Forum Moderators: open
phaze.
Google is a search engine. The Google directory, is different thing. The Google directory is a directory powered by the ODP dumps. Google updates their directory 2 times a year (well, last year, it did), so, if you're not in DMOZ, it is impossible find your self in the Google directory, totally impossible.
DMOZ, has nothing to do with Google. DMOZ is a non-profit foundation helping users find stuff on the web through browsing the categories which consists of editors. Although Google directory takes feed from DMOZ, Google and DMOZ are two different companies.
As this thread already states a 100 times, if you don't have a DMOZ compatible site, the editor won't except you at all. DMOZ is a very strict directory - compared to Zeal and Yahoo, the DMOZ editors love to reject un-compatible websites, but they also love to accept compatible websites.
Sid
What kind of things would not allow you to get into dmoz. I have a very clean new site no pops very very simple. I doubt they would turn it down unless they want address.
>I have a very clean new site no pops very very simple.
But...does it have unique content? If it is a shopping site, does it offer some good or service that is not offered on any other website? If it is a business site, does it offer the official self-description of some business entity that doesn't have its self-description at any other website?
>I doubt they would turn it down unless they want address.
They want unique content. An address might be unique content, but it's not got MUCH unique content. You'd need quite a bit more to have enough content to fill a whole website. It might, for all you say, be like the Monty Python Cheese Shop:
==It's not much of a website, is it?
=Finest in the district, sir.
==Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
=Well, it's so clean, sir.
==It's certainly uncontaminated by unique content.
It's not the lack of an address that gets a site rejected. It's the lack of any content at that address. So who cares if the parking lot is swept? Economically speaking, the light may be on, but nobody's home. It is an ODP editor's duty and privilege to review sites with a view towards giving these the oblivion they deserve.
Of course, your site may be different. You may be hiring employees right and left, but have some good reason for not telling where they'll be working until after they report for work. (Atomic bomb project in Iran, perhaps...) Or you may be offering real estate services to people in the federal witness protection program. And so there may be a good reason for having a genuine business without a public address. If the website lays out that reason clearly enough, the lack of address would not be a bar to an ODP listing.
I should mention another ODP myth that would seem incredibly stupid except for the number of people that believe it. They think an ODP editor makes a comprehensive list of reasons not to list a site, and if one reason is mentioned, that's the only conceivable reason. This logic is completely wrong. Editors don't need a reason not to list a site. We need a reason TO list it. If there's no reason TO list it, we won't ask whether there's a reason NOT to list it. We just won't list it.
"Clean" is not a reason to list, although "very dirty" may be a reason not to list an otherwise borderline site. "no popups" is not a reason to list, although "too many popups" is a reason not to list. And so on. But the majority of submittals are rejected because there's no reason to list -- that is, insufficient unique content.
Sid
Sorry - NOT true. DMOZ is in total decline - our regional travel sector was stripped of content that was on topic - solid material built be serious editors doing their job. Today there is almost NO content for our HUGE travel sector.
Are you sure? How do you know that the "regional travel sector was stripped of content" was just not moved to be listed in the regional sections of the Directory? I do not know if this actually happened, but reorganization is not uncommon.
ALso, how can a directory that adds 1000-4000 sites a day be in decline? (how many other directories add that many?)
Think of the ODP as the TV guide to the internet. No doubt all the big marketing agencies keep careful track of when their ads show -- but that's not the perspective of "content" that the user has.
Try a search on sunshine coast accommodation queensland and it will be immediately evident. A search in Google retrieves over 96,000 - DMOZ ONE!
That is why I was so keen to register and get involved - clearly the directory is totally wrecked - if one result is all on offer!
So after the response that suggested that I try again with a smaller area - hang - there is only one result less than one and that is none!
Seriously - our area is a major tourism area - this is like finding one listing for Atlanta or Austin!
If I am wrong here - please correct me!
8>)Sunny
When I drill down in the regional part of DMOZ, there are plenty of good sites that are representative of the region that you are talking about. If I wanted to visit the area, I would find via DMOZ everything I was looking for (ie accomodation; travel tips, etc).
If I wanted to visit the area, I would find via DMOZ everything I was looking for (ie accomodation; travel tips, etc).
DMOZ has too little to represent the area. ALL the major guides are NOT there and there is less than 2% of accommodation that exists!
Your idea of a good directory is far short of mine - and I believe I have a pretty firm grip on the diference between Google and DMOZ.
The directory is a very sorry directory for our region... believe me!
8>)Sunny
No use comparing them with Google:
Yahoo! is I think the closest DMOZ competitor, DMOZ being a non-profit directory still wins against the commercialized Yahoo, just shows how much enthusiastic a non-profit organization can be, even though they know what they'll not get.
Sid
Try comparing those results with Yahoo!
Try 93,000 results - closer to Google than DMOZ in any way you want to look at!
Do't get me wrong. I'd love to see DMOZ look half professional - otherwise I would NOT have wasted my time applying. But hey to be told that you aren't worthy of the great DMOZ and so instantly dismissed - no wonder the directory is running backwards and there are so many delays.
When our client base (and almost 99% of the regions accommodation houses) dropped out we wrote to DMOZ several times trying to find out why and see if something could be done. We never received a word from anyone - no one seemed interested at all.
This was NOT the case 2 years ago. But now it really has lost the plot in my area of specialization!
8>)Sunny
Try counting at:
[dir.yahoo.com...]
and see how many you get.
Or try this thought experiment. 93,000 Yahoo directory listings for one small area. At USD300 per year per listing, just how many billions is that!?
If you think there is a problem with DMOZ -- and there may well be -- complaining here doesn't work, is against the TOS, and could be construed as trolling.
There is a place for these sorts of discussions. But WMW TOS does not allow its URL to be listed.
Try 93,000 results - closer to Google than DMOZ in any way you want to look at! p
victor is right, I was actually talking about the Yahoo! Directory
[directory.yahoo.com...]
Of course the Yahoo Web Search results are better! They are gathered from a bot named Yahoo! Slurp.
I think you've confused yourself between a Directory and a Search Engine.
Sid
Regarding applying for the Sunshine Coast Accommodation category, I'm not surprised you were not accepted. Because of the fact that most sites get listed at the locality level, few editors would be accepted to a region-level category like that one. Especially if your goal in applying is to change the way things are set up (as evidenced by your "That is why I was so keen to register and get involved - clearly the directory is totally wrecked - if one result is all on offer! " comment). When you were told to apply for a smaller area, the intention would have been for you to apply for a smaller geographic area, i.e. a locality category, not a category with fewer sites listed.
RE: searching for "sunshine coast accommodation queensland" in the ODP -- I'm not surprised that very little turns up in a search on the dmoz.org site. An ODP search essentially looks only in the title and descriptions of the sites. All of those keywords will rarely appear in a site description or title which is why you only see one result. And, as has been noted many many times before, the ODP search was never meant to work the way Google or any other search engine works so comparing its results to Google's isn't appropriate.
GOOGLE recognises the help that DMOZ provided to the growth of Google so here is a one time donation of 5 Million dollars with no strings attached
I do believe a good percentage of the editors do the role as a hobby and should be applauded but unless something is done those will also be tainted with corruption charges
Please listen DMOZ or possibly one of the best resources on the internet will die a slow death
steve
Without knowing what sites you're talking about, I can only presume that they were
You guys are very self preserving giving SunnyDaze the custard here. The above statement sums it up - you simply don't know.
Seems SunnyDaze was actually trying to point out some inaccuracy here in the directory and be a little constructive - doubt if he needs to be so heavily hit on!
/Wayne
No, no "inaccuracy" was pointed out. In fact, no URL was mentioned at all. There was nothing whatsoever constructive. It sounded like Joe McCarthy frothing about "he had the names of **** Communists in the state department." He may have been right, but he certainly wasn't believed -- and the world was right not to believe him. And we are right not to believe vague allegations and insinuations about unspecified missing URLs.
Now, we'd be very happy to hear about actual problems. We've got whole forums set up, to address either URLs that may have been lost in the gears, or editorial abuse. But, note, putting websites into categories is NOT abuse -- that's just what directories do.
You can sticky-mail me with the URLs: I don't have time to investigate right now, but I will pass them on to where someone will investigate. (That is, if it's something more serious than just putting businesses in the proper locality. Please verify that ISN'T the case before reporting anything.)
This is similar to the differnece between browsing your local directory (white/yellow pages) and searching for people in your local city/state on the internet.
The people search service isn't really meant to categorize the people (via surnames), and the directory isn't really meant to be for searching people (automatically). Big difference between searching and browsing.
Sid
The ODP definitely has users. I have another window open at this moment, and see a hit to one of my sites from an ODP clone less than 3 hours ago. And this site is *incredibly* easy to find in search engines. Yet ODP hits to this site are by no means rare. While Google has a LOT more users than the ODP, you are wrong thinking nobody uses it.
