| 11:28 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As someone who is not an editor ..and has never applied to be one ( as I do not think that for now I could devote sufficient time to it to do the job well ) ..But who has submitted various sites ..all have been included ..the first one I ever submitted was approved in just 48 hrs ..and by someone who is a direct competitor.. and whom I out rank for every keyword that either of us and the other 600 or so specialists in this niche target ( actually his site is so far down ...I think he doesn't know or care about SEO )...I think that it's safe to say that accusations of corruption being rife at the DMOZ are wildy over blown and smack entirely of sour grapes and total misunderstanding of it's "raison d'etre"..
Having been approved I did actually contact the cat editor who approved me within the 48 hrs from submission to thank him..his editor name is also more or less the name of his site ...
The site which I had submitted was amaturely done ( was my very very first ) lousliy done SEO ( keyword spam etc ) ..loads of flash ..even anigifs on page one ..average page size excluding images over 100 kb ( was a long long time ago ;-)..in short a horror ( and it didn't validate either ) ...
But it was and still is ( albiet cleaned of all the bells and whistles ) ..a well written ressource of accurate information and explanation , help , tutorials etc ( not link outs ) on it's subject ( one which I know very well )..over 500 pages of such ..
He replied that basically because he considered it to be "a well written ressource of accurate information and explanation , help , tutorials etc ( not link outs ) on it's subject " he included it ..he said that in his opinion thats what he was editing to encourage ..."sites that obviously knew what they were talking about" ...
I think he has the right attitude ...
To the dmoz editors here ..I think you are getting it just about right ..even more so when it's unpaid ..
( BTW I have argued long and hard and vehemently with some of the editors who post here on other fora on other subjects ..so certainly don't always see eye to eye with individuals whom I know to be amongst them ...To those who want the back link potential that can accrue from a DMOZ listing ..it's not what it was for ..isn't what it is for ..we don't get in as of right ..they are under no obligation to improve your backlinks ..and if "G" didn't care or dropped back links you would n't give a **** for dmoz ...but they might just list you anyway if they thought you were worth it ...get the dollar signs out of your eyes ..sometimes ;-)
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:31 am (utc) on Sep. 28, 2005]
| 11:29 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> I create content. The Directory merely lists it. I'm sure webmasters have some sort of importance in this relationship. <<
Yeah. Create good content, and if an editor notices it, you'll eventually get listed.
Submit your site once to the one best category to have a slightly better chance of being noticed.
There is no other way to influence things, and there is no way to "get listed" in your timeframe.
| 11:50 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It would be nice if the occasional editor admitted once that there is indeed a chance, just a chance, that there are areas in the Directory with grave problems. But instead it is always the submitter, or their site, which is at fault...
Brick wall, head, like I said: frustrating.
| 12:09 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do not know if it is you or the reviewing editors at fault over your half-dozen non-accepted applications.
But I do know that I have not read you applications and never will do until you you publish them somewhere (and WMW is not the place). Until you do that, no one can help you decide if the grave error lies with the reviewing editors or elsewhere.
Until you take that step, I can't help. But I can start a clock on how many days I have to wait helplessly until you do.
| 12:18 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This whole area of the Directory hasn't changed significantly in the year that I have been interested. And it very poorly represents the sites out there. And there are no editors to be seen anywhere near it. This is there to be plainly seen by any and all who wish to.
So as I said before, there is a problem here and it is completely irrespective of me or anything I do.
Is this not enough for you?
You can stop your clock now if you like.
| 12:37 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> there are areas in the Directory with grave problems <<
What sort of problems?
If the category has dead sites then use "Update URL" to flag that to an editor.
Sites that have changed content - use "Update URL" to flag that to an editor.
Sites that should never have been listed - use "Update URL" to flag that to an editor.
The above problems can also be flagged in the appropriate thread on another forum.
Authorative sites that are not listed - use "Suggest URL" to get them in the suggestion pile.
If something hasn't been edited in a long while then it is likely that either no-one knows there is a problem, or that none of the 9000 editors have it flagged as a high enough priority to go and fix it.
| 1:15 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You can stop your clock now if you like. |
Thanks. But I'll keep the clock running until you have found a place and published your six or so failed ODP applications.
You are a volunteer critic of the ODP, so it would help if you embodied the ideals of openness that you ask of volunteer editors. You wrote:
|The Directory is very opaque and very frustrating for webmasters. |
Your statement about failed applications is very opaque and very frustrating. You can change that in a moment. Why the delay?
| 3:40 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a small hobby site that I submitted to DMOZ and a few organizations on the same topic. The site has a few nice links on its own and then over a hundred links from DMOZ and its clones.
The site doesn't rank well at all in Google (on page 4 for a noncommercial term). It isn't even in the first 4 pages at Yahoo or MSN.
There are only 3 other sites in the category. Many of the other pages the site competes against are just personal pages and don't have the 100+ links like my site because they are not in DMOZ. If the DMOZ listing plus the clone links meant as much as many of you guys think, then it would seem like my site should easily beat out the 40 or so sites ahead of it without DMOZ listings. Yet, it does not. Their sites probably rank bettter because they are larger, have a wider assortment of links from authority sites, fresher links, more frequently updated content, etc.
I'm just not so sure that a DMOZ listing alone makes that much difference to a site's ranking. If it did then it seems like my litle hobby site should be doing better than it is. I personally think the search engines are smart enough to not give a lot of credit to the DMOZ clones.
| 5:23 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm an ODP editor, and I'll gladly admit that the directory is far from perfect. In fact, addressing problems in the directory is most of what I do as an editor. There are dead links, which I need to replace with the new, functional URL. There are categories for relatively obscure topics which have fewer than five links in them. I hate to find a page with only a couple of links in it when I'm using directories, so I hate to see them in the ODP. I like to search out new sites to round out little categories like that. There are categories that don't even exist yet, and should. I can create them, and add sites to them. There are languages for which there does not exist an ODP category yet. That's a problem for directory users who speak that language better than any others. This problem is a slow one to be addressed, too, because you need to have enough editors who are fluent in that language to do the work. There are even significant ontological problems with the directory structure that have needed to be corrected. That usually takes the concerted work of a whole team of editors to do, but it's very worthwhile in the end.
There are plenty of things to be continuously improved about the ODP. I don't think any of us believe it's perfect, otherwise why would we be volunteering our time there?
It's just that none of us consider a lack of customer service to be a problem, because we weren't hired to provide customer service, we just volunteered to work on a website we like. It's nothing personal. I have an online fiction website, and I don't provide customer service there, either. Most free websites created by hobbyists don't. If you want customer service, you pretty much have to pay somebody for it. I happen to enjoy volunteering my time to work on a website I like; but I don't know ANYBODY who enjoys doing data entry work on demand for lots of other people's businesses for free. It's unlikely the ODP is ever going to switch from the "work on a website you like for free" model to the "enter the data these business owners want you to for free" model, because volunteers just aren't going to go for the latter.
There are plenty of paid directories out there, though, where you CAN get this service. Yahoo is probably the best. If you prefer that model to the ODP's, why not just patronize Yahoo instead?
| 9:47 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
flicker: I think you said it very, very well! First and foremost, volunteer editors are volunteers, and they tend to do what they enjoy... :-)
Currently, I'm trying to add every site about (a certain sport) in (my language) that I can find. They have not been "submitted" by their webmasters --I strongly doubt they know, or care, about SEO. However, I very much enjoy that sport, and I think it's important that these sites be listed; and that's reason enough for me!
| 9:50 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Basically we have 2 main issues at large.
1. Webmasters want in
2. Editors can't handle it
Although dmoz is NOT for webmasters, it does itself no favours - it's like Pop Idol is an open audition. Dmoz is an open directory, that isn't actually 'open' to all. Infact the sites are hand picked.
Yet it calls itself 'The Open Directory Project' hense the word OPEN. Dumb move - very dumb name. The name itself creates submission problems and they cannot contain it as it quite clearly isn't open lol
Nice directory - but you can't get in lol. Oh what's the point.
| 10:05 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Heh, RichTC I didn't like your website, so I asked your host to delete it. Sure you won't mind."
Very funny, which site was it? and if true that you can say to a collegue i dont like a site so dont list it or remove it, then thats a bias which is what this thread is covering.
Surely you can see the problems here that many webmasters are facing. When you have any authority that has on the face of it has little regulation you are going to see problems.
Also, you have to question whats nice to one person may not be to another. If i dont like Jos website that doesnt mean that everyone else will hate it.
| 10:09 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, you misunderstood. I asked your webhost to remove your site from the internet; on the equal basis that as you don't like the ODP you feel that it should be closed down.
| 10:11 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Yet it calls itself 'The Open Directory Project' hense the word OPEN. Dumb move - very dumb name. |
Or is it dumb for you to continue to push this misinformation when you have been told previously exactly what the word OPEN in ODP stands for ... and it NOT what you want it to mean.
| 10:22 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh i see, but can you not see the problem that webmasters are facing and why certainly a move by Google away from the ODP would be a good thing?
Dont get me wrong, (same comment to Victor also) if you enjoy editing a directory then fair enough, but you must agree that it looks on the face of it that the decks stacked.
Where does the buck stop at DMOZ?
Ive got clients we do program work for, those in non commercial sectors some get in, those where big money keywords are involved find it much harder if at all to get in and sometimes stay listed.
Meanwhile you have sites with three or four entries including sub-domains in DMOZ - surely thats one rule for one and one for another. I mean i could write a script in half an hour that would stop sites having more than two entries in the directory or sub domains featuring, how can this sort of thing slip by whilst other sites wait on the never, never
[edited by: RichTC at 10:36 pm (utc) on Sep. 28, 2005]
| 10:35 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
They aren't going to change dmoz to accommodate us site owners, so why bother wasting our time trying to convince editors.
People will get fed up with dmoz soon enough. There has always been power in groups. Power in numbers hehe
| 10:42 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You have a point, but currently Google still loves it! I havent found a webmaster yet that likes dmoz, other than the few ive worked with in non commercial sectors that cant see a problem but its commercial Big dollar keywords where the problems are imo.
Perhaps Google should start a Commercial fee paying directory run at Google and just use DMOZ data for non commercial site data?. That could be good middle ground and eliminate any possible corruption risks.
Have to say, this is an interesting thread and i do appreciate the views of editors taking time out to post here to give their side, i am amazed that some editors cant see the issues that webmasters have, by now they should know how the web works and how google rates links so they must be aware of the advantages listing offers especially when given to sites in the big $ keyword sectors.
[edited by: RichTC at 10:48 pm (utc) on Sep. 28, 2005]
| 10:43 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
cbpayne - lol.
You know, you can't stop people thinking what they want, and the web is a big place. But people will think what they want about dmoz, and you cannot prevent that.
Maybe you should start listening to the issues and take that feedback back to dmoz - now that would be productive.
| 10:45 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
While we're on the subject of "open," as far as I understand it, the source really is. So if you wanted to take DMOZ as it currently exists, then use paid submissions and paid editors to process commercial submissions because you think that would be faster than the way the ODP currently does it--well, as far as I know, you COULD. You could do that. Whether it would really be faster at listing commercial sites than the ODP is, I don't know; whether you'd make money at it, I don't know; but it could, and it might, and you could find out if you really wanted to. And if the directory you got as a result was better in quality than the original ODP one, it probably wouldn't be hard to get them to switch to it. Google really is just keeping the ODP in there because it's the biggest and most valuable directory currently in existence. If there were a bigger, more valuable one I'm sure they'd switch over. Google's got no brand loyalty to anyone.
So I mean, if everyone who complains about this really is right... then somebody should try it. To the best of my knowledge, as long as credit is fairly given, there wouldn't be anything stopping you.
| 10:47 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> People will get fed up with dmoz soon enough. <<
Check the previous threads. People said the same thing back in 2000 when the ODP had way less than 3 million sites listed.
Five years later, and .... there are almost 6 million sites listed. The ODP will survive, with or without, webmaster suggestions.
There are probably another 3 or 4 million listable sites that won't ever get suggested. Editors have many ways of seeking them out, and listing them.
| 10:51 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>They aren't going to change dmoz to accommodate us
>site owners, so why bother wasting our time trying to
>People will get fed up with dmoz soon enough. There
>has always been power in groups. Power in numbers
Yeah, really. I agree with EventKing, though I would have phrased it differently. But how often ARE you going to find an independent site with a purpose of its own that's going to completely change what it's doing to accomodate the desire of a bunch of strangers to make more money? Probably not too often. So it's a bad idea to count on that happening. And if you don't like DMOZ, then you should totally patronize somebody else. I say this about Google all the time. I'm no fan of monopolies. Promote some other directory. Or create one of your own, as I said above. If it's better, or if catering to webmasters makes it more popular, then it'll rise up. Go for it.
| 10:55 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> I am amazed that some editors cant see the issues that webmasters have <<
The issue is that you want free promotion. You want someone to list your site. You want it right now.
Meanwhile, editors are hired because they expressed an interest in editing particular categories, and showed basic competence in the "do three edits as if you were an editor" test. No-one was hired expressly to work in the category that you are wanting to be listed in. No-one is going to be told which sites to review first, or which categories to work in.
The editor is left to get on with building the category using whatever source of sites they want to use. Other editors will look at the logs from time to time to make sure that the new editor isn't deleting competition, or listing stuff that we do not list, or hyping the title and description for his own, and friends, sites.
Other than that each editor is left to get on with it. That's why no-one is promising any timescale for anything to happen to any site, or any category, by any particular person.
Sure, sometimes a group of editors will form a group and say, "let's do all the updates down the tree in /Arts", or /Science or "let's find all the sites with blank descriptions" (there are some from the early days of the directory, as well as from editor error), there are even a few editors that go after all of the spelling mistakes that they can find (as that is an improvement to directory quality too).
| 11:07 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm waiting for the FEDS to close DMOZ .. Is it the gambino family that is running it now or has it fragmmented into several groups all taking their cut of the traffic?
| 11:09 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I am amazed that some editors cant see the issues that webmasters have |
Is it not more amazing that that so many webmasters continue to bash DMOZ for not meeting there SEO needs when this service is not provided by DMOZ .... don't figure.
| 11:12 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Is it not more amazing that that so many webmasters continue to bash DMOZ for not meeting there SEO needs when this service is not provided by DMOZ .... don't figure. |
You are correct ..whats wrong with all those webmasters thinking they can move in on the editors turfr ...dont thye understand how the family works?
| 11:18 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I dont think my clients want free promotion, i think its more like they want to feel they are on equal ground to start with.
If an editor has their own sites listed a few times in the directory (with the backlink volume rewards of doing so)and my clients are waiting years and have been met in some cases with aggresive attitudes in RZ (which i thinks closed off now anyway, is it not?)its obviously they are going to feel uneasy about DMOZ.
At least with Yahoo, if you are 2321 in the que at least you know you will get reviewed and listed after 2320.
Meanwhile, i think that if Google did stop using the data and giving credit to the clone back links, im not so sure DMOZ would continue....this being due to the fact that its possible that a volume of editors work on DMOZ for free because the payoff is in being listed with associated backlinks it brings whilst they have power on over-viewing competitor sites and leaving them on the back burner so to speak for commercial advantage.
| 11:19 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually ..since DMOZ isnt for webmasters maybe DMOZ should simply be banned from Webmaster world!
Whats the point of allowing even the mentioning of DMOZ since they have nogthing to do with webmasters
It's not like we have a DMOZ GUY like GG
It's not like DMOZ even wants webmasters
It's not like DMOZ even cares to respond to webmasters
| 11:26 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> It's not like DMOZ even cares to respond to webmasters <<
OK. So this dialogue (and the same thread repeated about three or four times per month stretching back for several years)... never happened?
>> At least with Yahoo, if you are 2321 in the que (sic) at least you know you will get reviewed and listed after 2320. <<
Yes. Yahoo offers a paid listing service for webmasters. The ODP does not offer that. The ODP has an altogether different mission statement.
| 11:32 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|OK. So this dialogue (and the same thread repeated about three or four times per month stretching back for several years)... never happened? |
dialog is a back forth exchange of ideas between people ..
DMOZ never offers dialog ..only that this is how it works if you dont like it take a hike..
OK so maybe DMOZ is correct all webmasters just drop the subject ...no reason DMOZ should even be mentioned on webmaster world because DMOZ dosent want a dialog anyways ..
DMOZ should simply be banned from webmaster world because DMOZ has nothing to offer webmasters ...
| 11:35 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
seriousely why is DMOZ even allowed to be discussed?
They offer absolutely NO services forwebmasters..in fact they have made their disdain for webmaster very clear ..
| 12:09 am on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
seriously why is DMOZ even allowed to be discussed?
Dmoz discussion is allowed because it's 'news' and makes sites popular.
| This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |