| 7:31 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I consider a DMOZ link to no different and carry no additional weight to to any other one-way link you could get. It's a good link and you may as well apply for it, but I personally don't work hard to acquire it.
| 7:50 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It's important because it is still used as a reference for finding sites to link to and the directory and/or portions of it is duplicated across the Internet.
Naturally don't waste your time submitting if your site is not useful. But if your site is useful and popular then go ahead and submit it. It only takes about five minutes.
| 7:59 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ is just a good link to have; thats all. The world won't end if you don't get a link from them. You won't reap huge riches if you do get a link from them.
| 8:02 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Read the rules, submit your site and forget about it for now. It can be very difficult to get a site into DMOZ especially if a category has no editor. I have worked on plenty on sites with no DMOZ listing and they have all ranked well, so there is not that much to worry about if your site does not get listed.
| 9:08 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|It's important because it is still used as a reference for finding sites to link to |
Seriously? Who does it? When there is Twitter, Digg and a bunch of social media sites that feed us with links all day (so much so, some popular blogs have started sounding the death knell for RSS feeds), how many people on earth still go to DMOZ to find good links?
| 10:28 am on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>>>how many people on earth still go to DMOZ to find good links?
Webmasters looking for decent sites to link to. Social media sites are cesspools of WAHM types, Get rich quick types, and empty-pocket mini-moguls running their empires from Internet cafes.
| 1:56 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The problem with DMOZ is that it has decayed from a lack of editors and a lack of content. Historically it may have been good to have a site listed but it is only being used as a seed index by new search engines and search engine wannabes.
| 2:13 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Lack of content?
Six million sites indexed.... is a lack of content?
| 2:38 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
How many of those sites are parked domains that have been reregistered or repurposed?
| 7:03 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I really wish it didn't matter so much - my only sites indexed are ones submitted before 2005. They've truly frozen this thing...
| 7:21 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Most of the time, I can't even get a site into DMOZ.
| 7:37 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The only site we ever got in was about 8 years ago.
| 7:41 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I hate to say this, but DMOZ has had issues with corruption, they have issues with communication with webmasters, they have issues with adding sites, they have issues with not having enough editors, they have issues with keeping their information up to date, they have issues taking down dead links, etc...
IMHO, do not even worry about it and concentrate on bigger and better things. If Google ever stopped using it as a base for it's directory DMOZ would die because no one ever uses it.
Honestly, for the webmasters who are in DMOZ, have you ever got any traffic? More than likely not.
| 7:59 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The only site I ever got accepted was my 1st attempt, a crappy 2 pager back in 2001.
None of the better (IMO) sites I submitted later ever got in, I don't even bother anymore.
| 8:10 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I thought DMOZ was shut down since late 2007.
| 8:11 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I stopped ever visiting this source after facing the arrogant behaviors and laziness of the moderators out there.
There were hundreds of sites in queue for an important category, that never made it in and were enver reviewed. So why would I ever use a resource so poorly updated ?
| 8:16 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't think dmoz is relevant any more. It probably was up to about 2005-6 but there are so many editor-less cats now, so many dead sites or sites that have been bought and taken over by spam merchants.
I'm sure we'll see the usual candidates coming onto this thread soon saying things like "dmoz isn't there for YOU, it's there for everyone.", etc, etc. This was an argument that held up until a few years ago, but not anymore.
It's a shame, I'd like to see it get revitalised, cleaned up, but that will take a lot of time and/or money. I'd be amazed if it was still around in five years' time.
| 8:33 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I also gave it away as an editor of my genre mumble, mumble years back for some of the reasons cited above.
I was greatly surprised to see it mentioned here.
I doubt it has a fraction of the weight it once enjoyed, ditto with the old Yahoo human validated directory of the 1990's.
| 9:18 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
1999 try anything, even become an editor so you can list your sites
2005 submit and forget
2009 forget to submit
| 10:01 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps those who are unhappy with the service they are receiving from DMOZ should ask for a refund.
| 10:16 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The total and absolute corruption and elitism killed their reputation. They did it to themselves. Better off submitting to botw, dirjournal, joeant, skaffe, goguides, sevenseek and rubberstamped - to name a few of the best.
Hero to zero in 10 years. Only the company itself can do that. But they're too elitist to accept blame.
| 10:23 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Seriously? Who does it? When there is Twitter, Digg and a bunch of social media sites that feed us with links all day (so much so, some popular blogs have started sounding the death knell for RSS feeds), how many people on earth still go to DMOZ to find good links? |
Webmasters and new link directories.
If my memory is correct, I think that some link directory scripts have mods to import categories and links from DMOZ right into their own directories.
| 10:42 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Perhaps those who are unhappy with the service they are receiving from DMOZ should ask for a refund. |
who's complaining? People are just saying it's not relevant anymore. It would be like complaining about downtime on my GeoCities site.
| 10:45 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The point I am making is that webmasters seem to have this expectation of a service from DMOZ. DMOZ owes webmasters nothing. I have never got all this whinging that goes on.
| 10:47 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It is difficult to support a free service when you don't have a lot of volunteers.
| 10:50 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It not even a "service".
| 10:53 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What is it then? The fact of the matter is, what good is it if it does not do anything? If it does something, it would have to be a service or some type of resource. The people editing it would provide their service? Ok, you're right. Not going to argue.
| 10:58 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I never have service expectations for anything from anyone unless I provide something in return for that service (eg pay for it).
What are all those webmasters whinging about not getting a listing in DMOZ actually providing to DMOZ in expectation of that listing service? Nothing?
| 11:05 pm on Jul 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
once again, I can't speak for anyone else on here, only myself: I'm not complaining! I've had two sites submitted to dmoz and they both got on within 3 months. So as a webmaster, I suppose I could say I'm happy. (I won't submit my new sites to it though)
but as a "consumer", I haven't used it for years and years because it's full of dead links and spam and almost nothing from the last couple of years.
If the bbc site that I use every day just began reporting stories not from today but from 5 days ago, I'd stop using that too.
| This 82 message thread spans 3 pages: 82 (  2 3 ) > > |