea for DMOZ to point their nameservers accordingly while the main URL continues to be unobtainable.

However, I would add that you cannot add a URL through that site :(

ct2000




msg:476946
 2:51 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

"there is a known problem accessing [dmoz.org...] at the moment. Staff is aware of the situation and is working on it. "
taken form the DMOZ BBS @ resource-zone

skibum




msg:476947
 8:10 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Can editors still log in to access the site when dmoz.org is down or is it the same for everyone?

DavidT




msg:476948
 8:18 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Seconding skibum's question.

swizz




msg:476949
 8:32 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hello,

I can't bealive how some people could criticize dmoz.
First of all it is a FREE service, and as such, it doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the site infrastructure (please don't reply that netscape does have money).
Second of all, it is truly the best human edited directory in the world IMO, and it is again FREE.

I think they should start like Yahoo, offering some paid inclussion system, maybe so, they could reach there a 100% uptime and they could deliver the so loved dump every month, and everyone is happy.

Cheers
Steven

cornwall




msg:476950
 11:07 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> I can't believe how some people could criticize dmoz.

As post #15 says the reason lies in

>> the world's 157th most visited site offline for a day because of a dodgy hard disk

If AOL cannot afford a new hard drive and are off line for now 36 hours, then one can say that the financing of the operation needs looking at!

They are underfunded and understaffed. I would agree with you that it is "the best human edited directory in the world " but you would have to admit that it does leave a lot to be desired.

Somewhere down the murky byeways of AOL it seems to have lost its way, been sidelined, call it what you like. It deserves better, and I believe most users of WebmasterWorld would like to see it funded and run on a higher level.

rogerd




msg:476951
 11:26 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

First of all it is a FREE service

It is indeed a free service, but it is part of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that is keeping it starved for funds. I'm sure the AOL/Time-Warner executive lunch bills exceed the ODP's operating expense. Let's not even get into bonuses... ;) Does anyone else think AOL bought the ODP as a defensive measure to prevent it from becoming an even more important player, and are now funding it at an absolute minimum to keep it alive but not strong?

I think DMOZ would be better off if it were spun off into a pure non-profit. Then they could solicit donations from those individuals who have prospered from the Internet and are looking for a causes to support. I can't imagine that between Silicon Valley and Redmond it would be hard to raise a few million a year, which would certainly fund better servers and a bigger staff. We can only hope...

joeblakesley




msg:476952
 11:37 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Actually what suprised me is that there appears to be only one machine running dmoz.org, rather than a cluster.

The problem is a HDD-related one apparently and there is a cluster of HDDs as opposed to just one, so it may be the RAID controller, or maybe it is not redundant or something.

Can editors still log in to access the site when dmoz.org is down or is it the same for everyone?

Edit-side is also down.

If AOL cannot afford a new hard drive and are off line for now 36 hours

I doubt that the time it takes is connected to their finances, and fixing it may be more complex than just getting a new HDD (I do not know the details of the problem).

They are underfunded and understaffed. I would agree with you that it is "the best human edited directory in the world " but you would have to admit that it does leave a lot to be desired.

It could be improved a lot (as could everything), but as you point out it is probably the best directory in the world. Even if it is not, the ODP-bashing found in fora is a little repetitive and annoying goven that if people do not like it they do not have to use it (or submit their sites to it). There are alternatives. (BTW I did not think you were bashing ODP at all.)

Somewhere down the murky byeways of AOL it seems to have lost its way, been sidelined, call it what you like. It deserves better, and I believe most users of WebmasterWorld would like to see it funded and run on a higher level.

This may be true. AOL could probably put more into it but of course it is not making them any money.

<added>

I think DMOZ would be better off if it were spun off into a pure non-profit.

In principal this would be a brilliant idea. However, as AOLTW are still providing dmoz (and its needs) even if some believe not adequately enough, this would make little sense. Forking the directory would be a very bad thing for it. (Actually it has already beend one with WWA/Zoron.) Also, the directory is not currently open source just open content. AOLTW have the source and, I believe, have said for a long time that they might consider releasing it.

swizz




msg:476953
 11:59 pm on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Does anyone else think AOL bought the ODP as a defensive measure to prevent it from becoming an even more important player, and are now funding it at an absolute minimum to keep it alive but not strong?

Nice thought rogerd...

I really get emotional when someone starts talking from the ODP as useless or as not professional enough, as an editor I see how many people work hard for it, and how many try to make it everytime better for all users on the web, and all this work without getting paid.

I think AOL should start worring a little bit about it or just sell it, for me the ODP is like the "patrimony of the web", there is so much knowledge, resources in there ... think about if it weren't there... everything deleted, what would it be then? Yahoo?

Cheers
SwiZZ

rfgdxm1




msg:476954
 12:43 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

As I said before, I think the issue is that AOL doesn't want the ODP. The problem is that they acquired it along with Netscape. AOL would pick up a lot of bad karma if they drove a steak through the heart of the ODP. And, more than just disgruntled ex-editors. Remember, the webmasters of sites currently listed tend to thing the ODP is doing OK. Kill off the ODP, and no more dmoz.org listing, no more Google directory listing, along with all the other clones.

anallawalla




msg:476955
 12:45 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

Let's stop the DMOZ critique and get back to the topic of being offline.

What is worse is that it is not in the DNS. I am getting some broken routes now, but a couple of lookup sites can't even find www.dmoz.org. I hope I am wrong.

A traceroute shows most peculiar results including DNS errors along the path.

Anyone else seeing this?

anallawalla




msg:476956
 12:52 am on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

It gets worse.

A domain availability tool shows that I can reserve www.dmoz.org right now!

See [crm911.com...]

(Moderator feel free to copy the screendump to a neutral site and repoint to it - not looking for self-publicity here)

Did someone forget to renew? Someone please tell whoever needs to be told before it gets squatted upon.

This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved