| This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 ) > > || |
|Getting Listed in DMOZ|
Difficult, Difficult, Difficult
| 8:01 pm on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am new here, glad to join such a wide range of intelligent people. I have been building websites for a couple of years, and now I am trying to become a better marketer. One of my biggest issues is Google PR. I though it would help to get into DMOZ, but what a pain. Either my site gets denied, or there is not an editor for a category, so I never hear anything. Anyone have any suggestions to building PR using Directory other then DMOZ, and any great tips for getting into DMOZ?
| 12:37 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As a webmaster, I would probably like to know what the benefits of being listed in your directory would be, before I would be willing to pay for the privilege...
Quick service and low price are certainly nice features to have, but by themeselves, they wouldn't "justify" a listing, IMO.
E.g., would you offer lots of traffic, directly or indirectly?
| 12:57 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have lost count of how many threads on many different forums over the years have "cryptic" claims been made about a new directory beng worked on that will put an end to DMOZ by superseding it ---- none of them are yet on the radar scope. I just wish I had bookmarked them so they can now be bumped and we can ask what happened to it.... mabe we should bump this thread in a few years.
| 1:30 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Our directory isn't based on or pay for 'privilege', we deliver niche traffic, and that's what people will pay for. Supply of targeted traffic to our clients sites, where the buyers can find what they are after etc.
We are a publishing service directed at a niche area. Our search is fast and the thinking is mostly done for the user. Our technology is designed to 'work' for the advertiser and the searcher can always find the right services for that niche. Our technology benefits are numerous and will extend way beyond what Yell etc can offer. We just need a way to become viral - once we have that decided upon, we will be in a strong position. We will be aiming to never need advertising, as our viral techniques will support us.
We will offer traffic directly and won't be using third party promotional offers.
| 1:47 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Our directory isn't designed and the intent isn't to put an end to dmoz, so I'd say you have been misinformed. We are very used to people with a poor attitude towards what we are attemting to do here, and since this is for webmaster's benefit we would appreciate a little faith.
mabe we should bump this thread in a few years
That's upto you, but we may have an investor so I think we'll be okay. Our press release goes out within the next 2 months without fail!
It's true many have failed, but they failed because of cashflow problems and possibly greed, and not paying suppliers etc. We are treading slowly but carefully and will eliminate as much financial risk as possible.
| 8:08 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Yet you think it may take a couple more years to get around to..... |
To accomplish this goal properly - yes!
No 2 years waiting to be listed and all that rubbish lol.
Putting a decent directory together takes planning and cashflow. I'd make dmoz look amateurish.
But it's already been two years since the conception (mine) and you say it'll be another two years before the implementation (yours).
Four years minimum to add even the first site!?
That's a measure of professionalism working at Internet speeds!?
|I have lost count of how many threads on many different forums over the years have "cryptic" claims been made about a new directory beng worked on that will put an end to DMOZ by superseding it |
Some people build vaporware. Some people build directories. Vaporware is much easier.
| 8:31 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Let me start by saying that I didn't mean anything negative when I said: "pay for the privilege", it just sounded better than "pay for it". (I'm not a native speaker of English, and I sometimes get my idiomatic expressions wrong...)
OK, so the benefit would be niche traffic, and in order to be able to offer that, you'd need to have traffic yourself.
|We just need a way to become viral - once we have that decided upon, we will be in a strong position. |
I agree that you would be in a good position if you "became viral", but reaching that status may prove more difficult than planned...
Anyway, best of luck with your venture!
| 10:53 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Getting new listings is tough as I believe the public/companies fear being sold to after the free basic entry stage when building. Directory reputations were severely damaged long before I came on to the web and it's now upto the likes of me to repair that damage, I still think a link is a link at the end of the day and companies will pay a minimum fee to have that link - the difficulty of selling enhanced services has always been there and it's not going to go away any time soon as people are naturally afraid of being ripped off. But if you can do something nobody else can, then you have power and that usually wins. Dmoz has power, but it went about this the wrong way and it's paying the price, big time.
Webmasters are clearly demanding easy, quality entries but being turned away. Now what dmoz's end goal is, is anyones guess, but it must be some sort of buy out - after all they have done the "free, quality" thing and it's at the end now anyway as everyone is now charging for web services.
So what's left, except to grow to such a quality size, and reputation, to have people killing each other to get in - there HAS to be a reason behind all this nice directory/bad directory strategy, and it is a strategy - with a goal people.
Give free entries to build rep and size
Hire editors to save cash and keep spam at bay
Once the web is 'hooked' and webmasters are 'baited' start refusing entry to most to make it 'high class'.
Problems then followed, and webmasters largely will give up submitting at all. What happens to dmoz long term. It stays 'static', doesn't go anywhere, sits there waiting for users. And all for passion?
Sorry but I don't believe in a million years that they are doing this for passion (and I mean the owners here), mark my words there are larger forces at work here, and that's been cleverly disguised to keep people from discovering dmoz's real intent.
There is always a bigger picture. Always.
| 12:07 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hello Event-king: You wrote:
"Sorry but I don't believe in a million years that they are doing this for passion (and I mean the owners here), mark my words there are larger forces at work here, and that's been cleverly disguised to keep people from discovering dmoz's real intent."
Could you elaborate? In my oddball niche, virtually everyone is there for a
'passion' of sorts. Few make money, most lose some.
What do you think the 'real intent' of DMOZ is? -Larry
| 1:51 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
These threads always amaze me. I have worked on many directories over the past several years and it still amazes me how naïve people are to think they could easily build a general directory and maintain it.
Dmoz is by far the largest quality directory out there. That's what people forget. There are quite a few niche quality directories and there are many decent sized/larger directories out there, but large and quality is not easily accomplished even with 100's or 1000's of editors. Anyone with enough money can build a large directory, but it's the quality that takes time and resources to maintain.
If anyone thinks they can handle 500 submissions a day and offer an ounce of quality they are kidding themselves. If it's not quality that you are concerned with, then your directory is worthless to users and will fail to be recognized as something of value.
Problems facing those that wish to accomplish building something as general and large dmoz include:
Scripting – what script would you use to offer anything close to what is needed to maintain a directory the size of dmoz? Please do not mention the scripts that are out there as I have used probably all of them that are worth anything. Yes, they may handle the number of listings that dmoz has, but they are a far cry of what is needed to maintain something of this size with the amount of editors that will be using it. Those that have seen the backend/editors view of dmoz that know anything about scripting/programming know what I'm talking about. Those that have not -haven't got a clue.
Servers/Resources – how many servers do you think it takes to run something of that size efficiently? What kind of bandwidth do you think you'll need? Do you have a clue? How much do you think it would cost you every month if the site has a couple hundred editors online at any time, then the search, then the users, the robots crawling, and then the scripting involved with updating/generate static pages and all the editors using the script? Then you also have to be constantly crawling the sites listed to make sure they are not down or the domains have expired etc.
Languages – How many languages do you know? Dmoz has editors from about every country and language there is….how would you handle foreign languages? How would your script handle these languages for both users and editors?
Editing Resources – If you want quality and documentation of the listings you will spend approximately 10-15 minutes per submission on average. Yes, you need to manually review each site and also check that there aren't another 30 or so mirrors of each site/domain. How are you going to handle expired domains that change focus? How are you going to keep a handle on all your editors whether they are paid or volunteer?
For all the problems real or perceived that dmoz has it's not going to be replaced in the near future by a 1-1000 man/woman show. I encourage those that believe otherwise to get out their calculators, invest in the resources/programming necessary and see if they don't wind up with the same problems that face dmoz and its editors every day.
| 2:31 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why are we spending our time arguing about whether or not he can do it? Let him try, then we'll see who's right. (-:
| 2:37 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What do you think the 'real intent' of DMOZ is? -Larry
My opinion of dmoz's intent is to become so powerful -that they control a percentage of the web, and sell off what is useful but unprofitable. Dmoz's other plans will probably be kept on the back burner until the the odp is sold, thus giving them operating capital to work with on other projects.
My guess is that Google will buy dmoz because of their relationship together and people are used to them using dmoz results.
| 3:46 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firstly, I'd like to point out that the general directory market is such that anybody attempting to take control of it or gain a monopoly will likely fail. The other players have it sewn up - at the moment, although I do feel it's possible to take them on and beat them using superior technology and value.
I may do this at some point, I may not as it depends on cashflow and other projects. My other ideas will be implemented first before anything else. A General directory is easier to build than a niche one, as many have done it, but it might be easy to build, but when you have 1000's of categories to maintain, it's ofcourse a different story. For some.....
Quality is measurable and different directories have different levels. Mine is quality but it's goal isn't perfect quality, as that would be too tough to maintain. But rest assured it will have ample quality for it to succeed.
large and quality is not easily accomplished even with 100's or 1000's of editors
Very true. So the quality would have to be less than perfect for it to be doable. Something has to give way for something else to be achieved. But as long as a certain percentage of quality is provided, this is attainable. Any project I take on won't be copying dmoz's model anyway, so straight away I do away with those nagging problems and potential complaints.
If anyone thinks they can handle 500 submissions a day and offer an ounce of quality they are kidding themselves.
Actually I could handle a lot more. But I thought the number I suggested would be accepted here more easily, than the true figures I could handle. I don't use scripts either and if I were to attempt this, everything would be built from scratch, to my specification.
Those that have not -haven't got a clue.
Interesting, like I said, I certainly wouldn't copy what dmoz does. I would ensure that spam is dealt with in a far more effective way than what dmoz currectly does.
how many servers do you think it takes to run something of that size efficiently? What kind of bandwidth do you think you'll need? Do you have a clue?
Actually I think you are talking about server space requirements - perhaps along the lines of a search engine. I thought we were talking about maintaining a directory. Anyway that will be handled when the time comes and will be making a high turnover long before it becomes necessary to switch web hosts. Currently I have ample server space and can be increased for a small monthly fee.
the robots crawling?
I thought dmoz used editors to 'find suitable sites'.
I wouldn't necessarily use a robot anyway - unless ofcourse I were running a SE. Languages, I'd start with the UK first and then take it from there - there is no point in getting ahead of myself and overspending/growing too fast, now that's how businesses get into running difficulties.
spend approximately 10-15 minutes per submission on average
That is what dmoz may need to do, but dmoz is a different kind of operation to mine. Not relevant.
dmoz is not going to be replaced in the near future
Ofcourse not. It takes years to just get the ball rolling with a directory, especially a major one.
| 4:10 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Currently I have ample server space and can be increased for a small monthly fee. |
The above comment tells me all I needed to know about this discussion...hehe
BTW, it's robots "crawling" dmoz.
| 4:15 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|filled with abuses such as ... many editors who exclude/ignore sites that compete with their own sites and only include their own sites and the sites of their friends. |
How many examples do you need to be shown wrong? "many"? "only"? I'm sure there's somebody doing that in some little podunk category or two, but if you know of it, report it. Nobody gets to hoard big categories without it being noticed. If you know of that, report it too.
| 4:19 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The above comment tells me all I needed to know about this discussion...hehe
I use a major host. I think any hosting requirements I have in the future are easily catered for.
| 4:20 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> What happens to dmoz long term. It stays
> 'static', doesn't go anywhere, sits there
> waiting for users.
An odd assumption, primarily because dmoz editors today aren't even remotely required to rely upon submitted suggestions at the present time.
An awful lot of chest beating, or is it goat bleating, takes place in dmoz threads. I dunno why, it just does.
Oh well, I think I'll go find a new site to list, far more productive morning that way.
| 6:36 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For every 1 person that does a search on dmoz, there is more that don't. In 7 years on the web, I have never used their search, bookmarked the site, made it my homepage nor incorporated their results in my site.
That's not wrong - just my choice.
The ones that don't use it know they won't find what they are looking for. I use Webcrawler occasionally, and it's good, but it doesn't mean I will make it my homepage. Just because a directory looks pleasing or is full of submissions don't mean anything - it just means it's full. If the user can't find what they are looking for, then it becomes unhelpful to that user and they may return but they might not. 50/50 chance only hehe.
There is such a thing as overcrowding a directory with too much and not being able to manage it. Being a presence on the web is great, but standing out is hard - there are many good ones out there, but they don't stand out for whatever reasons. To stand out requires more than ego and insults won't resolve anything.
| 1:28 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why would Google buy something they get to use for free now?
|My guess is that Google will buy dmoz because of their relationship together and people are used to them using dmoz results. |
| 1:50 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google or whoever would buy for the power aspect of it. What's a million to them hehe. You see, dmoz is free forever and dmoz wouldn't get away with suddenly switching to a paid format - people wouldn't stand for it, and buying dmoz presents a wonderful money making opportunity. So, whoever bought them, has the opportunity to turn it into a paid service - and with no questions asked as they would be the new owners.
It wouldn't even be a case of dmoz saying 'NO' - any major player could force them to sell up - or crush them.
Whoever controls dmoz, gets a ton of existing and new clients. That's the hidden value in dmoz.
| 2:57 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Again, why would anyone bother? Anyone can take the current data for free and turn it into a paid directory, including Google.
|Google or whoever would buy for the power aspect of it. What's a million to them hehe. You see, dmoz is free forever and dmoz wouldn't get away with suddenly switching to a paid format - people wouldn't stand for it, and buying dmoz presents a wonderful money making opportunity. So, whoever bought them, has the opportunity to turn it into a paid service - and with no questions asked as they would be the new owners. |
Not quite sure what you think a "major player" could do to strongarm AOL into selling the ODP if they didn't want to. Nor am I sure what you think qualifies as crushing. The ODP isn't monopolizing the directory market nor do they want to. If someone manages to do what the ODP does better than the ODP does, more power to them.
|It wouldn't even be a case of dmoz saying 'NO' - any major player could force them to sell up - or crush them. |
| 12:17 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Anyone can take the current data for free and turn it into a paid directory, including Google.
Yes, but that's called cloning and would only be copying. These aren't 'true' directories and everybody knows it (or should). Borrowing dmoz's listings is the easy way out and would get less respect than those that have built proper directories from real sweat and investment to make something good. I'm not in this to help dmoz out and I like to create my own ideas thanks hehe. I'm sure others share my views on this - it's not all about easy street. Anyway, 'easy street' clones will be the first to fail. People want something proper and professional working for them.
Cloning dmoz isn't going to get you access to their client base now is it... You know, all those client contact details etc, you would have to buy it to get those. That list has got to be worth a fortune. Not too bad an investment eh.
Not quite sure what you think a "major player" could do to strongarm AOL into selling the ODP if they didn't want to
But AOL aren't doing anything to sort dmoz out - no further investment in the project, no new services - nothing! Ok, maybe strongarming dmoz is the wrong tactic, but someone will buy it - if for the traffic or PR at least.
The ODP isn't monopolizing the directory market nor do they want to
You claiming insider knowledge? hehe
I think they are monopolizing - why else would they bother not charging for so long and making a directory so huge. Building a quality directory that big isn't the only thing on their minds, they would have to do something with it.... An end goal!
| 12:56 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, but that's called cloning and would only be copying. These aren't 'true' directories and everybody knows it (or should). Borrowing dmoz's listings is the easy way out and would get less respect than those that have built proper directories from real sweat and investment to make something good. I'm not in this to help dmoz out and I like to create my own ideas thanks hehe. |
My point was that I don't see the difference between taking the free directory you can grab now (and making whatever changes you want to it including addition of pay services -- all of which are allowed under the current license) and buying the directory so you can do the same thing.
|But AOL aren't doing anything to sort dmoz out - no further investment in the project, no new services - nothing! |
Actually, they do continue to invest in the project. If you're looking for new services for webmasters, though, you're not likely to see that any time soon as webmasters aren't the be-all and end-all of the ODP.
|You claiming insider knowledge? hehe |
I'm hardly in hiding.
|I think they are monopolizing - why else would they bother not charging for so long and making a directory so huge. Building a quality directory that big isn't the only thing on their minds |
Just because *you* can't imagine anything altruistic, don't paint everyone with the same brush. Would you say the same thing about Wikipedia? Free, large, and quality != ulterior motive.
| 1:55 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
don't paint everyone with the same brush
I'm naturally curious and suspicious about people that say "We are in this for the passion" and companies that give free stuff away for absolutely no gain - and give the impression that they aren't bothered by that.
BTW I'm experienced enough to not 'paint with the same brush'
| 3:37 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When you clone DMOZ all you are doing is creating more links for dmoz editors (who add their own site) and DMOZ in general ..increasing their rankings.
This goes back to what I am saying about why DMOZ is even allowed to be discussed..they are NOT a tool for webmasters..they are here ONLY to advertise for themselves..they offer "us" the webmasters NOTHING ..and in fact that is their POLICY
DMOZ needs to placed in the advertisng section of WebmasterWorld
| 4:27 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Motsa - you said,
Would you say the same thing about Wikipedia? Free, large, and quality!= ulterior motive
Depends, dmoz is a different service and has a different agenda going. dmoz is larger and that fact alone means it's powerful. The owners aren't going to this sort of trouble for free! Most businesses are set up to make a profit, some do it differently, some scam and some lie about their true purpose in order to gain.
But have no illusions - they are upto more than just produce a quality resource.
| 4:39 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dauction: you've made that point before; now, you don't want to sound like a broken record, do you?
While ODP may not be a "listing service" for webmasters, it is certainly a directory, and it would be hard to deny, IMO, that it is relevant for webmasters; so why on earth shouldn't it be discussed here?
Perhaps you are not interested in what is being said, but at least one other WebmasterWorld member is having a civil conversation with a few DMOZ editors, and while they may not agree on everything, there's no harm in an exchange of ideas, is there?
As for the presence of DMOZ editors here: I think you'll find they have very little interest in (or need for) "advertising" of any sort, but they do care deeply about the directory in which they volunteer as editors. Most of them have made thousands of edits (quite a few of them: tens of thousands), so insinuations like "they just want to list their own site" don't go down too well...
| 4:56 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|While ODP may not be a "listing service" for webmasters, it is certainly a directory, and it would be hard to deny, IMO, that it is relevant for webmasters; so why on earth shouldn't it be discussed here? |
Because it has NOTHING to do with webmasters.. ALL other major directories offer services for webmasters DMOZ offers ZERO
If people want to discuss DMOZ then the DMOZ resource site is the place for that .
I see absolutely no reason for allowing DMOZ editors to be promting DMOZ on WebmasterWorld since DMOZ offers NOTHING for webmasters.
There isnt 1 thing that is worthwhile for webmasters about DMOZ OTHER thank being listed ..and since DMOZ dosent offer that service to webmaster no reason for all you editors to be promoting DMOZ.
| 5:03 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ok - dmoz is a directory and a General one at that, that much everyone knows. We've established what it's not eg - not a webmaster listing service. It's not aimed at webmasters, so who or what is it aimed at.
What target group has this been provided for?
| 5:14 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What target group has this been provided for? |
2 schools of thought
1: DMOZ provides quality directory for end users
problemwith that theory is DMOZ dosent send much traffic so the end user obviousely isnt using it
2: DMOZ provides an authority link for webmasters that has weight in the S$E algos.
That is true ..the problem is webmasters arent allowed access..UNLESS they either pay an editor uner the table OR become editors themselves.
Most Webmasters simply want DISCUSSION.. acknowldgement .. has a site been reviewed , has it been rejected if so what can be done to correct the problem .
Or that thier site is inque and will be reviewed in xx amount of time .
Most webmasters simply want DMOZ to act a little more professional in their responses .. to offer assistance and to stop the arrogance behavior that they dont owe us webmasters anything.
My point is once again..if that is their final word , stance , arrogance that they owe the webmaster nothing..
Then WebmasterWorld needs to serious look at stopping DMOZ from promoting themselves here..if they arent going to offer anything in exchange for WebmasterWorld members then why on earth should WebmasterWorld put up with the DMOZ arrogance?
| 5:15 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What target group has this been provided for? |
Did you ever bother to read the common available material at DMOZ.
Start at [dmoz.org...] and [dmoz.org...]
|We will support our data users who choose to add proprietary and revenue generating content, and other non-free value-added functionality upon versions of the ODP in which they download. In turn, data users agree to attribute use back to us per the free use license. |
|We license our content as free with attribution back to the ODP. We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed. |
The directory wans't started for
- webmasters to get their sites listed
- searchers to use our directory at DMOZ itself
But we give both groups of people an opportunity to do so, either by suggesting their DMOZ guidelines compliant site or by browsing our directory.
[edited by: pagode at 5:21 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2005]
| 5:16 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you are saying that WebmasterWorld is for Webmasters, and therefore everything discussed should be for Webmasters? Yet Dmoz isn't for webmasters or to promote webmasters, so what's the relevance. The fact that dmoz isn't for webmasters then isn't this discussion against the webmaster 'theme'.
| This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 ) > > |