homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.163.183
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >     
Problem in Dmoz
Editor Choice !
experienced




msg:487737
 5:33 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.

I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.

Any idea on this.

Experienced

 

nicksahadi




msg:487827
 11:11 am on Jun 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

KC, just a quick question and one more comment.

Were you a part of ODP in 1998?

I was.

In 1998 I was in a forum, much like this one, where the big discussion was all about the PIA it was to get listed in Yahoo.

It was in that SEO forum in 1998 that a one Rich Skrenta personally came and solicited said SEO forum members to become editors for NewHoo.

With all due respect to the industry, the type of directory that would come from those first SEO driven editors is no library. Never has been and never will be.

Andysmith, you have it down. To qoute Rich "Tequila + Brainstorming = GNuHOO"

Good luck!

[edited by: skibum at 2:07 pm (utc) on June 15, 2005]
[edit reason] removed link [/edit]

flicker




msg:487828
 11:27 am on Jun 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Im not sure where that would leave the ODP if Google et al stopped using it?

Um, it's run by volunteers. Like Wikipedia. So it doesn't matter whether Google uses it for its own directory or not, it'd still keep on going; the editors don't have to be paid, so it's not as if they'd be laid off if the site's traffic dropped.

I'm not even optimistic enough to think website spam would slack off if the Google clone of the directory disappeared tomorrow. Spammers would still submit garbage to the ODP, hoping to get a free link from an on-topic source. (So would SEO's of legitimate sites.) Spammers bombard *blogs*, for crying out loud; Google sure doesn't syndicate those.

andysmith617




msg:487829
 11:52 am on Jun 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I meant of course, if Google were NOT involved with the ODP.

andysmith617




msg:487830
 12:24 pm on Jun 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Losing one out of the over 500 known licensed users of ODP data

Google

would hardly be worth noting.

You are joking aren't you? Are you serious?

And if the ODP didn't note it then there are certainly those who would! Millions of them.

flicker




msg:487831
 1:11 pm on Jun 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I meant of course, if Google were NOT involved with the ODP.

I'm not understanding you. The only way in which Google is involved with the ODP is by using an ODP clone as the basis for the Google directory. Google doesn't finance the ODP or do anything else for it.

If Google threw out its Google directory, I'm sure ODP traffic would take a dip (Google being its biggest user), but since editors don't have to be paid, traffic levels really wouldn't affect ODP workings in the slightest. And I doubt it would really affect spam/submissions levels either. People will launch spam and even honest marketing submissions at anything free, regardless of its traffic levels. Anyone with a guestbook or PR4 personal homepage about their cat already knows this.

andysmith617




msg:487832
 1:29 am on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

(3) The ODP will be there for it, with a neatly packaged RDF, delivered free anywhere in the world.

(4) There will be persistent rumors and allegations that the ODP has penetrated the Illuminati and taken over utter control of the new system, for the sole purpose of freezing out the "little guy" and promoting the Bilderburgers, not to mention the Blefuscans.

(5) There will be curses and lamentations by spammers saying that the new system ought not to use the ODP data at all, and ODP editors are all vile and corrupt for permitting their worthless data to be actually used by someone who has a different opinion of its worth.

(6) Users of the system -- even the most careful observers -- won't be able to tell what effects the ODP actually has on the system, whatever their suspicions. They will notice that certain sites will be easily found in any system, and that sites easily found in one system will more often than not be easily found in other systems. This too will be blamed on the inherent depravity of ODP editors.

(7) ODP editors will look at the new system, speculate briefly about how it uses the ODP, then experiment with it to find how best it can be used to find and categorize websites.

How presumtious! You assume that any new alternative will HAVE to use dmoz, don't be so sure. Yahoo made the same mistake in 98. And on the internet nothing lasts forever in the same tired old format. It needs to grow, listen, and give what the people who actually use it, what they want. DMOZ does none of the above. Searchers don't use it. Webmasters and SEO officionado's do. THAT is who predominatley click on your site nowadays. No-one else. You've missed that fact BIG time.

DMOZ didn't use Yahoo in it's inception. Anything but. It was an anti-thesis to everything it stood for.
And whatever comes out of this huge dissatisfaction with DMOZ, will certainly NOT be using it. Why would they?

Google threw out its Google directory, I'm sure ODP traffic would take a dip (Google being its biggest user), but since editors don't have to be paid, traffic levels really wouldn't affect ODP workings in the slightest. And I doubt it would really affect spam/submissions levels either. People will launch spam and even honest marketing submissions at anything free,

While I'm sure it wouldn't make a difference to the 'workings' and spam submissions for a link. The importance of getting a listing there would take a huge dip. No-one would be that bothered anymore. DMOZ would be another ZEAL. If DMOZ adopted some of Zeal's practices ( ie open forums and link submission procedure).. It wouldn't take the amount of flak does now). Just a pity we as internet users cannot have the best of both worlds.

It's that simple.

But anyway, I'm glad some of you can see a way forward from the present DMOZ. But it's a bit, (well stupendously), big-headed to say DMOZ will be supplying anything. And comparing to the 'Illuminati' LOL , how arrogant!

You're not some secret 'World controlling faction', DMOZ is just a volunteer directory luvvie, albeit 'secret'. Hate to be the bearer of bad news.. But DMOZ is a directory which started off with a good idea, But is seeming less and less like a good idea in 2005.

Submit and forget? I hear that time and time again on forums. 'Concentrate on other things' is another. Soon..

Forget to submit, as it takes too long to get anything done properly if at all. Complete and utter waste of time if it wasn't for the backlinks in Google.

And don't kid yourselves your popularity or 'power' is based on anything else. I can assure you it is not.

hutcheson




msg:487833
 6:58 am on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>You're not some secret 'World controlling faction', DMOZ is just a volunteer directory luvvie, albeit 'secret'.

Well, a small bit of reality got through. That's a start. I trust you will do your best to disabuse others in your customary circles of this notion?

andysmith617




msg:487834
 1:43 pm on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

LOL, I might if I knew what customary circles were.

Hutcheson, or any of the other guardians of DMOZ, no flowery language, no ripping bits of my posts out in order to 'prove' my views are wrong, please, just a very simple question and I'd be grateful if you answered it for me (since I am obviously so clueless) but,

What kind of person, (excluding those who are spammers or 'up to no good' of course), in your opinion clicks on DMOZ/ODP predominately?

flicker




msg:487835
 3:01 pm on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can answer that. The librarian-type. Like me. I was a user before I became an editor.

We're probably not your high-conversion-rate market.

Oh, and there's webmasters who want to offer directories and relevant links on their own websites, of course. From Google on down to Grandma Nellie's Knitting Club Website. So there's indirect traffic there, obviously.

hutcheson




msg:487836
 6:14 pm on Jun 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

As for the "usual ODP users:" in my experience:

There's obviously a high correlation between users and the editing community -- no doubt because users who find ALMOST exactly what they want are likely to want to be editors; and editors know how to use the ODP.

But users could be people looking for homework information for anything from elementary school literature or history to doctorate-level physics (to give specific real examples -- Google gave way too many results for the children, most of which are irrelevant; Yahoo directory search gave nothing; ODP site search gave several sites representing a cross section of perspectives.)

Or they could be ordinary folk like those who ask me an off-the-wall general knowledge question -- I tell them "I know that's in the ODP; here's how to find it."

But, and this is the important point: I don't feel any compulsion to divide the people into "virtuous-and-clever" ODP users, and "vicious-and-dumb" others (or "profitable customers versus unprofitable bandwidth stealers"). I've said once or twice that you don't divide the world into hammer-users and screwdriver-users; at best you divide the world into people who are bright enough to figure out what tool to use for a particular job, and people to whom every problem seems nail-shaped.

So I don't need to know how much money ODP visitors have to waste. I don't need to know how stupid they are. I don't need to know how likely they are to fall for any particular marketing/advertising/pre-sales gimmick. I don't need to know what legal jurisdiction they are in. I don't need to know whether or why they are using Google Open Directory, or AOL Open Directory, or some other licensee. I don't need to know whether they are using the directory directly, or benefiting indirectly through the improved relevance of some other online resource. I don't even need to know whether they even know they are using the open directory.

If I really need motivation, what I do is look at the kind of people that are most unhappy with the ODP.

andysmith617




msg:487837
 2:21 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

'If I really need motivation, what I do is look at the kind of people that are most unhappy with the ODP. '

Like an ordinary member of the public like me? Who owns a non-profit website and has simply questioned why standards are so bad? And, so far, is not happy with the answers given.

Librarian types and, er....did I see the word Webmasters?

So you exist for librarian types and the odd webmaster who wants to use your content? Other directories who can't be bothered finding their own content? (exluding Google etc, but ordinary Joe Public).

Anyone else you can think of may be interested?

(Hutcheson, yet again too flowery, cut to the chase')

You spend numerous hours editing and deleting 90% spam submissions.

But you still haven't told me who really uses it and finds it useful. Who for? Who clicks on the ODP most? And why do they?

As a matter of interest I put up a poll on my site tonight asking who without Googling knew what DMOZ or the ODP was.

2 replies so far :

'Pardon?'

'Some kind of mosquito repellent?'

I'll keep you informed. Also, I know that in the USA midwives are a bit of a 'new age' thing. In the UK they are on par and responsible for, just as much as doctors are concerning childbirth/pregnancy. They are not in the UK an 'ancient throwback to superstition' as Hutcheson advised. Check your facts.

My forum members are not uneducated or new to the internet. We do most of our research there.

I guess what smarts for me is the high standards I have to deliver in a regulated body like the NHS. Which exisits for the good of all people and takes a hell of a lot of critisism despite the fact no-one in the UK pays for it directly. We all take it for granted, but boy does it come under fire if it'snot seen as doing it's job correctly. (Try taking your dog/cat to the vet in the UK, a sobering thought and bill after moaning about the 'non-profit' making NHS)>

To see something like DMOZ, a completely unregulated body which holds so much sway in the internet community. Get away with such a low standard overall of service to ALL. Kind of sticks in my throat. Like I said in my orginal post. Just not good enough to please anyone. And certainly not good enough in 2005.

Tesco, wouldn't get away with those sort of standards, Oxfam certainly wouldn't, the Red Cross, nope, or my local Cancer care shop, ( submit your contibution and mabye we'll use it in a year or two), no, volunatary organisations all over the world are expected to be seen doing something with contributions. Indeed most are grateful for them. There is no 'well we don't care because we don't exsist to make you the contributor happy'.

Don't invite 'contributions' if you can't handle them. It only hacks off those that want to help you improve.

flicker




msg:487838
 2:41 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Like an ordinary member of the public like me? Who
>owns a non-profit website and has simply questioned
>why standards are so bad?

From my experience, you're not the sort of person who's unhappiest with the ODP. You're the sort of person who wishes the ODP did something different than what it does, which is your right; I wish McDonald's served food I like, and since it doesn't, I'm not going to eat there. Simple enough.

But the people who REALLY hate the ODP, the ones who froth at the mouth spouting four-letter words and vitriol about it, are spammers. Hard-core spammers, the ones who submit their stupid Adsense scraper sites and then send editors email cursing at them for destroying their lives and forcing them to go on welfare by not listing their sites and allowing them to make a living off of Google (I am NOT joking; and people wonder why editors don't reply to email?) The ones who become ODP editors and accept bribes and get kicked out and are now furious that their clever idea to avoid getting a real job did not work out as planned. The ones who cloak a site about Viagra so that it looks like a support site for cancer survivors.

Hutcheson is quite right, if we're making those people mad enough to threaten us and curse at us, we must be doing something right.

If we're frustrating honest webmasters of content sites who just wish they could see their sites in our directory, I'm afraid that's just an unfortunate casualty of the fight with spammers. I really wish I *could* list every good site that was suggested to the sections of the directory I work in within a week or two. They're buried under such a flood of spam that I couldn't find them all in that timescale if I devoted myself to it full-time. I still find more good sites to add more rapidly on my own than I do sifting through the open site suggestions. I'm sorry it's that way; but it's really the spammers' fault, not the editors'. I'm continuing to add the same number of sites every week, but the more spam that fills the suggestion box, the fewer of the sites I add come from that pool.

rfgdxm1




msg:487839
 2:57 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>To see something like DMOZ, a completely unregulated body which holds so much sway in the internet community.

Flattery will get you nowhere. I'm am an ODP editor. I hold "much sway in the internet community"? I'd be laughed at on the street if I claimed such. Seriously. WHERE do you live? I oughta move. :)

andysmith617




msg:487840
 2:57 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hutcheson is quite right, if we're making those people mad enough to threaten us and curse at us, we must be doing something right.

Well great! Fabbo, sounds like you're doing a terrific job there eh!

From my experience, you're not the sort of person who's unhappiest with the ODP.

Yes you're right, but I still sure am. I just want you to question why someone like me IS.

But the people who REALLY hate the ODP, the ones who froth at the mouth spouting four-letter words and vitriol about it, are spammers. Hard-core spammers, the ones who submit their stupid Adsense scraper sites and then send editors email cursing at them for destroying their lives and forcing them to go on welfare by not listing their sites and allowing them to make a living off of Google

I'm not one of those, but I'm still unhappy.

If we're frustrating honest webmasters of content sites who just wish they could see their sites in our directory, I'm afraid that's just an unfortunate casualty of the fight with spammers

Yes, but it doesn't make me happy about being anyone with an honest, hard worked for and good site being lumped in with them. Not by a long chalk. I have simply pointed out that there are many in the same frame of mind. It is not acceptable.

Innocent of spamming until proven guilty, not the other way round. If you don't have the means to police it or adequate quality control measures across the board, stop inviting allcomers. Or, get more volunteers to make the whole thing run properly without too many 'casualties'.

As it stands, there are far too many honest, hardworking and well meaning webmasters and potential editors being sacrificed on the altar of 'reducing spam' in DMOZ.

That is what is happening. Sooo much spam, so little time.

Time things changed.

(ps rfgdxm1 I live in Scotland, known for it's 'glorious defeats', but there was a reason for Hadrians wall lol).

[edited by: andysmith617 at 3:10 am (utc) on June 19, 2005]

rfgdxm1




msg:487841
 3:04 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I'm not one of those, but I'm still unhappy.

Where in the ODP guidelines is satisfaction guaranteed? I must have not noticed this.

andysmith617




msg:487842
 3:14 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where in the ODP guidelines is satisfaction guaranteed?

Yes I haven't seen it either? And if there's ONE thing I will agree with it's DMOZ living up to the the fact there IS no satisfaction guaranteed, just wonderfully, I must say! Congratulations, you must be so proud!

flicker




msg:487843
 3:18 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Innocent of spamming until proven guilty, not the other way round.

Everyone is innocent of spamming until proven guilty. Honest webmasters are the victims of spammers only in that the amount of spam in the open-submissions inbox makes that a much slower route to publication in the ODP than it might otherwise be. One website not linking to another quickly enough for your tastes is not equivalent to throwing that website in the slammer.

Seriously, what do you think would change if we removed the "suggest a site" option? Would your sites then be reviewed more quickly? It's doubtful; sites that are easily found by non-submission methods aren't the ones that suffer long waits in the first place. Would your competitors' sites then be reviewed less quickly? Again, it's doubtful; if your sites have been waiting a long time, your competitors' probably have as well. So how would it help you, exactly? Most webmasters seem to feel that a slow review is better than no review, and those who don't think so simply don't submit. And in some corners of the directory, those that see little spam, turnaround time is a matter of days, so removing the submission option would end up slowing down site review in areas like those.

I'm not seeing how removing the site suggestion option would benefit any webmasters at all, actually. It might save certain editors time spent dealing with the spam, and I can't say it hasn't occurred to me on occasion, but since webmasters don't *have* to submit if they don't want and editors don't *have* to look at the submissions if they don't want, it wouldn't actually save anyone any trouble they couldn't save themselves. And it would be a shame, I think, to slam the door on a venue some webmasters and editors are happy with and others consider flawed but preferable to nothing when there would be no real benefit to anyone in withholding it. Seems like more of a "Nyah, I'll take my marbles and go home" response than anything that would actually help anyone. (-:

Atticus




msg:487844
 3:37 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

dajeffster,

If you read my posts more closely, you'll see that I don't have the DMOZ/Google relationship "backwards," as you claim.

I am well aware of who predated whom. In post #73 in this thread, I suggested that DMOZ and Google were mismatched and the relationship should end. In post #75 ,Victor disagreed with this idea.

So my statement, "If DMOZ wants to be the sole conduit for inclusion in the Google directory..." was not a reference to Google's original choice of the DMOZ data for it directory, but rather it was reference to Victor's statement suggesting that Google SHOULD NOT STOP USING DMOZ as it's "sole conduit."

Despite the circular logic of some posters in this thread, the question remains: Are DMOZ editors happy with the current relationship between DMOZ and Google, and if so, do these editors understand that the broad reach which Google provides them also leads to many submissions which could be considered substandard and to critisms related to timeliness and editorial judgement?

If they do understand, why do they always seem to take it so hard when they are criticised? I would think that one's time might be better spent in editing, rather than in spinning one's wheels.

flicker




msg:487845
 3:43 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>do these editors understand that the broad reach
>Google which provides them also leads to many
>submissions which could be considered substandard

I really doubt it's related. I got so much spam in my piddly little guestbook that I closed it. Spammers would hammer the ODP just as hard if the Google clone of the directory vanished tomorrow. They strangle guestbooks, they choke blogs, they harangue individual webmasters for links and they submit over and over again to directories. Anything at all that might conceivably result in a free link to their site. They won't slack off spamming based on how much traffic a site they're hitting receives or doesn't receive.

Spam's gotten worse across the Internet in general over the past five years.

hutcheson




msg:487846
 4:27 am on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>do these editors understand that the broad reach which Google provides them also leads to many submissions which could be considered substandard and to critisms related to timeliness and editorial judgement?

Those of us editors who predate Google know, and will tell anyone that asks, the truth. And the truth is, we were getting trash submittals before Google appeared. And that was back when vstore was the only anonymous drop-shipper with a zillion fright wigs, and amazon was the only affiliate bookstore program. Just from vstore alone we were getting dozens, maybe hundreds of doorways a day; another dozen or two from cdnow and ccnow (not the same at the time). The ODP is ten times larger, Google is about ten times larger than the search engines of the time, the spam load on the internet is about ten times larger. And the spam load on the ODP submittal forms is about ten times larger.

Andy, I really don't understand why you have this compulsion to express such a contempt for anyone that would dare to use, let alone contribute to, the ODP. If you don't want to use it, fine: nobody will care -- nobody will even notice. Even if you do use it, nobody will notice. And, frankly, one more shrill voice of petulance one way or another isn't going to make a decibel's difference in the incessant chant of the angry spammers.

But -- if that is the company you prefer, I leave you to it, reserving only the right to judge your character therefrom.

Atticus




msg:487847
 5:16 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

The mismatch between Google and DMOZ is not simply a matter of spam. DMOZ editors still refuse to confront the fact that Google's mission (8 billion web pages and counting) does not fit well with DMOZ's often stated policy that DMOZ should not and will not list every appropriate site.

Publishers and searchers believe that Google at least attempts to be all inclusive, whereas DMOZ editors believe that a category with a few good listings is good enough. DMOZ editors can not and will not create a comprehensive directory. They have said this over and over again.

Therein lies the mismatch. Therein lies the problem.

DMOZ editors prefer a reactionary stance and say that the sites which they fail to review or fail to include must be examples of "spam." But since they have already admitted that no category needs to be inclusive, merely representative, some sites will be excluded simply because a given category is "full" in the editor's opinion or because submissions outpace the abilty to review the sites. This puts them in the position of being able to claim that the definition of spam is a site which doesn't appear in the DMOZ!

Time to take of the blinders, folks. The Google/DMOZ relationship should end. This would increase the quality of Google's directory and may perhaps restore the sanity of DMOZ editors.

flicker




msg:487848
 5:28 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>The mismatch between Google and DMOZ is not simply a
>matter of spam. DMOZ editors still refuse to confront
>the fact that Google's mission (8 billion web pages
>and counting) does not fit well with DMOZ's often
>stated policy that DMOZ should not and will not list
>every possible site.

That's all quite true. Google and the ODP have very different purposes, and fill their niches in very different ways.

I'm puzzled by your conclusion that that means one has to repudiate the other, though. Why? If a search on one isn't helping, moving on to the other is a very good idea. If I'm searching the ODP and don't find what I'm looking for, I move on to Google, and vice versa. Sometimes you want the needlenose pliers and sometimes you want the monkey wrench.

It seems pretty natural to me for Google and the ODP to link to each other. They're just offering their users an alternate tool in case their own service isn't working for them.

Watcher of the Skies




msg:487849
 5:43 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

ODP / DMOZ

God, are you people STILL talking about this corrupted, self-indulgent failure? Who cares about/uses this any more? They have a fatal flaw in their premise of allowing the foxes to watch over the chicken coop and waste billions of pixels defending themselves, as those rightly accused tend to do. A noble idea, but a grand failure. Only when these guys admit that can we MOVE ON TO THE NEXT HUMAN-REVIEW BASED IDEA. But you're not listening anymore, are you...?

Atticus




msg:487850
 5:48 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Repudiation has nothing to do with it.

The publishers of 8 billion web pages all desperately want a listing in the Google directory. I believe that they at least deserve a chance to submit a site and have it reviewed, one way or another, in 3 years or less. Google and its users would benefit from such an improvement, as well.

If Google used it's massive resources to create a truly comprehensive directory, this would not stop people from using DMOZ. It would simply mean that Google's mission to organize the billions of pages on the web would be a more consistent mission, applicable to both Google search and the Google directory.

It would mean more satisfaction for Google searchers who, one would assume, want the same comprehensive results in the directory as they get in the search function. And it would take pressure off of DMOZ editors who have no desire to create a comprehensive directory.

kevinpate




msg:487851
 6:25 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

One simply has to ponder why.
G, with all of its resources, brainpower and dollarpower alike, could easily resolve any want/desire or benefit to be realized from providing a different directory, perhaps even a directory which would offer all or even most of the 8 billion pages in its search index via cats and sub cats and sub sub cats galore.

G has the talent, it has the resources. G can choose to wave buh-bye to DMOZ and ODP on any given day, as can any other place which uses the ODP feed in whole or in part (though perhaps not as easily as G could do so.)

And yet, ODP and DMOZ remain welcome by G. Why?

Why, why why why why doesn't G feel the same way as those who wish ODP was permanently unplugged feel? Oh why, why, why, why, why is the world so unfair?

Maybe G recognizes something in ODP that ODP detractors don't.
Maybe G collectively is just plain old lazy and not interested in doing anything different today than it did a few years ago.

Tell ya what, you pick the one you believe. I'd love to stay and discuss but it's time for lunch, and that's just way more important to me.

Atticus




msg:487852
 7:01 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seems that the folks who cry the most are the DMOZ editors who can't believe anybody would have the chutzpah to submit a website for inclusion in their oh-so-exclusive directory.

After all, why write six paragraphs and put off one's lunch when one really doesn't care at all?

And "permanently unplugged" was never discussed by anyone. It's funny how DMOZ editors have always said that the way search engines use DMOZ data is none of their concern, while they simultaneously cry aloud that if Google did decide to upgrade to a more comprehensive directory, that the DMOZ would be "permanently unplugged."

DMOZ is not Terri Schiavo.

They will remain reachable at dmoz.org

hutcheson




msg:487853
 7:42 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

There's one point I haven't addressed recently, and that is the misapprehension of a "mismatch" between Google and the ODP. The fact is, Googleguy's recent posts on quality search results could have come right off one of our administrator's keyboards.

The Google search engine doesn't list all the sites on the web, and (says Googleguy) it doesn't want to. How is that different from the ODP? Not at all. We're both aiming at the same vision, just from different directions.

We use different technologies, so our perspectives are complementary. Google lists billions of pages that in a perfect world would NOT be listed; the ODP hasn't yet finished listing all the sites that ARE worth listing. Google gives very quick reaction based on a crude amalgamation of unreviewed human reactions, the ODP gives much slower reaction, but much deeper and peer-reviewed human analysis.

And there is a different level of DETAIL -- the ODP list SITES, Google lists PAGES.

Now, last time Googleguy spoke on the subject, he claimed that the ODP is treated no differently in Google pagerank than any other site. (Lots of people didn't believe him, I know: I figure that's because they are such liars themselves, rather than any deficiency in his credibility. But I believe him.) So I think it's rather ludicrous to rant about when Google will stop the special treatment they never started.

As for the Google Open Directory -- again, that fits perfectly into any Google pretentions to "comprehensiveness", because there is no more comprehensive directory. I presume that if Google could get a better directory, they would. But I figure that a professional directory that size would cost in the nine-digit range in annual dollar expenditure. Is it worth that? Just to get something that would be "about as good" as the ODP -- and make no mistake about it, there's definitely a law of diminishing returns! If you spent another hundred million dollars, I doubt if you'd pick up more than a half million more good sites. Because the simple fact is, vast majority (not all, just the vast majority) of the sites that aren't already listed in the ODP are spam pure and simple (advertising, marketing, pre-sales, affiliate, order-taker, lead-generator, plagiarized, or some combination of the above), and anyone can figure that out by doing Google searches and looking at the results, just like I did.

Given that the directory probably gets about 10% or so of searches, does it really make sense to spend that kind of money? Where would the returns come from? Are there really that many people who would pay the $300 annually to get their site reviewed? Looksmart already gave up on that model; Yahoo has moved it to the back burner: the peer-reviewed volunteer community is (for this as for so many other internet technologies) the only viable approach.

I'm sure Google has already considered the idea of their own direcctory -- doubtless even before hosting the ODP. I'm also sure they made the decision based on economic analyses much more sophisticated than mine, let alone the sort of rabid rants some of the spammers are indulging in.

andysmith617




msg:487854
 8:05 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

As it stands, there are far too many honest, hardworking and well meaning webmasters and potential editors being sacrificed on the altar of 'reducing spam' in DMOZ. And time and manpower restraints.

The reason this discussion always gets 'circular' from what I can make out, is that from a personal standpoint I am talking about feelings, and how people feel about their perceived treatment by DMOZ. Be it submitting a site that never gets reviewed, or arguing the toss in a thread like this one.

It all boils down to the fact there are an awful lot of internet users (whoever they are and for what ever reason), do not feel they have been given a fair crack of the whip in some way or another. Personally.

However, the editors here have taken great pains to point out ' why should I care if your site is listed?', 'I do not exsist for you', 'I do not need to be accountable to you', ' I don't volunteer my time to make you happy' etc etc.

Apart from the fact that DMOZ is human edited, I see very little of the human side of good will, openess, fairness and equality there. Basic human manners are another thing which has also been sacrificed to the altar of time restraints and 'spam prevention'.

There have been numerous parts of this thread dedicated as to why answering emails and why not sending basic 'We are sorry but your website has been declined because', or 'We at DMOZ apologise for the fact your site has not been reviewed yet, please bear with us we're working as hard as we can to get to it', 'or thank you for your suggestion on how to improve our directory we will pass this on to our developments team '..type of emails out.

The point I am trying to make, is that by lacking in the basics of good customer/consumer/audience (whatever you want to refer to users as) care, DMOZ has turned itself into something as souless, uncaring, non-accountable, and secretive about its methods....as the search engines they are trying to differ from.

The Search Engines do not hide this fact, but for a Human Edited Directory, you sure do act like a machination.

You've taken so much goodwill towards DMOZ away now. By acting like the very thing you should be an alternative for.

Human Edited, but with all the compassion, manners, goodwill, and fairness...

Of a clapped out old machine that needs a good kick up the bum every now and then to get it going.

Atticus




msg:487855
 8:16 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

hutcheson,

"Because the simple fact is, vast majority (not all, just the vast majority) of the sites that aren't already listed in the ODP are spam pure and simple"

Are you confirming my assertation that the DMOZ definition of spam is "a site not listed in DMOZ?"

So when folks complain that they can't get a site listed in DMOZ, it is always fair and accurate for DMOZ editors to claim that the site was rejected because it was spam. It's so obvious! The publisher submits a site (because it is not already listed) and because it is not already listed, it should not be listed because not being listed it is obviously "spam."

Yossarian, help!

"Google lists billions of pages that in a perfect world would NOT be listed"

Now THAT goes to the root of the DMOZ philosophy and its disconnect from what searchers want.

Searchers want ALL the information available to be organized in a way that makes it possible for them to most easily access that information. Searchers do not want the bulk of information to be arbitrarily or summarily expunged from the searchable (or browsable) record on the whims of a volunteer in his pajamas.

On a final note, If I rabidly rant, but haven't actually submitted a site to DMOZ in over three years (cuz, ya know, what's the point?) then by what measure am I a spammer?

bird




msg:487856
 8:39 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Because the simple fact is, vast majority (not all, just the vast majority) of the sites that aren't already listed in the ODP are spam pure and simple"

Are you confirming my assertation that the DMOZ definition of spam is "a site not listed in DMOZ?"

Did you even read the line you just quoted? Please try to grasp the "not all" clause in there.

So when folks complain that they can't get a site listed in DMOZ, it is always fair and accurate for DMOZ editors to claim that the site was rejected because it was spam.

No editor said any such thing in this thread. Please don't put words in our mouths.

"Google lists billions of pages that in a perfect world would NOT be listed"

Now THAT goes to the root of the DMOZ philosophy and its disconnect from what searchers want.

This simple fact has nothing at all to do with DMOZ philosophy (even if the "billions" may be somewhat exaggerated).

Searchers want ALL the information available

No, searchers don't want to see the millions of machine generated "made for AdSense" pages listed in Google. Those just stand in their way of getting what they really want.

roldar




msg:487857
 8:50 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

If there are 6 billion people in the world and ONLY 50 million have AIDS, I suppose it's not worth pursuing a cure. Because the vast majority of people don't have AIDS.

With automated scraper sites and duplicate datafeed sites and other meaningless garbage out there, technically it is probably true what he said about the vast majority of unlisted sites being spam.

But I would also wager that there are at least half as many as are currently in DMOZ that are just as listable. Otherwise why do they need so many hard-working volunteers to add many many sites every day?

damn lies and statistics...

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved