A directory that uses a spider to include listings sounds like a search engine. Doesn't Google/Yahoo! fill that role rather well in most cases?
dmoz is not search engines. it is directory
and i think directory also can use spider. there no guide lines that only search engines only can use spider kind softwares. if human can add, edit and delete listings then software can do very fast same thing.
|Doesn't Google/Yahoo! fill that role rather well in most cases? |
That's debatable. [webmasterworld.com]
DMOZ is a human compiled directory. Humans just won't ever reach the efficiency of programming, but alas, it seems programming won't ever reach the quality of humans. Of course, humans also err, goof off, forget, get mad, get even and get a lot of other things that would be hard to duplicate with a few spiders and some technology.
<Lemme get off this box>
Try to look at it as a chance to practice patience, or anger management... or some other human thing :)
And let me mind my manners, Welcome to WebmasterWorld primelibra.
<Deleted - GrandPa beat me to it>
primelibra, what would you say if I claimed the County Hospital should be shut down because it doesn't do anything -- anything at all! to alleviate the critical housing shortage? Would you rush out to join the mass protest, or would you look at me like I was seriously mentally deficient? "It's a hospital, not a housing authority!"
"But," I whine, "they both have buildings with roofs and walls and windows. And they have so many rich people staying there, that have their own homes to stay in! They could let all those rich folk go home, and focus on housing the homeless."
You probably wouldn't even respond. You'd just shake your head and add me to your short list of people who would have to have a brain transplant to aspire to mere gormlessness.
If you want what spiders do (and there are many people who want that) there are many sites that do that. Go patronize them!
If you want quick listings for advertising purposes (and there are many people who want that also) there are many sites that do that. Go patronize them!
The ODP does something else that no spider can do: categorize sites. If you don't need that (and many people don't) don't patronize the ODP.
The ODP has no real competitors for its niche market. That's partly because it did its thing so much better than anyone else, that everyone else gave up trying to do that, and went to focus on what they could do best.
There is no reason, and no need, for the ODP to go compete with Google, Inktomi, Overture, or MSN. Let Habitat for Humanity and Humana Hospital exist in the same community, doing different work. And if either one doesn't do its own job well enough, then ... anyone else can start competing. Just like Looksmart and Newhoo did when it seemed Yahoo was faltering; just like Google did when it seemed Excite and Altavista were faltering.
You think you can write a spider to create a better directory than the OPD? Have at it! If it seems at all workable, ODP editors will try it out. If it works at all, ODP editors will be among its most enthusiastic users.
i really appriciate odp efforts, i am a supporters of dmoz directory, you know previously when peoles coming to me for finding something i was telling them that use dmoz directory, but now days it takes too much time to submit listing in odp directory so that we are not getting useful website details in dmoz directory also, and this is really very serious matter if you have quality products and you are dominating market, then many peoples can come in future with quality products that time if odp having catogrywise listing or any other unique servises that time they will loose marketshare bcos today is buyers market. otherwise i think like yahoo directory we will read about dmoz was also directory in history.
|very serious matter if you have quality products |
Having products to sell is only a small part of the Internet, even though concerns about using the Internet to sell things is a very large part of WMW's postings. Don't let that bias at WMW blind you to the extent of the Internet, and the equivalent reach of the ODP.
Froogle is presumably the new ODP for selling things. Any commercial site that is aiming for an ODP listing should as a matter of course aim for a Froogle listing first.
If you can't get a Froogle listing, then maybe it is time to get a new hobby.
>>The ODP has no real competitors for its niche market.
Yahoo has quite a good directory, with what some might consider a considerably more useful directory architecture.
The Yahoo directory is severely lacking in content in very many of its categories.
The ODP overtook it (in both size and scope), and left it way behind, several years ago.
>>The ODP has no real competitors for its niche market.
What about Zeal?
>>>>The ODP has no real competitors for its niche market.
>>What about Zeal?
As in any directory, there are standout categories and wastelands. But across the board it was never comparable to Yahoo. And it was unfortunate in its choice of sponsor -- Looksmart was more the "If the eggs are gold, betcha the pate de fois gras would REALLY taste rich" kind of monetizationalizer.
What people often say is "DMOZ isn't listing my site". Fine. But at times like this, have you ever asked yourself:
Is my site really compatible with the DMOZ Standards?
Because it maybe, that the editor of the category didn't think your site was good enough (he maybe right) and rejected it.
So what many people think is any site submitted into DMOZ makes it into it sometime or the other - which is entirely not true. To get into DMOZ, your site has to be compatible with its strict editorial standards (read more here [dmoz.org]).
And it also maybe that DMOZ isn't slow at all - it's just your site that got rejected because you weren't good enough - so why should you be blaming the DMOZ editor? They're just doing their work.
But Yahoo! (IMHO) just bribes you into paying, or sometimes just accepts the site submitted regardless of its content (unless it's off-topic or contains adult content) - which is the exact reason being why many people like the Yahoo! directory so much.
But DMOZ isn't like that - it awards your website through it's content, not through money.
So the bottom line is, guys, directories are not made for webmasters, they are made for the purpose of finding things throughout the web in a categorized format.
Link farms are made for webmasters, and so are link campaigns - but directories are a whole different thing.
I think a lot of the complaints generated about dmoz, don't really have that much to do with being rejected or dmoz itself, but really in the nature that people are being rejected.
- no information about what's going on,
- submittals take forever,
- there is very little recourse for very smart people with very good websites to get a prioritized review.
The third one is particular deadly because those smart people generally have a lot of influence and if you cross them than they will influence lot more smart people to start dissing dmoz ..
You also stop attracting quality editors because they hear from their quality friends that dmoz is a waste of time.
And then the influence of dmoz begins to wane. Or, at the very least, it's not appropiate given the vast quantity of content that exists in the directory.
>> submittals take forever <<
The opposite of that are the hundreds of thousands of sites that were added to the directory without ever having been submitted at all.
Is that an infinitely small number or even a negative number for the review time?
Sometimes I wonder if AOL is simply paying very little attention to DMOZ and the editors have mistakenly thought that they are consciously doing this in order to run DMOZ better.
When in fact it's just corporate ambivalence.
Most of AOL doesn't know what the left hand is doing, of course. But AOL hires some professionals (administrators and/or librarians) -- currently an editor-in-chief -- and some techies (currently including two part-time programmers) specifically for the ODP.
Those professionals have some very definite ideas about how the ODP should be run. VERY definite. It happens that those ideas are different from (all right, diametrically oppose) many ideas that are current among outsiders without management or volunteer experience. (Not, of course, that experience managing different kinds of volunteers necessarily transfers well: so every now and then we run into someone who has trouble comprehending the fairly unusual concept of a knowledge-based collaborative effort.)