| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 36 ( 1  ) || |
why are people giving them Public relations?
| 5:46 pm on Jul 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Although I haven't been a member here that long, I'm shocked at the number of Dmoz posts taking over this great subject thread.
Seems like many have received poor service from dmoz for one reason or another, so why give them further media attention? My site has never been accepted by dmoz, and I don't really give a stuff about that, and feel safe in the knowledge that there are probably many sites that could blow dmoz out of the water with good customer service, nice web design and better site management. Dmoz is probably loving all this attention right now, but what I want to know is where are the representatives with the real answers to their admin/editor problems, and I mean the proper owners here, not the the editors.
It is AOL that now owns dmoz? Why don't AOL simply step in and solve this management problem. I'd say they could sort it out once and for all, get all the sites added and thus keep the punters happy so to speak.
Anyone agree with this? Members here are just giving them great press and not getting anything substantial in return. Sites are clearly not being added for some reason, and it smells fishy somehow, and it's been going on for years - this is not a sudden problem, am I right....
| 2:46 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dmoz is a good service, but as a business it fails miserably. Dmoz should keep the category entries free, but introduce some kind of paid option, that gives ROI.
With cashflow coming in they could improve the speed of service, which would keep people happy and at the same time keep the bad quality sites out by charging them every time they submit. Or they could charge the bad sites anyway, but refuse them a listing.
That would solve the spam/bad quality sites issue and reduce the workload tremendously - thus improving the overall image of dmoz. People would then advertise on dmoz and the owners would make a profit.
What's wrong with making a little profit. If only to improve the service and cover costs can only be a good thing. I think people would pay to advertise on there.
They need good PR to put them back on track anyway. Or many will lose confidence in it's ability to list sites. It's really quite sad this directory is talked about in this way. Not good PR at all. If they didn't have any problems, then I'm sure they wouldn't get any complaints, yet webmasters do have a major issue with them, whether the webmaster's sites are good or bad quality. I'm certain a charging solution would prevent an overload of submissions. Infact, I'm going to introduce it on my site - that's how convinced I am of it's success.
I suggest nobody talks about dmoz anymore, and see what they do about that. But I doubt people will stop complaining because dmoz is just one of those sites that people love to talk about, and usually people talk as they demand answers to what's going on.
Refuse answers and people are going to make up their own versions of why dmoz is bad. Public Relations is about ensuring that the correct information about a client or company is made known to the right people in order to establish and maintain goodwill and understanding between an organisation and the public.
Sending editors to do this job just isn't Public Relations, nor is it helpful in giving it's public the answers they demand. If they are to crawl out of this situation, this needs to be handled professionally by a PR Agency.
| 2:48 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Workie, you're obviously confusing "website" with "domain." They are not at all the same thing.
A "domain" is a web addressing convention. a "website" is a collection of content created by one entity on one general subject. So it doesn't matter how many domains your "related" content (related, that is, both by source and by general subject) is spread over.
The submittal policies are quite clear as to how many of those pages (on however many domains you have) you may submit. The total is "one". More than that is "spam."
The ONLY difference is that if you start submitting "related" content, but try to disguise the relationship by using different domain names, editors will know you're not an innocent stupid spammer, you're a malicious deceptive spammer. And chances of you avoiding the penalty described in the submittal policies will drop. Significantly.
| 3:06 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Event_king, the ODP isn't a business or a listing service. It's something quite different.
As such, it doesn't have mercenary spin doctors or paid PR flacks. And it doesn't need them. It's much better served by the simple truth.
Or, at least, that's what some volunteers think. Your notion that people would be "sent out" to do anything expresses a mind mind-bogglingly unclear on the concept of "volunteer."
And it doesn't need to advertise its non-existant services. So if people come to not depend on the ODP for "site promotion" services, ... and that hasn't happened yet, not by a long shot, judging from the level of ignorance still being, then it would be a Good Thing.
So, tell me, if the ODP hired a PR lackey (and somehow got an honest competent one, if there is such a thing), what could that PRL do to completely, permanently disabuse people of the notion that the ODP will ever list even 10% of those site submittals?
As for the idea about paid submittals -- it's been mentioned before; however, it is an option that was foreclosed by the Social Contract. And the Social Contract was put in place to make sure that everyone (both editors and the public) understood that the ODP would NOT be turned into a business, even though its new sponsor was a bigger business than its prior sponsor.
So go read that Social Contract to learn something about what the ODP can and can't do in reality. That's "official" with a capital "O" -- it's not some "editor", it's not even some hireling sock puppet. Back in the days when some other volunteer-created projects were turned into cash cows (alienating both the volunteers and the public in the process), the ODP Social Contract was put into place to protect both the editors and the public from the kinds of perversion your are proposing.
| 3:27 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Dmoz is a good service, but as a business it fails miserably. Dmoz should keep the category entries free, but introduce some kind of paid option, that gives ROI. |
DMOZ is not a business...so business failure is not an option.
But no reason you can't build a viable business based on extending DMOZ's model.
That's been discussed many times before But people seem to only want to give away the idea so that the existing volunteers build that business.
That'll never happen. And makes no sense anyway.
If the idea is viable, just do it yourself.
| 3:42 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hutch if you spent half the time at DMOZ as you do here we could probably cut in half the number dmoz sucks threads.
I'm working on my own niche directory and have added over 300 quality sites in just my spare time the last 2 weeks ...because I'm actually listing sites instead of talking about what a great job we do listing sites (or defending the directory for ignoring submissions)
The truth of the matter is no one is "volunterring" as a DMOZ editor for their health..every last one of them "volunteer" so they can list their own websites ..
DMOZ was perverted at conception and has grown into nothing more than a spoiled lying cheating little brat
| 5:05 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
and another thread comes to a close. :)
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 36 ( 1  ) |