| 4:27 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK, I'll use ODP for all my searches. I knew I was doing something wrong! :)
| 4:30 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, I'll stay on topic... you know of 50 categories out of 590,000 + that have not been updated in a year. Let's put it in perspective and you tell me of another site that has almost 3 million pages that are hand-edited and people complain because some of the pages haven't been updated in the past year?
| 4:53 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The size isn't in question. Perhaps, it's a victim of it's own early success. Now it's falling further and further behind and is not fulfilling it's mission statement. But, it's the biggest, I didn't question that. And, if it doesn't keep up, it'll be the biggest dinosaur.
>>the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself
>>culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content
The bigger the queue of sites waiting to be reviewed the lower the value of the ODP as a directory of the best sites. At the most it's a directory of what used to be the best sites. It's possible that all the best sites are in the queue! How do you know if you haven't seen them yet?
>>(following the Oxford dictionary to become...) the definitive catalog of the Web [dmoz.org]
Come now! :)
| 5:39 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The bigger the queue of sites waiting to be reviewed the lower the value of the ODP as a directory of the best sites. At the most it's a directory of what used to be the best sites. |
But it never was the intention to be the largest and the term best sites is subjective to each persons opinion, so you will never have the "best sites" in anyone's/everyone's view.
|Now it's falling further and further behind and is not fulfilling it's mission statement. |
That statement is only believed by those that have submitted their site(s) and they have yet to be listed.
As I've said before many times - there are those that "get it", those that over time "get it" and those that never will.
The only people that complain of the ODP are submitters.
The project is not meant to be a "job" nor is it a "measuring stick" of how many sites there are on the internet. Editors do not and should not feel pressured to add every site that is in the unreviewed queue.
I used to edit a lot more than I have in the past year. Why? Because I have a life, children, and business. I've had 2 surgeries this year and will probably go for a 3rd (right hand/arm). My priorities are set straight and I believe in taking care of family first. I edit when I have the time and when I'm in the mood – period. Those type of things upset those who "don't get it" and they feel ODP should hire people/editors to deal with their submissions. I cannot understand that anymore than me wanting you to hire people to put links to my websites on your website. Editors have the right to add sites they "choose", go through the unreviewed queue at their pace and at their leisure - which has helped it grow to a very large and comprehensive directory of sites "valued" by the volunteers. Ouch, that hurts those who "don't get it" also, and hence all accusations of corruption etc.
So, the ODP is what it is, like it or not. It's not meant to make everyone happy (look at some of the society/political categories)with the sites that are in there, and the sites which are not. You can like it, disagree with it, or wish it would go away… it still is what it is and you will see it your way and those involved with it will see it another way.
| 6:27 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The Contractor, my sympathies on your health problems.
kdawg, my earlier advice still holds. I haven't seen anyone offer anything else. You can buy your way in by acquiring sites that have a listing in your category (or a neighbouring one). Some of them are going for as little as $100.
| 6:31 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I gave up a long time ago getting commercial sites into dmoz, instead I am submitting 100% non commercial sites which in turn link to the commercial ones
| 7:52 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
First, a dmoz directory listing has no additional bearing on getting into google over and above any other link as far as I have ever been able to ascertain,
It does have a big bearing on getting into the google directory. Until a site is accepted by DMOZ a link in the Google directory is zilch.
Webmasterworld is full of too many ODP-haters and baiters. ;(
hmmmm. I wonder why that is?
| 10:26 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The Contractor, my sympathies on your health problems. |
Hehe..thanks, but wasn't looking for sympathy ;)
I'm just giving a very small look at what can be going on with 100's of other editors. They all have lives, problems, responsibilities etc.
I just find it humorous that people hide their contempt over getting their sites in dmoz.org behind pretending to care about their quality, mission statement, etc. You yourself tried using that reasoning and then turn around and state "buy a domain that is already listed". ;)
I wish dmoz was different in the way it handled submissions too. I have often thought they should charge a $99 "review" fee upon each submission to any category that could even remotely be commercial. This "fee" would be returned upon your site being accepted. If it was denied a listing under the guidelines your "fee" would not be returned, but given to various charities. This would immediately cut down on submissions and also prevent/deter someone from submitting every page of their website or submitting to 100 different categories.
| 11:51 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The ODP is a bit like the curate's egg - it's good and bad in places. Some categories are absolutely bang up to date and completely authorititive.. some categories are hideously out of date and not at all useful to visitors. And then there's everything in between. This is unfortunate, but at least it *is* good in many places.
A common mistake is to view the ODP as a coherent whole. It's not, it's a vastly complex collective, requiring a range of editors who between them have a hugely broad knowledge range. But, numerically speaking most editors only edit a limited part of the directory, and of those editors who can edit the WHOLE directory (less than 300 of them), only a handful DO edit broadly across the directory, because most senior editors tend to stick to certain areas where they are experts or at least knowledgeable. This leaves gaps, sometimes because there are simply no editors who have the necessary expertise.
This is the fundamental reason why some waiting times are excessively long, and why on the other hand some submissions are processed quickly. But, unless you're an editor, it's very hard to understand sometimes.
| 2:57 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I wish dmoz was different in the way it handled submissions too. I have often thought they should charge a $99 "review" fee upon each submission to any category that could even remotely be commercial |
Whenever I see comments like that, it is clear that the poster has a major misunderstanding of what DMOZ is. DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters. It is not there for SEO or marketing purposes. If this is the service you want to pay $99 for, there are plenty of thr diectories that offer the services for listing, SEO and marketing purposes.
| 5:19 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
^Yes, well, I think The Contractor was the person who thought search engines (e.g. Google) should count paid links as much as unpaid links, and recommended that webmasters pay other webmasters for links.
Some people think everything should be paid for.
ODP is above money.
| 9:47 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> I just find it humorous that people hide their contempt over getting their sites in dmoz.org behind pretending to care about their quality, mission statement, etc. You yourself tried using that reasoning and then turn around and state "buy a domain that is already listed".
That's an unworthy attempt to support your argument by smearing me. And it is a misrepresentation of the facts. I said that I had applied several years ago. At that time it DID appear that DMOZ was going somewhere. Now, I repeat, I don't believe it is. So, I wouldn't dream of applying now. Again, something I did make clear but you choose to ignore.
Your proposal to charge $99 is hilarious. With the number of sites in the queue ODP could end up with more money sitting in it's coffers than Microsoft has. Unless it uses that $99 to pay editors rather than just discourage submissions.
>> But it never was the intention to be the largest and the term best sites is subjective to each persons opinion, so you will never have the "best sites" in anyone's/everyone's view.
You will not have the best sites in anyone's view if the backlog is sufficiently large. If a particular cat has a high rate of exceptionally high quality sites being launched each year - say 100 - but the ODP adds one a year then eventually the ODP becomes a collection of what used to be best sites. If they do not keep up they will fall behind. No amount of evangelising about volunteers and being above money will change that fact. They've already fallen very far behind. When I applied to become an editor I had to find some example sites in my chosen category that weren't already listed. I had difficulty doing that. Today it will be a breeze to find some of the topmost quality sites that are not listed.
>> The ODP is a bit like the curate's egg - it's good and bad in places
I'll agree with that. I like to think I'm a fair guy. But the ratio is getting worse. It'll be interesting to see at what ratio of good to bad the ODP takes some action. It's not a sour grapes issue. Most of my sites are listed, some with several listings. One hobby site of mine is an authority site in it's area and they will list it (if they ever get around to looking at it). But, it's been over a year since my 2nd submission. That site can't do any better in search engines than it does now (it has over 10,000 unsolicited one-way incoming links) and it's absence from the ODP doesn't hurt me but it does show how unrepresentative of the best sites ODP has become in some categories.
They originally cornered themselves into a position that it will be difficult to extricate themselves from:
|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. The Open Directory data is made available for free to anyone who agrees to comply with our free use license. |
That only leaves putting some ads on :)
| 12:07 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Uhmm... so I guess no-one read the next sentence pertaining to charging for a review.
|This "fee" would be returned upon your site being accepted. |
See - another reason dmoz has a problem, no-one reads anymore, they jump to conclusions the same way they don't read the guidelines.
I am simply stating a fact that the unreviewed queues are out of hand only because of webmasters submitting sites/pages into every category they can think of or mirrors, duplicates, etc.
Let's look at Yahoo and their process. They charge $299 per "review" of submission whether your site makes it in or not. How many editors do you think they have? They do not seem to have the problem that dmoz does - why? Because people think long and hard before submitting and departing with their $299.
So yes, I would like to see remaining submission spammers money go to charities :)
In all of the edits that I have done I have only listed one site with the submitted description and title that met the guidelines - what does that say? I sincerely find it hard to believe that people cannot properly title and describe their own site, yet most editors can review, title, and describe a site in 15 minutes or less. I would say at least 30-50% of submissions in topical commercial categories actually belong in a different category, but that's usually ok because the webmaster has submitted it every other category in which their website has that word. No-one reads the guidelines and those that do are punished by those that don't as their properly submitted site is among the many miss-submitted.
LizardGroupie get your jabs somewhere else or stay on topic.
You failed to read the sentence that stated the "fee would be returned". You failed to read the advice of some of the most successful and knowledgeable people I know of that exists in these forums on the topic you try to bring up whenever possible. Yet you still fail to understand the topic in which you brought up "again" in this thread. Move on with your life and your problems associated with your paid links problems...
| 12:39 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'll agree with that. I like to think I'm a fair guy. But the ratio is getting worse. It'll be interesting to see at what ratio of good to bad the ODP takes some action. It's not a sour grapes issue. Most of my sites are listed, some with several listings. One hobby site of mine is an authority site in it's area and they will list it (if they ever get around to looking at it). But, it's been over a year since my 2nd submission. That site can't do any better in search engines than it does now (it has over 10,000 unsolicited one-way incoming links) and it's absence from the ODP doesn't hurt me but it does show how unrepresentative of the best sites ODP has become in some categories. |
Macro I am not trying to smear you, but even in the above your sincerity on the quality of the ODP is clouded by bringing your site into it again. Where do you get your statistics that the ODP is getting worse? Can I see them?
Whenever someone states the quality of a directory is bad, search engine results are bad, and then brings up their sites - it's hard not to think the reason behind it is because they are not listed, or in the case of search engines, because they are not on the first page of results for their "authorative/excellent" site. I know you have been around long enough to appreciate that ;)
| 12:55 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> so I guess no-one read
I did. The bigger the pile of unreviewed sites the more the money sitting in the coffers collecting dust. That's effectively what I said, please read it again.
>> another reason dmoz has a problem, no-one reads anymore
I agree that you must get loads of spam.
>> those that do are punished by those that don't
Er, that's trying to shift the blame. As the owner of a business I take the rap when something goes wrong. Various competing distraction make my work more difficult but it's my job to filter them out somehow and keep the wheels turning. Extending your logic ... as the volume of spammy sites/incorrectly submitted sites keeps rising you will get overwhelmed, more and more good sites will get "punished" till there are almost no good sites left in the index (especially considering that a lot of old sites deteriorate in quality to the point of uselessness)? :)
Can any of you editors tell me why it's not a good idea to buy a site that's listed (especially if it's in a much ignored category), then leverage the listing that site has to funnel PR/traffic to a site you own? Isn't that a good way for those people like the original poster to get a DMOZ listing without the hit and miss of submitting a site? Does anyone have any other on topic suggestions?
Come, come now, ODP supporters, no fighting, you're among friends :)
| 1:37 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sure I can expand (but then I'm going to be offline most of the day...hehe).
Whether people like to admit it or not submission spammers affect the ODP and your correctly submitted site just as email spammers affect email in general, or certain IP ranges of site visitors affect viewing many websites.
Example: Say I block a domain from sending me email because 90% of that domain sends spam - sorry about the other 10% that are blocked. Same with blocking IP ranges of certain countries via .htaccess.
I'm not shifting the blame, just stating a fact. If there is 90% submission spam in a category it's not a very popular category for editors. I'm not blaming the ones that properly submitted, just stating the fact that it is going to take much longer for the 10% to be listed than if that 90% wasn't there to wade through.
Yes, there are ways they could combat it by not allowing multiple submissions from the same root domain. The problem with that is that many sites with subdomains and free hosting services would be blocked from submitting - so that won't work. The script/software would have to be smart enough to recognize that, and that would be really hard to do no matter how good your programmers are.
You cannot compare the ODP with your business. It is run by volunteers. If it was to have a realistic business model it would have to include paid submission – period. If it had paid editors or paid submissions than I would say most if not 99% of the volunteers would leave. Like I say, the only submission process to stop the submission spammers would be a review fee that if the site was accepted it would be returned, if not the money would go to charity ;)
Also, in my idea of a review fee that would be returned - the sites already submitted would be grandfathered in much like Yahoo did. Uhmm... how could you go through the unreviewed queue and charge people anyways?
|Can any of you editors tell me why it's not a good idea to buy a site that's listed (especially if it's in a much ignored category), then leverage the listing that site has to funnel PR/traffic to a site you own? Isn't that a good way for those people like the original poster to get a DMOZ listing without the hit and miss of submitting a site? |
If you think that is a good idea then fine, but please don't mix that with your stated concern of the quality or purpose of the ODP as it is contradicting. The ODP was never started nor is it currently the purpose for building PR, marketing, traffic, etc.
How could buying a domain that is listed with a title and description for one site and then changing the content ever help the ODP in terms of quality?
I can sincerely say you have one of the more contradicting views I have seen in a while... hehe
| 2:18 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My friend, you make the mistake of believing I care about the quality of the current ODP :)
On another matter, good management principles that apply to businesses apply to most other organisations.
| 2:25 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It does have a big bearing on getting into the google directory. Until a site is accepted by DMOZ a link in the Google directory is zilch. |
The Google directory is a DMOZ clone. It's just like any other clone, save for a little extra PR.
It has no additional bearing on getting into the SERPS, and since it's been removed from google's front page, I would think very little bearing at all.
It's just a link, sure it's nice to have, but it's just a link.
The overall advice to kdawg in amongst the banter in this thread is just that - submit and forget about it. If you don't get in, look elsewhere for your links.
| 9:36 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think one of the best statements in this thread is that of "Submit it and forget it". DMOZ isn't the end-all directory. Of course we'd like to be in it, but to be honest, there are hundreds of directories that have the same value.
For $99, I can get a lot of good links. If DMOZ charged that, it would just be another overpriced directory listing.
Yes it is, but not above corruption. One of the main reasons DMOZ could never accept money is that it is very corrupt. Feel free to check out any competitive category logs and see for yourself.
You have 1 dating company with hundreds of spam affiliate sites listed in the dating section. They seem to get submitted and listed very quickly, while legit dating sites mysteriously get deleted for extrememly minor reasons.
The porn world is the same as you have meta editors who milk the directory for all its worth.
Any other competitive category is typically run by someone in the directory (should be the biggest warning sign of all).
So DMOZ may be "above money", but they do not stand for what they say they do.
| 3:14 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You have 1 dating company with hundreds of spam affiliate sites listed in the dating section. They seem to get submitted and listed very quickly, while legit dating sites mysteriously get deleted for extrememly minor reasons. |
I, for one, would like to know more about this situation.
There are many editors that believe in quality control and none of us like it when there's a spammaster loading us up with affiliates.
I'm positive if you report the specifics (there's a link on the top of every category page to report abuse) it will be investigated.
The biggest problem is, many folks will say these things but offer no information so it can be checked out. The more information you provide the quicker it can be dealt with. Give it a try some time.
| 8:07 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm positive if you report the specifics (there's a link on the top of every category page to report abuse) it will be investigated. |
...didn't you know that this does not work ;-) ... for the amount of time the whiners and ranters spend here going on about it, they could have filed an abuse report that would actualy achieve something productive and help.... but then they would have nothing to whine and rant about :-) ... they don't want, what they perceive as the problem fixed and they won't help to fix it ... they get off on the bashing.
| 8:34 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>they could have filed an abuse report that would actualy achieve something productive and help.... but then they would have nothing to whine and rant about
I'll spend all of next month filing abuse reports. How does that get the queue down? The reports will tie up volunteers and they'll have even less time to find and add new quality sites. Now, we wouldn't want that, would we? :)
| 12:49 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>How does that get the queue down?
| 9:37 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The queue that they call a pool that is really an ocean. Do keep up.
| 10:08 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's actually more of a large collection of puddles (and some lakes).
It's the meta editors (and by no means all of them) who follow up on abuse reports and they take every one seriously. Abuse reports don't affect the workload of front line editors.
The longer abuse goes undetected, the bigger the clean up effort that is needed when it's found and acted upon. Not bothering to report it thus wastes ODP effort rather than conserves it.
I hope you'll reconsider your stance.
jimnoble, meta editor
| 10:43 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> It's actually more of a large collection of puddles (and some lakes)
Fair enough. I agree about the puddles, we're just not in agreement about where lakes end and oceans begin ;)
>> Abuse reports don't affect the workload of front line editors
I suspected that which is why I used "volunteers" in that post rather than the "editors" I've been using elsewhere. But if meta editors are following up on abuse reports that does leave them with less time for other things, surely.
>> The longer abuse goes undetected, the bigger the clean up effort that is needed when it's found
Agreed. Would you agree the same applies to the pools/lakes/oceans in that the longer it takes to catch up the bigger the effort to make that cat what it should be?
I'll retract my call to inaction - if that indeed did come across as the the message in my post.
| 11:59 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Would you agree the same applies to the pools/lakes/oceans in that the longer it takes to catch up the bigger the effort to make that cat what it should be? |
Because the size of the SIRO queue of suggested URLs for a category often (not always, but often) bears no correlation to the number of sites that are elible for listing in the category.
The queues for spammed categories will include very many sites that are not eligible for those categories -- and, very often, not eligible for the ODP at all.
Cleaning up the queues for those cats reduces the number of sites awaiting review by a small amount (*see note*) while doing nothing to further the aims of the ODP.
Which is why, sadly on the part of the few genuine people who suggest sites to those categories, those queues are effectively no-go areas for most editors.
So, it's a bit like suggesting that cleaning a city garbage dump would help improve my filing cabinet.
Note: the number of sites awaiting review bears no correlation to the number of sites in the queues of suggested sites.
| 12:01 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The concept of catch up in the sense of draining all the bodies of water (or in some cases, swamps) isn't relevent to ODP's objectives - which are to build a useful directory, not to list every website on the planet.
But I'm sure you already knew that ;)
jimnoble, meta editor
| 12:59 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Spurious arguments I'm afraid. The size of the "pool" does not matter if the quality* sites are being found and listed. The bigger the size of the unemptied and muddy pool the less the chance the "gold" lying on the pool floor will be found and listed. When you combine that with natural wastage where previously "good" sites become bad/mediocre ones you'll see that there is a inverse relationship between the size of the pool and the quality/usefulness of ODP. Now, imagine if that pool is the ocean and there is a lot of gold bullion spread around on the bed, from assorted shipwrecks,.....
But I'm sure you already knew all that ;)
Perhaps the ODP is arrogant enough to think that the sites listed in there represent the best of the web... or even come close to representing the best (I'll agree that some select categories are exceptions). To mention that the ODP is not intent on listing every site on the planet is an attempt to divert the discussion to a point that is not in dispute. The blind repetition of the objectives does not make the objectives any more "achieved". Sorry, Jim.
* By "quality" I mean sites that would be considered quality sites according to ODP guidelines
| 1:21 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The size of the "pool" does not matter if the quality* sites are being found and listed |
Which they are.
ODP grows by something like 2000 sites a day. Actual new sites added is larger than that as the ODP also delists other sites each day.
The more interesting question is whether that nett growth rate is catching up with the as-yet unreviwed sites which are eligible for a listing.
But there is no way to answer that by comparing the nett growth rate with the size of the various SIRO queues of suggested sites.
Because there is very little correlation between the URLs in the queues and those sites eligible for inclusion.
| 1:38 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> The more interesting question is ...
I like that - the old favourite of politicians around the world ;)
2000 sites a day sounds like a lot. It's about one new site added per 33 editors, one new site per 295 categories. Or, if you look at it on an annual basis, that's an average of about 1 site added per category per year. Accounting for de-listings may push it up to an average of 1.5 sites added to each category over twelve months.
Which is fine of course, as long as the internet community isn't inconsiderate enough to - among all members - launch more than 1.5 good sites a year.
| This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 96 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |