Forum Moderators: open
You can tell from JoeAnt [joeant.com]that they appear to be adding about 100 sites a day, but one has no idea of their active editor base. At a guess I would say maybe a dozen active editors.
GoGuides [goguides.org] lists its editors, somewhere above 100, of whom only a percentage will be active/productive. Again it is difficult to see how big their data base is.
Both have front page TBPR of 6 and you can get link PR from addition to either directory.
Neither (I may be wrong here) appears to give its aims or show who owns the editors works - in other words who wins if they are sold.
After 2 years both are still in there, and in spite of the fact that their data bases are small (just you try to get good info for a specific search) appear to be happy to continue at their current level of growth. Their length of being in business would appear to indicate that they intend to carry on.
I would be interested in any input from representitives of either (both) on their current data bases and/or what their plans are. I suspect both are happy (just) to be online communities.
They are both remarkably efficient in indexing sites submitted. But IMO until a directory reaches (say) around 250,000 (or even 100,000) entries, then it will be to be of value to searchers.
Anyone have any thoughts?
But what happens if the site is totally redone and then resubmitted?
While I hate dead links one of the neat things is to get off some of the little trod paths of ODP and find old sites, mostly free hosting, that have been there since near the beginning. Many are still of interest even though they now look quaint. If one gets over zealous in trimming sites it removes the gravitas of the directory as authority and catalog.
IMO patrolling for dead links, redirects and expired domains needs to be the priority.
Precisly my point.
In fact, if a site has been in there for ages, and would no longer meet submission standards, then it is doubtful that the author or submitter even pays attention to it anymore and would never notice it was gone.
Way back in the Jurassic, I took over the /anomalies section.
Aside from the 500+ backlog dating back as long as 3 years, there were at least 50 to 75 sites that were total crap and should never have been included in the first place, or had gotten so outdated as to be useless.
I deleted them all and never heard a peep.
"If one gets over zealous in trimming sites it removes the gravitas of the directory as authority and catalog..."
If one gets so worried about leaving in sites that nobody would go to anyway, then why bother?
I can go to probably 80% of the cats in ODP and within 3 minutes find a few sites that are not worth of being listed. For example, I just went at random to a category in the ARTS section. This is the first site in that category:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.27 Server at artboxx.com Port 80
The 3rd one down is supposed to be a site that lists upcoming events: "Updated March 04 2002 09:35 am"
The 12th one down: "((HYYPE.com)) UNDER TEMP CONSTRUCTION"
Etc. etc. Obviously, there are some good sites in there also. But those are not among them. And that category is better than many.
If you can't take a little heat for trimming out the worthless junk, you are not an editor.
But see, none of this means a hill of beans to me. That's what you're all missing- THE SEARCHER. Here I'm trying to tell you that I'm not FINDING what I want in your directories, and instead of facing the problem, you're giving me symantics on why you're better.
I don't want symantics! I want results. I want to do a search for "camel hair brushes" and get a list of sites that have to do with exactly that- no in between.
This is precisely why the directories aren't getting the traffic and hype they want- they aren't listening.
Now, I'm not saying all directories are this way. Just that ego, it seems, is preventing quite a few from becoming useful.
Although, a lot directories don't even search their own descriptions.
What I'm getting at in all this is that there is VAST room for improvement amoung the giants and up and comming directories alike. Think out of the box, people. Push the letter a bit. Otherwise, we're going to see alot of these go the way of the do-do.
That will not help much unless the description criteria are also fixed.
Most users search on keywords, yet some directories, such as ODP, have a policy to specifically prune out keywords.
So, if I am searching for "camel hair brushes", and those words are not in the description, the search is useless. Since a search on the directory will not turn up anything, anyone hoping to sell camel hair brushes via the directory listing is out of luck - and so is the user.
I suspect that one of the problems with some directories is that their "vision" gets in the way of reality.
And you have to wonder at times just how some of the policies evolved, and why. The internet is still evolving, and if directories don't evolve with it they will lose.
I was looking for an answer to
Neither (I may be wrong here) appears to give its aims or show who owns the editors works - in other words who wins if they are sold.
and
I would be interested in any input from representitives of either (both) on their current data bases and/or what their plans are.
Do I take it from Tony that their aims are solely to be an online community?
I don't have a complete answer for that, at least not acting on my own. I can give a personal viewpoint. (quickly as the wife is telling me it's time to eat.)
The community aspect is very important to both directories. Remember where these two directories came from. After being "took" by our former stomping grounds(I'm now a SixFlags fan. lol), we were not about to let our community, friendship, and building work die. We started new directories based on the same sense of community. Like any business or city, we want to see this grow, flourish and gain more netizens while still building and making available to others a directory(ies) that we are proud of.
It is hard to imagine any change in that direction. We aren't going to be took again.
(sorry I don't have more, but I have to run.....)
TL
I think you find some answers here:
www.seologic.com/search-engines/joeant-history.php
This is an interview with one of our founders.
Hugo
I think you find some answers here:
Hugo
Thank you for that reference. It is good background information, but does not really get to the nub of my questions. ;)
I may be wrong, but my feeling is that JoeAnt wants to be an "online community" rather than a "large online directory"
Although I gather from JoeAnt site that there are 891 editors, the limited analysis of editors and ranking points that I can make leads me to assume very few are large suppliers of added sites to the directory. You yourself appear to be doing sterling work ;)
JoeAnt is adding (only) around 100 sites a day, so without more (active) editors can never grow to a large data base. As I put earlier, I cannot find a reference to the size of JoeAnt's data base, but I assume it is under 100,000 sites
If you want to grow the data base then you do need more editors. Which in turn brings about the sort of editor management problems that DMOZ has/had. Perhaps that is not the intention!
But if you want more editors, then it is difficult to see who owns JoeAnt, what the "security of tenure" is for an editor (after all you guys did not like it when Go pulled the plug on your work), is there anything to stop JoeAnt selling the directory (OK who would want to buy it ;) ) and the work of the editors therein, it is difficult to easily see what the mailing address is.
I am not sure how much these sorts of questions deter volunteer editors, but a "plain guide to JoeAnt" off the front page would, I feel be a good move to encourage editors to join.
I am not trying to knock JoeAnt, I would like it to suceed in terms of becoming a recognised web source of information, but feel it cannot become that till its data base is large enough.
It is hard to imagine any change in that direction. We aren't going to be took again.
Tony
The same questions that I raised above apply to GoGuides.
If I were an applicant editor (I am not ;) ) then I would feel that I would need more information about what I was signing up for. How do they know they will not be "took"?
I feel as with JoeAnt that you need more about GoGuides off the front page, in order to attract editors. I know you are honest guys, but how does anyone else?
Omnium rerum principia parva sunt.
Then we arrive at the quantity versus quality argument. Is it preferable to have 10 authoritative sources of information or millions of references that need to be sorted through to find the good information?
<added>Directory- Direct me to the proper place. Catalog- Provide me with as many listings as possible and allow me to choose.</added>
What I'm getting at in all this is that there is VAST room for improvement amoung the giants and up and comming directories alike. Think out of the box, people. Push the letter a bit. Otherwise, we're going to see alot of these go the way of the do-do.
I believe that the directories of tomorrow will look more like search engines, employing more automation, opt-in robot spidering, and deferring the task of categorization and description to the web page owner himself. The directories will essentially have to become "directory engines", capable of handling high volumes of submission and updates in an everchanging and growing world wide web.
Human intervention will be based on supervision, rather then manual editing. Any sites who fail to comply with directory guidelines are simply deleted, or possibly blocked if the problem persists.
These new directories are based on new paradigms where the web page owner takes a more active role in the task of organizing the web, and this also means that everyone involved has to think in new ways. To "think out of the box" requires an open mind...
Omnium rerum principia parva sunt.
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum. ;)
Everyone picks on the philosophers though.
Quot capita to sensus. :)
Quality is about as subjective term as all the suggestions we have given. Too much/little flash, usability, look & feel, navigation, etc.
What if I am left handed, or my native language is right to left? What if I am color blind, low speed, high speed, monocrome monitor, etc.
There are just so many variables, for anyone to suggest "this is the only/right", that it is outright blind and narcisistic.
I am a bit sore because my site was rejected for an online award. The award is for unique content, not layout... Their reason was that my site is "limited in interface" and "too simplistic, with limited graphics". They didn't take it into consideration that my site can be viewed on a 320x200 to 1600x1200 without loss of layout, color-blinds can see the same as regular vision, it works with any browser the same, it is fast, etc. Plus all the unique articles that nowhere else appears - whatever...
BUT you get my point, right? Do you want to limit it because it doesn't fit your criterias? This is a very slippery slope when a group of people try to limit what is astheticly pleasing and what is not.
Pisces Mortuis Solis Quae Natant Cum Fluctum
1) It is hooked into my browser bar.
As others have pointed out searching at all directories is usually a hopeless task. I often find that I am at a site and want to see see a list of other sites in the same category. Clicking the little green book on the google toolbar is indespensible. Often seeing the hierarchy of the directory better helps me understand what a website is all about.
2) It provides an objective ranking of sites in the category.
While PR is not the end-all and be-all it certainly helps me figure out what sites to visit in a directory category. Other directories sort by alphabet, narrow-scale subjective quality measure, number of clicks are useless.
So, IMHO if goguides, joeant, galaxy, etc. want to be serious research tools they need to stop developing their sites as portals and strike deals to get installed on browser bars and add some kind of site quality measure.
Dug out the Latin from the recesses of my memory if nothing else.!
