homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.144.243
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 52 ( 1 [2]     
DMOZ and AOL
lloyd




msg:478505
 4:23 pm on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

I haven't been on DMOZ for sometime but noticed that they now have a partnership with AOL(I hope that is not the kiss of death;))

Is this a financial partnership? If so will we now see more editors and quicker submissions.

 

SincerelySandy




msg:478535
 2:12 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

(1) the dmoz.org site would HOST my directory, providing high-quality tools for me to use

It's not your directory, your building someone elses website/directory.
(2) the dmoz.org site would PROMOTE my directory.

You are promoting someone elses website/directory. Once again, it's not yours, you don't own it and you can't control what happens to it.

Lets say a particular person enjoyed improving the quality of web listings for what they found personally interesting. Maybe they might donate the whole hour a month it takes to be an editor.

If an editor only spends an hour a month working on the DMOZ, they probably aren't doing much more than adding their own sites, and a few of their friends.
Either way, I still don't get it. Even if you only have an hour of time to donate to a cause each month, couldn't you find a better one than "improving the quality of web listings"?

cbpayne




msg:478536
 2:15 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

they probably aren't doing much more than adding their own sites, and a few of their friends.
Where are you getting this information from, or did you make it up (ie lie)?
victor




msg:478537
 3:11 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Either way, I still don't get it. Even if you only have an hour of time to donate to a cause each month, couldn't you find a better one than "improving the quality of web listings"?

You can always find a better cause. But that is not an excuse not to donate time to the good causes you have found.

I know people (crazy as this may sound to WMW'ers) who literally spend hours a week watching television or attending live sportinng events as a spectator.

I find those sorts of time choices incomprehensible.

But we all get 168 hours a week, same as everyone else. And that is not enough hours in a week to spend more than a few seconds offering unsolicited critiques of other people's time choices rather than doing something constructive.

But, geez, watching over an hour of TV every week. Makes no sense at all to me. I'd rather spend that hour contributing to DMOZ.

hutcheson




msg:478538
 3:51 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

>You are promoting someone elses website/directory. Once again, it's not yours, you don't own it and you can't control what happens to it.

Yes, exactly! I should have mentioned that, since for me it's another significant advantage of the community approach

>Lets say a particular person enjoyed improving the quality of web listings for what they found personally interesting. Maybe they might donate the whole hour a month it takes to be an editor.

>If an editor only spends an hour a month working on the DMOZ, they probably aren't doing much more than adding their own sites, and a few of their friends.

You haven't thought that one through, although with any experience at all with the reality of volunteer groups, you'd have known about the activity curve. In the ODP context, a "very active" editor might do hundreds or thousands of edits a month, and there are few hundred "active" to "extremely active" editors. By simple arithmetic, that HAS to be the source of most of the links!)

At the other end of the ODP spectrum, the "hour a month" editors are typically in small categories, and thus unable to reach the categories where their friends' sites would go. These "fairly inactive" editors have potential in various ways. They may have a lot of influence in a very small topic. They may be intersection points between the ODP and other communities. And they are the community from which "active" editors come.

There's nothing at all unique about the ODP in any of this. For that matter, any kind of group involved in anything more than brute physical activity will exhibit a similar curve. The Friends of the Public Library, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, the Bethel Full Gospel Fellowship Church, the Linux development community, Wikipedia, your local lodge of Freemasons or Elks, Project Gutenberg, the Washington County [Inter]National Socialist Party, the Metropolitan Gardening Club ... all exhibit the same patterns.

JerryOdom




msg:478539
 5:28 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)


If an editor only spends an hour a month working on the DMOZ, they probably aren't doing much more than adding their own sites, and a few of their friends.

Thats a really bad statement that has no basis in fact.


Either way, I still don't get it. Even if you only have an hour of time to donate to a cause each month, couldn't you find a better one than "improving the quality of web listings"?

A better cause to donate to? You probably spent more time arguing in this one thread than a dmoz editor has to spend contributing in a given month.

RichTC




msg:478540
 9:23 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

DMOZ a good cause - ROFLMOL

A lost cause more like!

Now if Google can keep killing the clones off, reduce the value of DMOZ backlinks and hopefully drop using this out of date, corrupted data to power its own directory, that should put an end to it.

I think its a bit sad that some editors think its a valuable cause. Hellooo, wake up, smell the coffee, taking a walk to raise money for childrens cancer, now thats a good cause, wasting time editing someone elses business for free is not a good cause, its not even a usefull way to spend your time!.

If i loved editing that much i would do it for myself on my own directory, my own business.

The only reason to be an editor of dmoz is so that you can list your own sites and benefit from google serps advantage to your site that all the thousands of backlinks bring - so lets put this into some perspective shall we:-

DMOZ is not a good cause, DMOZ is an out of date directory, DMOZ is full of corruption, Its no longer a usefull resource, Its surplus to requirements now that search can do everything that a directory can and more, Its only used by editors as joe public isnt interested in it OR know anything about it and if it wasnt for the massive backlink advantage payoff webmasters get for editing the directory it would have been lights out a couple of years back!

Meanwhile whilst this directory remains on the net can editors refrain from dreaming that DMOZ is some sort of quaility oracle of sites on the net, when its not - you know it and so does every other webmaster so lets call a spade a shovel and be done with!

As to its relationship with AOL, they are stuck with it for now however, its a matter of time before AOL realize that its a waste of their resources. Just like ZEAL has come to an end DMOZ is next, as stated its surplus to requirements and has been for some time now.

Rich

kevinpate




msg:478541
 9:59 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

.oO(wondered when that particular worn down record would start scratching its needle in public again)Oo.

As for the rest of it, maybe the one thing harder to understand than why folks edit a directory as part of a community sans compensation is trying to comprehend why some folks get so horridly worked up over something which they profess has no meaningful value to them or the world at large.

I mean, I feel that way about okra, but I don't let it impact my blood pressure or feel a compulsion to seek out and thrash time and time again those who choose to either grow or otherwise enjoy okra. I just enjoy my spinach and my taters and I go on.

flicker




msg:478542
 11:02 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

The part you're missing is that it makes no nevermind to us whether the work we do is for "our own business" (valuable in your mind) or "somebody else's business" (a ridiculous waste of time in your mind.)

The reason it makes no difference is because it's a HOBBY. I wasn't expecting to get paid for it in the first place, and I don't want to spend the time it would take to monetize my own directory into something that would be a worthwhile time-for-money investment. So whether or not I get paid for editing is as completely irrelevant to me as whether or not I get paid for watching TV. I'm just doing it because I enjoy it. It's a satisfying and constructive thing to do for an hour or two on a rainy Thursday evening.

If that sounds hideously boring to you, that's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. I like Wikipedia a lot; if you consider that a better place to spend your Internet-improving time, that's great and more power to you.

activeco




msg:478543
 11:55 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Anyway, no real answer to the question: Why AOL keeps the place running, without benefitting from it?
It is true they can use it, but they don't have to share data for free with other search engines utilizing it.
And it's not for the reasons of keeping the good name.

On the sideline, but related: Did they make any replacements of main (Netscape's) paid editors?

flicker




msg:478544
 1:05 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, why NOT, really? The editors are all volunteers, so AOL's spending peanuts on it. It's practically something for nothing.

I'm more surprised by the fact that Looksmart decided to crumple up Zeal and throw it in the trash, frankly. It couldn't have cost them much using volunteer editors, and PR8 websites don't just grow on trees.

simey




msg:478545
 4:56 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Reading posts from people mindlessly bashing or defending DMOZ. One word comes to mind 'agenda'. LOL

activeco




msg:478546
 8:27 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

The editors are all volunteers, so AOL's spending peanuts on it.

No. There is a paid staff who makes policies and the most important decisions.

RichTC




msg:478547
 9:49 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Quote- "maybe the one thing harder to understand than why folks edit a directory as part of a community sans compensation is trying to comprehend why some folks get so horridly worked up over something which they profess has no meaningful value to them or the world at large"

Answer - Simply because this corrupted junk continues to stay in business and it helps fill the net with a continual stream of duplicate content sites clogging up the net with even more pages that need removing. DMOZ is one of the few sites on the internet that actively encourage webmasters to duplicate content.

In addition and moreover, it remains a way for corrupt editors to "game google" by securing in excess of 2000+ free backlinks for each entry they list in its directory compliments of all the clone sites that DMOZ helps create.

Whilst one or two editors THINK they are supporting a "Good Cause" the rest do it to game the search engines, they may not get money to edit DMOZ directly but they can secure plenty of backlinks for their own sites - Thats the pay off!

victor




msg:478548
 9:57 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whilst one or two editors THINK they are supporting a "Good Cause" the rest do it to game the search engines

As at least three DMOZ editors have posted in this thread, you have now accused at least one of them of being corrupt.

That sort of personal assault is contrary to WMW's TOS. Please moderators, take the appropriate action.

I am not corupt, and I do not know any DMOZ editor who is.

If you are stating that I am corrupt, then please come round in person and do so with my laywer present.

activeco




msg:478549
 10:13 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whilst one or two editors THINK they are supporting a "Good Cause" the rest do it to game the search engines, they may not get money to edit DMOZ directly but they can secure plenty of backlinks for their own sites - Thats the pay off!

That's obvious, but what about AOL?
(OK, I don't agree with "one or two" statement. Apparently there are a few more illusioned freaks, who happened to be good guys.)

Are they (AOL) now a single PCP (Professional Content Provider)?
As one of the former editors admits here:

Quite some time ago, PCPs such as Rolling Stone Magazine and (surprise!) America Online approached the top management at ODP and suggested that it would be a good deal all around if the PCPs could manage their own site listings within ODP. After all, many ODP editors were also Web site owners who managed their own listings. The difference was that the ODP editors had to work their way up through the ranks whereas PCPs were given the proverbial key to the Emerald City from day one. To add fuel to the fire, many trustworthy volunteer editors were "counseled" for deleting or modifying inappropriate listings that had been added to ODP by PCP editors.

activeco




msg:478550
 10:48 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

BTW, I have just acquired Newhoo.org!

Anyone interested in volunteering?
I grant resources and a lot of freedom.

SincerelySandy




msg:478551
 2:40 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Where are you getting this information from, or did you make it up (ie lie)?
Thats a really bad statement that has no basis in fact.

When the word "probably" is used in a sentence, you can be pretty sure that what is being said is not being stated as fact. Maybe you should read a thread a little better before you post an opinion.

But, geez, watching over an hour of TV every week. Makes no sense at all to me. I'd rather spend that hour contributing to DMOZ.
OK, now this is something I can understand and relate to. However for myself, I would rather spend that hour on my own site than someone elses site, or put in time at a more "standard" type of charitable cause. It's all a matter of opinion though, I get that. I do volunteer my time a few days a week for a charity, so it's not like I simply don't understand why people donate to causes.

a "very active" editor might do hundreds or thousands of edits a month, and there are few hundred "active" to "extremely active" editors
Wow, that must take quite a bit of time. Thank goodness we have such kind hearted, selfless people to help me find information more easily.

RichTC




msg:478552
 5:42 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dear Victor,

First off im sorry that you have taken it as a personal knock at you as an editor, this was not the intention of the reply.

We are up to 48 posts on this thread, whilst some posters claim to be editors and some donít none of us know for sure who in fact is an editor or not, we can only assume that those posting stating that they are editors are telling the truth.

Also Victor, we have engaged on other threads and I donít doubt your own integrity however, I canít say the same for all other editors. In fact some editors have posted on WebmasterWorld confirming that they are corrupt! this does not surprise me in any way and is to be honest what I expect.

If you havenít already done so, as we cant post links here may I suggest you do a search on Google for ďCorrupt DMOZ editorĒ and review the site that comes up number one and also read some of the bloggs and links off it from other dmoz editor sites that are also worth reading.

In my mind DMOZ is a clear problem on the internet that needs dealing with; its association with AOL is down to the Netscape history. IMO Itís in AOLs portfolio by default and itís just a matter of time before they dispend with it.

AOL like any business may acquire other business interests, sometimes with those interests comes some other bits and bobs your not sure what to do with. It could just be simply that AOL has let DMOZ continue on the basis that itís not doing them any harm for now, so why not?. On the other hand they could look at it next week and think differently but at the end of the day AOL are a business, not a charity and unless it offers some strategic value or potential income stream for AOL then DMOZ will become surplus to requirements for them, if its not already!.

Add to this any risk of corruption or AOL being possibly associated with a company that may possibly have a percentage of corrupt editors and they may have to review the relationship even sooner.

In closing, I like many webmasters and developers take the view that whilst a small percentage may wish to edit a directory like DMOZ for free in their own time the majority of people wont and like it or not DMOZ will have its fair share of editors that are in it and get rewarded by way of its very generous backlink structure provided by all the clones and feeder sites and these in turn directly benefit the editors own and associated sites. Its this backlink advantage that in my mind is one of the net reasons why DMOZ has some of the editor problems that it has and why I believe AOL should and will in a matter of time pull the plug on it.

Regards

Rich

hutcheson




msg:478553
 9:55 pm on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, if you ever find any actual evidence of actual edior problems (as opposed to rumors and speculation) there are many editors who'd love to hear about it.

Because, the thing is, corrupt editors don't hurt YOU. They don't betray YOU. They don't sabotage YOUR work.

kartiksh




msg:478554
 12:55 pm on Apr 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

Now if Google can keep killing the clones off, reduce the value of DMOZ backlinks and hopefully drop using this out of date, corrupted data to power its own directory, that should put an end to it.

On above I am quoting tedster's view here from supporter forum post regarding similar topic about relation of Google and dmoz, this was just few hours back, so its not old observation.

The DMOZ titles, and sometimes the descriptions, are popping up a lot more for pages that don't have unique titles and meta tags. And sometimes, though not frequently, for queries where the DMOZ data is more directly relevant to the search term. It's that second bit that intrigues me, and seems to indicate that, somewhere in Google catacombs, more extensive use is being made of the DMOZ data.

Does this make dmoz value more now? Any way dmoz doesnít care about any move of Google as itís a volunteer community on its mission that has been completed in broader prospective and still moving ahead.

hutcheson




msg:478555
 3:19 am on Apr 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

The concept of "value" gets complex. An unguarded vault is "valuable" (to a bank robber!) But it's not valuable to the bank or its customers. A guarded vault is worth nothing -- to the bank robber.

I think the ODP is the same way. If you're a webmaster with only one notion of "value", and your site's not in, the ODP has no value. And even if your site IS in, the ODP probably doesn't have all that much value. (But that's all right -- your competitor's site has no value for you either, and you'd not spend evenings obsessing over it, or trying to sabotage it. Or would you? I don't know all the dark sides of promotional activities.)

The ODP probably has enough value to suggest your own site once, but anything you do beyond that is far too much work for no gain whatsoever. Oh, and I suppose it's worthwhile to check and see if the site is there -- if, for instance, it's listed but with an inaccuracy or a typo in the description, you might want to suggest a correction. But beyond that, there's definitely no incremental value for a webmaster.

graeme_p




msg:478556
 10:20 am on Apr 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

The fact is that dmoz (or any directory) matters because it influences search engines.

How many people particpating in this thread actually use directories to find information? How many submit web sites to directories?

Dmoz is particularly bad. I decided the best way to reach an unbiased judgement on it was to look at a subject that I am interested in, but unconnected to any websites I run. I choose food (partly because I was about to do a Google search on the subject anyway).

What Dmoz had to offer on the subject was utterly useless. Receipe sites are under Home:Cooking:Receipe Collections and the link from the food page is no very prominent.

However the subject of Durian has a section to itself, as does Jello.

As I like Durian I had a look at the section. Of the 12 links it contained, 7 were to individual pages not sites. 4 links were to personal websites.

Some of these sites have multiple links from Dmoz: the agronomy department at UC Davis has 5 DMoz links, Wikipedia has 6674.

A Google search for durian gave me similar results but with the two most informative sites listed first.

I then decided to try Wimbledon (a suburb of London, becuase I used to live there). Within minutes I found two links to the same organisation- one to a dead site. Lots of stuff I would expect to be there missing etc.

Two is not good statistics, but it confirms my previous experience of directories.

I used to be a volunteer editor for another directory (i.e. not Dmoz) until a senior editor disallowed my addition of the Berkshire Hathaway website because it was "not high quality". The design certainly sucks, but the content (a lot of it written by Warren Buffet) is invaluable. I have given up involvement in directories since.

Add to my own experience stories like the "corrupt dmoz editor" stories and other peoples experiences, it is clear to me that directories are a way of gaming search engines and nothing more. Webmasters who want traffic are forced to pay attention to them until the search engines improve: another thread suggested Dmoz mirrors are being dropped from google so it is happenning.

This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 52 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved