| 2:25 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The search not working is ludicrous.
How are you supposed to suggest a url if you can't even check first if it is in the directory? I use Google, but Google is only guaranteed to be so fresh.
ODP reminds me of this revolving restaurant in Vancouver. People will put up with the high prices, bad service and lousy food because the view is fantastic.
| 2:34 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The search @dmoz.org works, since yesterday evening.
| 2:40 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When are Google going to get serious and use a decent directory edited by paid professionals? |
Search is king.
Personally I think we'd hear a lot less moaning about DMOZ if google ignored it in terms of its contribution to anchor text and PR within it's algo.
It's DMOZ as an SEO tool that causes complaints. People just want the link from a PR6 or 7 cat and their title as anchor text. Remove that from the algo and all of a sudden no-one will be bothered about it.
| 2:43 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wish DMOZ was one of the words that got *'s here at WW and the DMOZ forum taken away. I am sick of these threads. It is a waste of disk space. Google doesn't even consider DMOZ important any more. They never update it and they burried it on their site. Most professional SEO's here don't even think about DMOZ anymore. It's a silly place.
| 2:47 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with you ogletree. It may be buried, but unfortunately, it's still a source for good quality inbound anchor text links.
It's that and only that which gets people wound up on here. All of the anti-dmoz threads are always from someone who's site is not listed in DMOZ.
I've never ever seen a complaint on here from someone who's site (the one that's the cause of their complaint) is actually in DMOZ.
[edited by: trillianjedi at 3:03 pm (utc) on June 1, 2004]
| 2:55 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well I am not listed in dmoz, nor do I particularly care to be. I personally use PPC, not SEO.
My complaint is actually different - I am interested in using ODP for a project however as it currently stands its not quite up to snuff. ODP needs to become much more efficient before I can use it.
I've looked at the alternatives, but they are nowhere near the level that ODP is at.
Also a lot of people with listings DO complain about dmoz. Usually it's around the fact that they can't get another listing in.
So yes, people complain about DMOZ even if they have a listing and even if they haven't been rejected.
As for ODP being irrelevant, I think the evidence suggests otherwise. Obviously, to a certain segment ODP isn't of much use. To others, it can be of great use.
I think this can be said about a lot of things, which is why I am always careful about making blanket statements. (Though, they do slip out on occasion ;)
| 4:02 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
falangman, the guidelines are all public. You can read them...but there should be one heuristic rule added: "it is a violation of ODP submittal policies to try to create a site that meets ODP submittal policies."
Think about it.
We don't list sites because they're a form of copycat spam we haven't explicitly forbidden yet; we list sites because they contain unique content. We don't require information because we want it: we require only the information that (in our view) our users will need.
If you don't have unique content, then ... trying to disguise the fact and submit the site to the ODP doesn't make you a non-spammer, it makes you a malicious spammer.
And if you do have unique content, then ... post it for the sake of your visitors. If it turns out that the ODP's concept of its visitors overlaps your concept of your visitors, then the ODP editor will want to list the site.
If there is no overlap, then there's no problem, the internet is big enough for all kinds of websites. The ODP doesn't and can't claim to be the only window on the internet. There are things it can't do -- and there are things that even if it tried to do, other sites would already be doing better.
| 6:47 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Search has been up for more than a day -- and it works fine though it's not fair to compare it to Google.
| 8:09 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I don't understand why Dmoz can't even get their search to work properly |
I have the same problem with WMW. A site search for...
Dmoz is cheap
...fails to find this thread. At least it did right now. May be fixed later, of course.
| 9:07 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
falangman78 - what does DMOZ actually owe you?
If you are unhappy with the service, perhaps you should ask for a refund.
| 9:13 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
He's expressing an opinion and providing evidence for that opinion.
It seems like everywhere I turn people wish to squelch the ongoing dialogue about an open, community built project.
What's up with that? If you have specific evidence that contradicts - then provide it, we're all interested. If you have a thesis that you'd like to propose, we're interested in that as well.
But stop questioning the value of conversation. That will get us absolutely nowhere.
| 9:20 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ should start a paid service, where we can get in their in 7 days by paid people, not by the voluntary staff. Maybe that would make people stop crying about a slow service, just because they don't get in or have not been reviewed.
And make it very clear the DMOZ does owe you nothing, so webmasters stop crying about it!
|Paul in South Africa|
| 9:53 pm on Jun 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|ODP needs to become much more efficient before I can use it. |
|I've looked at the alternatives, but they are nowhere near the level that ODP is at. |
|DMOZ should start a paid service, where we.... |
|There is not, nor will there ever be, a cost to submit a site to the directory, and/or to use the directory's data. |
As a lowly editor who does his bit when he can, which at the moment is not very often, I have to ask why is the Open Directory Project always the one that is taken to task for trying to offer a way of cataloguing unique web sites. If you want a paid service with an assurance of a review within 7 days there are sites that will accept your credit card gratefully. There is, however, no guarantee of inclusion.
"You pays your money and you takes your chances"
| 12:36 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are indeed many sites that offer website promotion services, instant links, even in respectable general directories (Yahoo and Looksmart).
The ODP doesn't compete there. Yahoo does that better. Even Looksmart does that better. Overture does it much better.
So the ODP does something else. That's the way the web works: the demigods-in-their-own-mind who want to remake the world in their own image get ignored. The presumptious but industrious peasantry who want to build their own vision by their own labor -- can do that also.
And if the peasantry really don't have a clue to go with their vision, someone else can set up a competing site.
I've heard several people mention, though -- and this is a fair assessment -- that the ODP is currently incomparable within its niche (however important or unimportant that niche happens to be). This is tantamount to a recognition that nobody has come up with a better scheme. The "pay for preferred listing" is what Yahoo used, and uses. And for the general web directory, the ODP's model obviously works better. Should we give up our vision because it's too successful (although, as many have pointed out, still far short of its goal) to replace it with something that has already been tried, and was a failure (comparatively speaking?)
It would be insane!
What I can't understand is: Why isn't this simple fact obvious to everyone?
| 1:24 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Am I missing a point here? The whole idea of a directory is to find *categories* where sites of a specific type are listed. If the dmoz.org search were down, then just use the Google ODP clone, and jump to the ODP version if you want the most recent updates.
| 1:31 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I wish DMOZ was one of the words that got *'s here at WW and the DMOZ forum taken away. I am sick of these threads. It is a waste of disk space. Google doesn't even consider DMOZ important any more. They never update it and they burried it on their site. Most professional SEO's here don't even think about DMOZ anymore. It's a silly place.
Oh dear me. You mean that professional SEOs don't even think of the ODP anymore? I wasn't aware that what professional SEOs thought was a priority at the ODP. Where is that being a priority mentioned in the ODP guidelines?
| 3:03 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wasn't aware that I addressed the priorities of DMOZ. DMOZ is a big waste of time it servers no real purpose but to keep amature SEO's busy.
| 3:17 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I wasn't aware that I addressed the priorities of DMOZ. DMOZ is a big waste of time it servers no real purpose but to keep amature SEO's busy.
Must be doing something right then. ;)
| 3:59 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The community project part of things is the database aka directory, not the search function and not the building of the rdf files. The community does not have control over those things.
| 4:18 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Admin note - Let's not get too worked up over this with each other.
DMOZ has its purpose, and so do all the other directories or DMOZ clones that are out there.
Site submissions to any directory is not compulsory.
Some directories choose to charge for a listing or a review, others are built upon a different setup. DMOZ chose its own route.
If Google hasn't updated its dump of the directory then that is up to Google, as with any other copy of DMOZ out there.
Move on to the next directory or site and look for other opportunities.
It's as simple as that.
| 4:22 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|DMOZ is a big waste of time it servers no real purpose but to keep amature SEO's busy. |
Must be doing something right then. ;)
It's only value in SEO terms is the backlink, and (generally speaking) the fact that it has page title anchor text, PR and is non-reciprocal. Amatuer and pro SEO's alike will submit to DMOZ for that reason.
That's not to say that DMOZ is "doing something right".
DMOZ does lots of things right, but for SEO it's just a link.
| 7:26 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would argue that it's not the DMOZ editor's fault for the failings of DMOZ. I would argue that the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of Netscape Communications Corporation.
A true community site would be managed by the community from top to bottom. Instead, Netscape's bean counters decided years ago to let DMOZ's back-end lie fallow and rot away. There are bugs and missing editorial functions that have never been fixed. Editors are crippled by a half-baked back-end with huge problems. For example, there is absolutely no way for an editor to search for submissions that have not yet been reviewed! Has a site submitted itself dozens or hundreds of times? You don't know and can't find out. This is one of many issues that limit the efficiency of a human editor.
DMOZ could be easily saved if NCC created a non-profit organization and handed control of dmoz.org to the elected chairpersons of the new organization. Then the community could charge forward on development of a back-end that can support such a community.
I would also argue that it is naive to flatly assume that a dmoz.org listing is worthless from a SEO standpoint. Such a link may be less valuable now, but I believe it is still a factor. Especially for those of us in highly competitive niches. After all, in racing sports, the difference between a gold medal and a bronze medal is often measured in hundredths of a second. At that level of competition, every little advantage gained is priceless.
| 8:26 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|But stop questioning the value of conversation. That will get us absolutely nowhere |
The value of the conversation is questioned because it is the same sour grapes from webmasters who totally misunderstand the purpose and value of DMOZ. The mistake is thinking that DMOZ is created for the use of commercial websites (same mistake people make about google all the time, by the way). DMOZ was created to help SURFERS and researchers find relevant and useful websites in an organized manner.
| 8:36 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
:) Ill just had you my two pennies without comments.
Nah i gotta comment. Doesn't matter how well the search on DMOZ works. (works for me) its the content and the data worked on that is the project. i forget their quote but its a directory. and they make their data available for people to use, Google sees an advantage in this and uses the data as hundreds of other search engines do :)
| 8:50 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The mistake is thinking that DMOZ is created for the use of commercial websites |
The people who want DMOZ to change to make it easier for them to sell things are doomed to be perpetually disappointed. No matter how much they say "dmoz has failed" they simply mean "dmoz doesn't do what I want it to do".
If they collaberated they could create a more commercially-oriented directory that would do everything they wanted.
The big mystery for me is why they don't.
| 8:52 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The big mystery for me is why they don't. |
Involves actual work.
| 10:22 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> the failings of DMOZ <<
The ODP has not at all failed to do what it is supposed to be doing.
Your expectations of what it should be doing, FOR YOU, are incorrect.
The ODP makes no apology for that whatsoever. Really. None at all.
| 10:50 pm on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The ODP makes no apology for that whatsoever. Really. None at all. |
Nor should it. It's like complaining that the philips head screwdriver is not doing a good job with the flathead screws. Well, it's the wrong tool, so what do you expect? It looks like, at first glance, that it could work, but guess what, it's the wrong tool. And I suspect the analogy is actually more gross, more like expecting a hammer to work as a screwdriver.
| 2:31 am on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>That's not to say that DMOZ is "doing something right".
>DMOZ does lots of things right, but for SEO it's just a link.
Fair enough. And ... for DMOZ, SEO is just a poor source of suggested links. The commonality of interest is small, but it does exist. Because it exists, it's worth cultivating. Because it is so small, it's not worth obsessing over.
It occurred to me (later) that some of what I had said about Yahoo might be considered more critical than I meant. Yahoo is the best in the world at doing what they do -- managing a cross between a commercial AND informational, professional directory. I remember when all the portals (Lycos, Netscape, AOL, Excite, AltaVista) had their own directories modelled after Yahoo -- and Yahoo was always unquestionably the best. We know that neither Netscape nor AOL could create a better professional directory: they've tried and failed. So ... they tried the amateur route.
And Excite and AltaVista gave up and rented Looksmart content for the same reason. Looksmart was briefly competitive (and two years earlier it would have been VERY competitive), but between Yahoo's professional management and DMOZ's consumption of the volunteer pool, there wasn't a big enough niche left except in the pure advertising arena and the obsessive monetization of msn.com.
These were both good concepts, and I do not believe that Netscape/AOL could have executed them any better than their proprietors did -- and do. ODP editors have watched them both, with interest that often went beyond "we're the best" to "but they do bla-bla-bla better than we do." The ODP was the first to have an automated link-checker: Yahoo has one now, but I still think ours is more powerful. We've made some fitful steps toward geo-coding, but Yahoo is WAY ahead of us. For years editors have debated the pros and cons of mana-point-based schemes like Zeal uses (some ODP editors are also active at Zeal) but the consensus has been to stick with our more flexible human-based scheme.
ODP editors have a list of functionality that would help us do our work. And searching unreviewed queues is certainly one of them -- but, if you think about it, it's obviously VERY low priority.
If I'm editing Arts/Crafts/Widgets/Exasperated, in the end it matters little whether a site I'm reviewing has also been submitted to Shopping/Crafts/Gadgets/Excruciated. If it belongs here, I list it here. If it belongs there, I send it there, and the S/C/G/E editor can clean up the duplicate submittal easily enough. And this is true whether or not I'm adding a site from my own searches or researches, or I'm reviewing a submitted site.
We have been getting new functionality. Just this month, our "unreviewed" queues started being sorted into Updates and New Sites -- a long-standing request of ours -- and Updates in the queues started showing up separately in the unreviewed numbers. Now if you report a problem with a site (URL change, or inaccurate description), the editor will see those right up front, and we are likely to get those quality problems addressed more quickly. This is an example of something the editors requested in order to implement a priority that many of us agreed was important.
Yes, I'd like more support -- anyone who ever uses a program wants it to do more -- but searches in unrevieweds have never, and will never, cripple editors working on building the directory.
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: 80 (  2 3 ) > > |