Jordo_needs_a_drink - 2:53 am on Dec 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

This could be said about almost any site: most people don't visit it from one year to the next. Are all the sites in the world EXCEPT the Alexa top 100 "of no usefulness?"

My post wasn't trying to say it's not useful, I was trying more to say it's usefulness is on the back end, not the front end. Back end is usually expense and supports the front end. In DMOZ's case, it is backend staffed by unpaid volunteers supporting front end's of other revenue generating SE's. None of which are willing to give DMOZ any revenue or even any of the proper operating expenses. AND the editor's seem to be supporting this model. That's what I don't get.

I understand why the SE's don't mind using DMOZ as a backend, that's easy, it's free, except for AOL (but they've sure tried to keep from spending the money). I don't understand why the DMOZ community (primarily the editors) allow it. Even if owned by AOL, very few corporations will turn down projects that turn pure expense into income, even if it doesn't completely cover all the expenses.

The SE's will use the "free backend dmoz" until they feel their algorithms can handle the rest or until it dies (which the SE's won't be harmed at all from). DMOZ is just being used and abused, and the editors seem to defend this model.

And no, I'm not a dmoz or directory hater, I'm just giving my viewpoint on the situation, what I feel got them there, and suggest that they need to turn the dmoz into a front end or create a front end for it. A front end that supports the back end.

Maybe it's just a case of the model changed without the editor's realizing it or wanting to acknowledge it, but the model has changed.