homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.43.155
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >     
Is DMOZ becoming less relevant?
gpmgroup




msg:490655
 2:42 pm on Jan 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has devalued directory.google.com to PR8 and the PR of quite a lot of DMOZ pages have also gone down.

Why is Google now devaluing DMOZ links?

 

LizardGroupie




msg:490656
 1:43 am on Jan 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Because they're dumb. And because since Google went public, they've abandoned their "do no evil" philosophy and sold out. A high-integrity organization like DMOZ is probably a mystery to an entity like Google.

steveb




msg:490657
 4:47 am on Jan 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Why is Google now devaluing DMOZ links?"

The same reason pigs are flying.

<They aren't.>

nzmatt




msg:490658
 5:41 am on Jan 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

high-integrity organization like DMOZ

That's a laugh and a half...

McMohan




msg:490659
 1:31 pm on Jan 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yahoo PR has been fluctuating between 9 and 10 in last few PR updations. Doubt it has made any diference to the importance of Yahoo.

Mc

cleanup




msg:490660
 1:53 pm on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Because DMOZ is at last where it should be.

I remember when DMOZ started. What a good idea..

I have just come in here from the DMOZ forum.

After nearly three years of trying to find out whats going on with a site of mine...yes THREE years. Thats a long time to be kissing ass in the DMOZ forum to try to shed some light.

Frustration, anger and eventually acceptance that that DMOZ is really not worth the effort.

In the end even Google must realize what a pathetic and corrupt setup this is.

Sorry, to rant but I am sure that DMOZ along with the Yahoo! directory will eventually be just a distant memory for the geeks here old enough to remember.

1Lit




msg:490661
 4:16 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with 'cleanup' - the guys at DMOZ need to cleanup their act.

I respect the fact that the people at DMOZ are volunteers and need time to approve submissions. But when it ends up taking YEARS of sucking up to them to get a site approved (or usually not approved), it is beyond any degree of toleration.

The team at DMOZ think they are all High and Mighty with their arrogant attitude on the DMOZ forums. Worst thing is the unfairness of it all: if your category is edited by someone from a rival site, he is easily able to remove your site from the directory. And you can complain and complain 'til the cows come home, but your site will never be reinstated.

Check out DMOZ's plummeting ranking at Alexa. This one's going the way of Altavista.

The Contractor




msg:490662
 5:26 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

yes THREE years. Thats a long time to be kissing ass in the DMOZ forum to try to shed some light.

Not sure who you were talking to or what forum you were on but the RZ forums haven't been up that long.

I agree with 'cleanup' - the guys at DMOZ need to cleanup their act.....But when it ends up taking YEARS of sucking up to them to get a site approved (or usually not approved), it is beyond any degree of toleration.

Would you really want editors listing/not listing sites based upon how much you do/don't "suck up"?

I really believe this has been discussed many times before that dmoz directory is a project with the user, not the webmaster in mind.

Also, I hope you do not depend on Alexa for anything more than entertainment. You can take a site up to the top very quickly with a browser, alexa toolbar, and a smart little tool :)

I can't figure out why I can't get my 3-page salesletter ebook accepted for Project Gutenberg either, and what really bothers me is they won't get back to me...stupid worthless crooked project anyways....

bull




msg:490663
 6:17 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is DMOZ becoming less relevant

While the first poster's text itself speaks of DMOZ relevance measured by a numerical value called PR, it seems to be more appropriate to talk about the ODP relevance for its users. Several cateogories I watch have not been updated for months, in some cases years. Many of these categories still contain dead or outdated links to sites that were eligible for inclusion in the nineties, but do not seem to be appropriate today any more, while other new relevent sites are not listed. Relevance for a human-edit directory for humans should be: list the best sites for a given topic (=category). The number of sites in a directory has nothing to do with relevancy and is secondary. With regard to the ever-growing number of total internet sites, a limited volunteer-based directory like DMOZ today cannot provide relevancy for its users especially in deeper categories any more without getting more able editors.

jimbeetle




msg:490664
 6:28 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

yes THREE years. Thats a long time to be kissing ass in the DMOZ forum to try to shed some light.

Not sure who you were talking to or what forum you were on but the RZ forums haven't been up that long.

Yep, they've only been up 2 years, 9 months ;)

The Contractor




msg:490665
 8:49 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Several cateogories I watch have not been updated for months, in some cases years.

Yes I'm sure that's true, but you also have to take into consideration that there are almost 600,000 categories with 100's/1000's being updated daily.

Many of these categories still contain dead or outdated links to sites that were eligible for inclusion in the nineties, but do not seem to be appropriate today any more, while other new relevent sites are not listed.

Well dead links are automatically being removed from public pages for editor inspection as far as I know, and this occurs every time robozilla runs. As far as relevance this has and always be in one's own opinion.

Relevance for a human-edit directory for humans should be: list the best sites for a given topic (=category).

Again, this has and always be in one's own opinion. I have never heard one submitter state they are submitting their site and it is the worst of the bunch - have you? I have always heard from those that complain that they have or know of the best sites for every category in dmoz and it's their sites that deserve an immediate listing...

If you are a site owner that is into SEO etc you will almost always hate the ODP or disagree with the editors and what the actual project is and/or should be about.
They could shut down submissions and I think the directory would actually get into better shape and grow at a faster rate. I believe editors could find relevant sites in any given category that actually belong in that category without having to move,delete, or note sites.

The largest misconception is that editors/dmoz cares what Google, Alexa, or any other SE thinks of it - good or bad.

If AOL closed it down tomorrow it would still continue in one fashion or another by the editors.

bull




msg:490666
 9:44 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Robozilla

5 times in 2004. I am no editor, but AFAIK dead links are not deleted autimatically. Is that still right?

I have never heard one submitter state they are submitting their site and it is the worst of the bunch - have you?

Why submitters? Did I mention submitters? Listing the best sites is the editors' task. The attempt to blame others than the editors (or the lack of editors) for a possible lack of relevancy must fail, especially when talking about a coterie like the ODP.

They could shut down submissions and I think the directory would actually get into better shape and grow at a faster rate.

Well that is your personal opinion, but is there any objective reason for that assumption? As far as I have heard, some editors completely ignore suggestions whereas others rely on it.

Imaster




msg:490667
 9:54 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Check out DMOZ's plummeting ranking at Alexa. This one's going the way of Altavista.

On the contrary, Alexa seems to be showing a rise in the graph.

1Lit




msg:490668
 10:07 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

This [alexa.com] is what I see at Alexa. If that is not a freefall then I don't know what is.

Not saying that Alexa is spot on, but it is a rough indication of which direction a website is going in. And Dmoz will soon be only know in the same place as the dodo - in the history books.

Why would anybody use a directory which doesn't produce results half the time and states: "The Open Directory search is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later"?

Google got rid of the link to the Dmoz directory from their home page and other sites are relegating the significance they attribute to Dmoz.

[edited by: 1Lit at 10:10 pm (utc) on Jan. 9, 2005]

jimnoble




msg:490669
 10:08 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

AFAIK dead links are not deleted autimatically. Is that still right?

Not right.

Dead links are automatically moved from the public gaze to the unreviewed pool.

nzmatt




msg:490670
 10:59 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It’s very difficult to consider the DMOZ's relevance or usefulness as a whole.

It’s actually very good in some categories and entirely corrupt and useless in others. Some editors do an amazing job while others are the lowest type of human.

Overall though there is no doubt the culture has changed and there are more and more self surviving editors bringing the whole organization down - in terms of effectiveness and public/webmaster perception.

DMOZ you should put a bit more effort into cleaning up bad editors and an increasingly negative ethos within – stop the slippery slide to oblivion.

rfgdxm1




msg:490671
 5:05 am on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

>DMOZ you should put a bit more effort into cleaning up bad editors and an increasingly negative ethos within – stop the slippery slide to oblivion.

Have you actually complained about these bad editors to the ODP, and were ignored? AFAIK complaints are indeed reviewed. Note that if nobody complains about corrupt editors, there is a good chance they won't be spotted.

Imaster




msg:490672
 5:26 am on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is what I see at Alexa. If that is not a freefall then I don't know what is.

As much as I agree with most of what you said in that post, I would just like to say that its a .org which is widely used and not a .com

Check out Link [alexa.com] which shows a rise in the traffic in spite of a fall in PR.

Dynamoo




msg:490673
 3:17 pm on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh goodie.. another ODP bashing thread. It's been.. ohhhh.. a couple of days since the last one perhaps?

For the record - dead links are automatically moved back into the unreviewed queue to be looked at by an editor. This is done by a combination of Robozilla and editor tools. The aim is to have as close to zero dead links as possible in the directory.

And about submissions - you would be suprised at just how many really lame or spammy web sites there are out there. Of course no submitter really understands when there site wouldn't add value to the directory - everyone I guess is proud of their work and doesn't like being told it's no good.

However, there's an important question raised in this thread - "Is DMOZ becoming less relevant?". I think perhaps this is a mis-phrase for "Is DMOZ becoming less important?" and I would say that since Google buried the directory in their mass of features instead of putting it on the front page, then the answer is yes.. DMOZ became less important. But it's still a very important resource despite that, and easily the best directory out there.

The Contractor




msg:490674
 7:09 pm on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

5 times in 2004. I am no editor, but AFAIK dead links are not deleted autimatically. Is that still right?

No, that is not right;)

Why submitters? Did I mention submitters? Listing the best sites is the editors' task.

Yes, but the editors are not the ones that complain in most cases. Again, this has and always be in one's own opinion what sites are the best or relevant. If an editor went in and deleted sites which he deemed not to be the best, there would only be one listing in each category - since there can only be one best!

What do you think would happen if an editor started deleting listings that he/she didn't deem to be the best?

Well that is your personal opinion, but is there any objective reason for that assumption? As far as I have heard, some editors completely ignore suggestions whereas others rely on it.

Personally speaking I think over 50% of an editors time (sometimes %100) is spent moving submissions, deleting already listed appropriately submissions, investigating for mirrors/other problems, finding the new URL of a listing that's marked red/not found, and/or attaching notes etc. The directory would grow at a much faster rate if one's time was spent finding and adding listings.

Again, I think bringing up Alexa or any other measurement is irrelevant - the only people who care about that are submitters. Do you believe an average user of the ODP (or any other site) compares Alexa traffic rankings to anything?

Every dmoz bashing thread usually comes from those whom are not editors or are ex-editors with a chip on their shoulders. I remember a few years back when I had all these "bright ideas" and how simple things could be done to make things better/easier. Then I became an editor and logged into my control panel, gained more experience (and categories), and later realized it was whole lot different from the other side. I would never expect someone who has not been involved with the project to be able to see that it is a lot more efficient than you could ever imagine from the outside, or the amount of work people actually spend keeping it running as smoothly as it does. It doesn't matter if you are keeping track of 100 categories, that's still a fraction of a single percent of the number of categories in dmoz.

Relevant? I can find better serps in dmoz than I can many of the search engines most of the time. Do a search for some of your favorite terms (yes it times out often as it supposed to be a directory, not a search engine). If I do a search for london hotel for example I would much rather be faced with the results from dmoz than many search engines….

I know I'm one of the few, but I often use dmoz for researching almost anything under the sun…

added
I think perhaps this is a mis-phrase for "Is DMOZ becoming less important?" and I would say that since Google buried the directory in their mass of features instead of putting it on the front page, then the answer is yes.. DMOZ became less important.

Yep, that's true and it's also true that Google is showing your best backlinks first (or at all)when you use the link command..hehe
People don't understand that it doesn't matter one bit where/if "Google" links to dmoz - it will continue on.
How people can use this reasoning (link placement from Google) to gauge importance is beyond me... is your child less important because they sit in the 3rd row instead of the first row at school?

LizardGroupie




msg:490675
 7:16 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

The ODP didn't invent conflict of interest. It occurs in the real world every day, and honest people have to learn to cope with it. Every week thousands of church treasurers collect millions of dollars, and account for it faithfully. Of the dozens of U.S. presidents elected, most neither stole the silverware nor sexually assaulted the help. (Only one did both, IIRC.)

Again, this should all be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer. In nearly any organization (volunteer and professional) 10% of the people do 90% of the work.

We have more than 50,000 listings invalidated by website changes every quarter! And we have more spam submittals than that every month! (And spam, not inactive editors, is the sole cause of the backlog, as I've explained multiple times, at least once with supporting arithmetic detail. Do the math if you don't believe it. Get a sixth-grader to help if you need it.)

Another obvious consequence is that the way to success is to attract the right 10% of the people. Social engineering is therefore essential. Building a community of independent volunteers who trust each other to care about the right thing involves -- trusting them to do the right thing. (Duh...) And you have to show people you won't tolerate breaches of that trust (as the U.S. Catholic Church has been emphatically reminded recently).

So the ODP founders designed those characteristics into the model. And it worked. The ODP is by far the largest of the web directories, and the most comprehensive. It is the least affected by editor bias (because by design we have such a large pool of different biases to draw from). It is the least affected by self-selection of websites, because of our aggressive approach to using multiple sources of research, and our emphasis on the primacy of editor selection. As to reliability, it was the first to address several forms of link rot effectively.

That is what actually happened. One could imagine another world where the ODP founder absconded with all the capital raised (it happens, even to churches!) and the ODP never started. One could imagine another world in which the ODP sponsor dropped sponsorship, and the directory died. (it has happened to other directories!) One could imagine a directory in which self-interest overwhelmed altruism in the editing community (I could name a couple where that happened.)

But the ODP has avoided multiple failure modes. Surely that is partly because its founders thought about them and prepared procedures that have proven adequate to oversee the potential problems -- and address them.

JayCee




msg:490676
 7:38 am on Feb 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've submitted one site about 6 times over 4 years - never listed. Have never been to the forum though. Will check it out.

It's a small time eCommerce site and our product is by far the most popular in the market space. All the major competitors are listed.

Even though you have no reason to believe me, i'll state that the site is fully qualified and much higher in quality and honesty than most of the others there.

Certainly makes one feel powerless.

Recently completed a new site for the same small company, for a new product. Submitted it 3 months ago (different category). Not suprisingly it's not listed yet either.

-edited for spelling jc-

RichTC




msg:490677
 6:04 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can anyone tell me exactly what directories DMOZ now feeds?

Apart from Google directory that is?

I read all this chat here about DMOZ feeding hundreds but im yet to see this in action. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

victor




msg:490678
 6:56 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

There's a few listed here:

[dmoz.org...]

RichTC




msg:490679
 12:04 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks Victor, WOW 308 if my math is correct. No wonder being in DMOZ carries so much weight with all those back links!

cbpayne




msg:490680
 8:10 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is in the region of 4000 directories that use DMOZ

RichTC




msg:490681
 6:52 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

In the region of 4000?, may i ask how you arrive at that estimate?

cbpayne




msg:490682
 8:18 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, but not really sure I can reveal all I know because some of it is internal to DMOZ - hopefully a more senior editor can confirm it (or smack my knuckles for revealing too much :-), BUT:

* there is 308 listed in the link posted above.
* there are 3141 listed somewhere else (sorry, not sure I should explain that)
* there is a lot more that my site show up in that are not on either list

=== ~ 4000

Genie




msg:490683
 10:17 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bear in mind though that quite a few of those sites only use part of the Open Directory data.

RichTC




msg:490684
 11:53 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

cbpayne and others

Many thanks for your posts. most interesting. I now understand why a site has to list in DMOZ.

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved