| 3:05 pm on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i think that Dmoz is more relevant these days.
Monitoring several sites, you get a boost ( in google and in MSN )if:
- You have keywords in title and description
- you have a link in a meta editor profile...
| 1:32 am on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
to the question "Is DMOZ becoming less relevant"
I ask if DMOZ were bought by a player in the search technology industry such as Google or MSN would this make DMOZ less relevant?
I ask this as I see indications of DMOZ importance based on someone maki reference in another thread that DMOZ could be had cheap but business wise I consider a playup of selling price of DMOZ between two players of the search engine business such as MSN and Google and I see indicators DMOZ being sold in the very near future and as well both Google and MSN having acquired into their stable the ownership/control of a current important online directory.
just my 2c worth based on importance and search results in Google search that people have referred to as looking like "directory results".
| 2:35 am on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ODP has become less relevent. You can't stop progress.
For all the webmasters that complain that their sites didn't get in, you have editors that will list anything that's not a 404, including fraternal mirrors, deeplinks, affiliate schemes etc. It's not their fault, they're not web savvy and they don't know the difference.
Quality is rarely considered. There is an occasional discussion about site quality, but the general opinion is that if a site is technically listable, it should be listed. You need a real serious reason not to list a site, even in a category with 500 listings and an alphabar.
Many lesser editors are clueless about the directory structure, resulting in poor matches between listing and category.
Some companies are extensively deeplinked, with the blessing of senior editors, while other similar deeplinks are routinely wiped out.
We've heard bragging that the tree is growing, but maybe it needs a severe pruning. If the ODP was concerned about listing the better sites, rather than "listable sites", it would be smaller, more manageable. There might even be time to train all the little editors that don't know whether they're afoot or on horseback. Maybe the data would be salvageable.
From Google's perspective, a listing in ODP cannot possibly guarantee unique content or even better-than-average quality. Sure, there's a bit of weeding out of mirrors and affiliates going on, mostly by a handful or super-alert editors, but by and large the sites are listed because they were lucky, waited a long time, not because they were better quality or thoroughly checked by human editors.
Still from Google's perspective, the perverse effects of ODP listings are compounded by the gazillion phony "for AdSense Directories" that feed on its data. Google would be wise to penalize them as well.
| 2:27 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>ODP has become less relevent.
Since this thead started the opposite has happened. Google have made DMOZ more relevant by, in some cases, using the Directory description in the SERPS. How can you equate that to being less relevant?
| 2:52 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If true, it's both a pity and a disappointment.
| 3:04 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>it's both a pity and a disappointment
Why? ..... Google obviously see value in it.
| 3:41 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's a pity that The Great Google has to rely on such painfully inadequate and distorted data. If it's true.
| 3:47 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>rely on such painfully inadequate and distorted data.
Thats your opinion. Google obviously does not think so.
>If it's true.
There have been several threads discussing it.
| 4:01 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>You need a real serious reason not to list a site,
>even in a category with 500 listings and an alphabar.
Well, I would certainly hope so! You'd rather editors relied on FRIVOLOUS reasons, like "your color scheme is ugly" or "your ad copy is annoying"?
A serious reason, like "your HTML is broken" or "your site has no content" or "this is a spammy mirror of another site," is one thing. Editors who want to reject sites based on non-serious reasons really ought to be editing their own personal homepages, not a directory other people will be using.
| 4:40 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"your HTML is broken" or "your site has no content" or "this is a spammy mirror of another site," |
are the only criteria for site inclusion, I'll take my chances with Google. It can find mirrors better than the majority of editors, and is probably better at determining whether a site has content or not.
| 9:33 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hellborine, once again you misunderstood or misrepresented the prior poster. The real ODP is nothing like your vision.
Which is fine. Your website content must support your vision. And if you find the ODP useless, then feel free to enjoy the millions of other sites on the web instead.
But there's no reason (other than malevolence) to attack people just because they find value somewhere you don't.
| 9:59 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Frustration, anger and eventually acceptance that that DMOZ is really not worth the effort. |
Did you ever consider becoming an editor to help fix what you see as being wrong?
| 10:16 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have the utmost respect for you, hutcheson. It's not at all an attack, but it is a critique.
The ODP has become little more than an assemblage of sites selected on the basis of one criteria only: that an editor has finally come around to push the button before the site disappeared. No quality selection exists. These aren't outstanding, or above-average sites, but sites that got their turn.
That's all it is. The sites are roughly categorized. That's the only value in it.
| 4:13 am on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding, that's what the ODP was always supposed to be... and what it strives to be today. Not a best-of-the-web site that lists only sites that meet some subjective "awesomeness" standard, but an online library that lists all sites that contain unique, viable content.
Both kinds of sites are valuable, but they serve very different purposes. I can only imagine the hue and cry around here if the ODP suddenly switched to your vision of it. Can you imagine it, if every editor started deleting every site he or she thought just wasn't cool enough, using any "non-serious" reason that occurred to them? *shudders just thinking about it*
| 4:26 am on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You are right, flicker.
A QDP (Quality Directory Project), if feasible, might be easier to manage because of a smaller quantity of sites. Maybe not. I don't know. Again, if feasible, it would have more value than the ODP at the moment.
Ah! Pie in the sky.
| 5:40 am on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A "quality directory project" would take more work than the ODP. You'd have to review just as many sites, since you wouldn't know without a review which ones to check. You'd have to spend longer on each review. And if it caught on, you'd have more spammers going after you with weapons of mass dissemination (because the page rank leakage from each directory listing would be greater because it wouldn't be dissipated over so many sites.)
Nice dream, but ... how to do? Where to find the people to do the work, and how to recompense or motivate them? I don't see it happening soon: the pool of competent, disinterested yet fascinated, volunteers isn't THAT large.
I suspect the ODP will end up being the last of the dinosaurs -- the other directories have all the problems we have, and fewer resources to attack them with. I think they'll starve sooner ...
What I don't know is whether there will be any post-dinosaur life form bigger or more intelligent than spamming cockroaches. If there is, it may (i.e. probably will) take a different approach than anything currently imaginable. And it'll soon have the same problems as the current approaches (some sites worthless to all except their owners will be featured, some good sites will be neglected) -- just, if we're lucky, to a lesser degree.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1  ) |