fabian, your English is just fine. The topic: The main purpose of my initial post on this thread was try to find an explanation about the relationship between a magnificent search engine and a full of problems volunteer human edited directory. Google was using ODP data for their directory before their relationship with AOL. A human-edited directory provides an authoritative, topically ordered set of web sites. It's free and it serves its purpose just fine. From a technical and management standpoint, Google could run it better. They've got the brainpower, the right attitude and the right company spirit. The people who look in the directory see only the sites that are in there, which at Google are ordered by Page Rank as an indicator of importance. They don't miss what's not in there, and their lives aren't much the worse for it. If there's anything at all wrong with ODP it's certainly nothing that's evident to the users - and that's exactly who Google is interested in and what they're interested in - providing a satisfactory search experience for their users. If people can't get listed because they don't meet guidelines, or because there isn't enough volunteer time being put in to please them so that their sites get in fast enough so they can rank better and make money off the volunteers' free labor, then that's one thing. There's not one single volunteer in this world who owes one single businessperson squat with helping them make money for themselves. That's not what it's all about, which seems to be an overlooked fact. People who volunteer for anything do not owe anyone anything; to expect otherwise is a warped or slanted, misguided point of view that's based purely on self-interest. It certainly isn't based on any kind of ethical value structure, and is about as far removed from reality as anyone can get. But in the eyes of the public, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that Directory. [edited by: Marcia at 11:36 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2003]
| 
