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?
As a general comment, re the minor and/or up and coming directories, some links can hurt. I would make 100% sure that you are happy with the probity
of the directory before submiting.
Is that a generic comment or are there problems with one or both of these two directories that we should know about?
Thanks!
What's a useful directory? Does it really take 250,000 sites and more to make one?
I would very much disagree, without first establishing what is it that the directory wishes to cover. Sure, if the intention is to be a dmoz replacement - that's a very reasonable number (if not on the lower side), but if a directory has somewhat less ambitious plans - (like a directory for dentist supplies) - perhaps a few hundred will be ample.
What's wrong with a link from a small directory?
Nothing, as far as I can tell. The advantage of getting a (until recently) free and easily obtained link is unquestionable. It is only when you have to pay and/or work and/or provide a reciprocal link that one has to weigh the pro and con more carefully. NFCC comment
> I would make 100% sure that you are happy with the probity of the directory before submiting.
is totally opaque to me. Unless it's a link farm and other "do not touch" creature (Like FFA) - what could possibly be wrong with a human edited directory?
Starting small - how else? To my knowledge, most (if not all) the Goguides and Joeant editors are volunteers - you cannot but start small without substantial funding. My take on their growth is that it is not a function of how many sites they add per day but how many SEARCHERS they add per day. The more people use them - the more valuable they become.
But don't they need many more sites to attract users? I am not so sure. There must be a critical mass to start the ball rolling, but we all know that it is rare for a user to look beyond the first 20 results anyway - so how important is it to provide 2000?
Just my 2p ;)
MC
I would prefer a directory be selective in the material. Quality over quantity. If I want crappy results, I'll go to alta vista or excite.
raven
IMO, these folks are to be commended for actually trying to build something.
I think some of you really hit it on the head on why guides and ants build.
I edit at both and would have to say that GoGuides.Org and JoeAnt are both very happy at their rate of growth. Of course each would like to see millions of unique visitors per day, but realize that isn't going to happen right away.
Like mrdch said, "My take on their growth is that it is not a function of how many sites they add per day but how many SEARCHERS they add per day. The more people use them - the more valuable they become.
But don't they need many more sites to attract users? I am not so sure. There must be a critical mass to start the ball rolling, but we all know that it is rare for a user to look beyond the first 20 results anyway - so how important is it to provide 2000?"
That really is the case. Both directories feel that they are just starting and have begun laying the building blocks for growth.
We all get to share in building a directory the way we wanted it to be. We get a chance to learn some things, meet new folks and make some great friends along the way.
Besides, two years has flown by and every month we've seen increases in visitors, etc. It is not what it is. It is what it will become. The users will eventually come in even greater numbers. In the mean time, we get to build and give a few people some links.
I have checked, and it is so far down the list of referring sites as to just barely show up (#288 of 322 for the past 10 days).
Very few people actually use DMOZ directly - most use the Google directory if they use a directory at all. Even though it is still DMOZ, the Google ranking of the sites is what makes it useful.
JoeAnt is intriguing - it has hung on now for quite a while and seems to provide quality listings. Although rather limited in some categories, I find it actually useful to use as a directory, unlike DMOZ and Yahoo.
Personally, I'd like to see a directory stand up and only accept sites that are GOOD sites- easy to navigate, clear in their services, free of obtrusive ads and spyware.
Perhaps I'm a tree hugging hippie, but I find it sad how the dollar tends to rule the net. yeah, that's life... but it doesn't make it right.
Personally, I'd like to see a directory stand up and only accept sites that are GOOD sites- easy to navigate, clear in their services, free of obtrusive ads and spyware.
Both ODP and GoGuides have these as their goals. I know that the dead links and general quality of the directory is why ODP (then NewHoo) was started.
And I'm fairly certain that this was the same sort of thing that made Go guides decide to keep on after Go so unceremoniously pulled the rug out from under them.
Agreed, I believe that is the reason both ODP and GoGuides has a spider available to check for deadlinks, redirects, etc.
It is also why I would say about 30-35% of GoGuides.Org submissions are not listed.
And all of those scripts that make mouse trails, or make the page "snow" or over take my status bar with flowing text. Do site owners not realize this is distracting?
I found it humorous that JA mentions webpagesthatsuck.com as a resource for learning what can make a site not worth a listing. Makes sense to me.
All in all, I think both have started well in that manner for the most part. I edit at dmoz too and whenever I apply for a new category the first step is to clean out all the sites not worth listing.
Mostly visibility. The problem these have is not only few web surfers, but even webmasters don't know of them. Directories just aren't that popular overall. The ODP seems the only non-pay one that has any use, and from my logs it isn't all that much at the moment. Although, it is possible my site's topic here, and the demographics of most of my site's users (teenagers and young adults), makes it non-representative. Do ODP users really want more directories?
Interesting. I am an ODP editor, and rarely delete already listed sites on the basis of submediocrity. Main logic being if the webmaster complained, the problem of the argument "Why was the site good enough before, but no longer is?" Now if the site is falling apart and mostly broken links, that is different. However with new submissions I do expect something beyond trivial.
And that, IMO, is the basic problem with most directories, not just ODP. Trash keeps building up and the overall quality just never seems to get very good.
For example, just a few hours ago I attempted to use ODP to find some graphic icons. In the two most relevant directories hundreds of sites were listed, but after about 45 minutes I just gave up and went back to Google and Yahoo. There was simply too much trash, too many sites with multiple popups, too many sites that had not been updated since the pre-Cambrian era, too many sub-mediocre sites.
Standards do not stay the same. A site that was fair to good 4 years ago when it was listed may now be not worth the electrons used to run it. Listings are supposed to be useful to the user. If you have to sift through 80% garbage sites, then it is not.
At least in my case, the nature of the cats I edit is such that some submediocre sites would ever result in anyone not being able to find relevant material rather quickly. Unlike your 45 minute problem finding graphic icons. I do agree this tends to be a problem with directories in general. Rather than risk someone screaming bloody murder about their wretched, inadequate site being removed, easier and safer to just leave it there. I have however been known to delete new submissions with an editor's not something like "Totally trivial, and deemed inadequate". You wouldn't believe how bad some sites I have seen submitted are. As in took 15 minutes to create the whole one page of the site in Frontpage, and the webmaster's sobriety while doing so seemed doubtful. ;) I feel a directory should have reasonable quality standards. Particularly when the cat already contains numerous site's of high quality.
Here’s something to think about.
Search at google for the keyword “headstone art” and it returns 15,700 results. Notice that a goguides topic result is listed number six in the serp while their own category result is listed number twenty five.
Try it again. Search for the key word “wheelchair manufacturers” and it returns 34,600 results. Notice that goguides topic result is listed number four in the serp’s while their own category result is listed number twenty.
Its google you place all your emphasis on (and rightly so), yet you ignore what google places importance on. That being spam free information for its database...
Yes, I understand that at the beginning of each search you will always see their category match at the very top, but after that its a even playing field.
And just to make another observation. Both those examples of goguides topics being listed above googles own category results. Both of those goguides topics have a pr of 3 while their own categories listed down the path have a pr of 4.
Sometimes folks things are not as they appear. Sometimes its just a matter of trusting the source and supplying the best results to the visitor...
Interesting. I am an ODP editor, and rarely delete already listed sites on the basis of submediocrity. Main logic being if the webmaster complained, the problem of the argument "Why was the site good enough before, but no longer is?"
IMO the site quality is relative not absolute. A site on a specific topic may have been good in the stone age of the net and ODP, but may now be "submediocre". Or do sites that have been in the directory for a certain amount of time have their "right" to stay there just for use?
As customers are your first clients, those sites should (those even you consider "submediocre!") be removed. Just let them there to avoid conflicts - that cannot be an argument.
just my 2eurocents.
j.
GoGuides is handling that problem by using a committee called the “Site Review Committee”. The sole purpose of that committee is to cruise topics and check listings. Their job isn’t to re-write description or to change ratings. Their job is to simply review the site again and remove it from the topic if it no longer belongs. If it fails the submission standard its removed from the directory and block from being re-submitted.
This is not a bullet proof system but it does work...
