The REASON Dmoz has NOT been able to Update its directory since SEPT

Open Directory RDF Dump not working - New sites cannot be SHOWN !

[aaaaa]

:(

Search database last updated on: Sat Sep 28 00:54:00 PDT 2002

A Dmoz listings will often help your Google keyword ranking, thereby increasing your rankings on:
Yahoo
Aol
Netscape
Earthlink etc...
The above message was at the bottom of every search result on Dmoz for WEEKS... until Dec 4th.
:(

Search database last updated on: Tue Dec 3 16:22:30 PST 2002

This new message appeared for a few days after Dec 3rd
:(

Search database last updated on: Sat Sep 28 00:54:00 PDT 2002

This message is now again present.
Based on explanations from corresponding with Dmoz editors'...

The Dmoz "RDF dump" has not been working, "THOUSANDS" of websites HAVE actually been Added or Modified since the last Update.

The RDF dump will allow members of the public - with Licenses to "freely" download the ODP index if they agree to their terms.

It takes Dmoz one week to verify if the updates are successful - If not- the last udated date will again re-appear at the bottom of the search listings

There is a Dmoz url where one can check anytime to see if an individual directory has been updated.
[dmoz.org...]

[edited by: aaaaa at 6:15 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2002]

[Syren_Song]

I know I had a site added in mid-November. The editor sent me an email to let me know.

Have they started doing everything manually in some way new from how they have been handling additions?

[engine]

There's another thread on this issue running over here. [webmasterworld.com]

Sites are still being added. I would recommend that you continue to submit sites as it still offers benefits of PR and spidering by other engines.

[multex]

Yes, by all means, keep submitting sites. And the editors are still adding sites. When the RDF finally comes out clean, all their work will be included.

[rfgdxm1]

You don't understand how this works. The RDF only effects your listings on sites that mirror the DMOZ. New sites added DO appear searching dmoz.org, and Google DOES spider the DMOZ. I have seen proof of that. Thus even without the RDF dump you get the Google PR boost.

[petertdavis]

Actually, there's a lag time between when your site is added to the directory and when it appears in a search on the dmoz.org home site too. If you search for you domain and it turns up nothing, your site maybe is listed still. You have to go to the exact category and look to see if it's there to be 100% sure.

[crunchy cajun]

The RDF is almost there:

The most recent run looks good. [dmoz.org...]

[edit_g]

"I know I had a site added in mid-November. The editor sent me an email to let me know."

WOW! ;)

[aaaaa]

Search database last updated on: Mon Dec 9 21:32:07 PST 2002

The current Footer under Dmoz's search results.

[kctipton]

A little humor: [rpfuller.com...]

[g1smd]

>> The current Footer under Dmoz's search results. <<

Despite the occasional showing of that message, it appears that the Search has not been updated. Part of the search function seems to know that an RDF dump finished on that date, but as the dump had errors it has not been published for downstream users, nor has it been used to update the search function. The errors are now down to just eleven in 460 000 categories. The last few thousand previous errors were edited by hand, so a few were missed here and there.

[aaaaa]

Search database last updated on: Sat Sep 28 00:54:00 PDT 2002

This is - again - the current footer, which means that the last attempt to "UPDATE" has still been successful!

[rafalk]

Huh?

[bether2]

aaaaa,

I assume you meant to say "the last attempt to 'UPDATE' has still been UNsuccessful."?

Beth

[Lisa]

How hard can it be! Sheesh, just dump a RDF already!

[Bobby_Davro]

You can actually see when a new RDF dump is successfully deployed here:
[dmoz.org...]

The main sites file is currently detailed like this:

content.rdf.u8.gz 22-Sep-2002 09:17 205M

So it has now been 83 days since the last working update (if my calculations are correct). How much of the web is suffering from this?

[kctipton]

"Suffering" is strong language. Google still spiders ODP's listings. Others probably do too.

[Bobby_Davro]

By suffering, I simply mean those sites that have been included but won't see their site appear around the web until the RDF is repaired. That's a long wait on top of the original waiting time to get a site reviewed in some categories.

I suppose it doesn't matter too much to the ODP mirror directories.

[rfgdxm1]

>How hard can it be! Sheesh, just dump a RDF already!

Buggy software Lisa, and the DMOZ is a low priority at Netscape. :(

[GilbertZ]

RE: low priority.

There is an opportunity for a better dmoz. Maybe a different system. Either paying editors, or a slashdot shared editor voting type thing. How is zeal doing? Is their directory better quality than dmoz? But they don't farm it out like dmoz, correct?

[rafalk]

Gilbert, what you are suggesting would only work if DMOZ was independent from AOL - and AOL/TW isn't about to give the directory infrastructure away for free.

[aaaaa]

Search database last updated on: Mon Dec 9 21:32:07 PST 2002

Current Dmoz Search-Results Footer as of 12:pm EST

[Macguru]

Must be some echo somewhere.

[g1smd]

From: [dmoz.org...]

>> RDFs not pushed
>> RDF tags used in the current RDF files (2002-12-09)

[aaaaa]

Last update: 17:38 PT, Tuesday, December 31, 2002

:o

Dmoz has finally updated - you can check any new submissions that have been accepted and added before New Years Day.
The Updates will be refected in Google's Directory in a few weeks (Google updates its Directory monthly)
I have noticed that NOW my recent submissions (as recently as the past two weeks) have already been added to:
The Dmoz directory...
and also comes up in the Dmoz Search ...
However, the update is not Totally completed yet - because there are a few sites that have just been added to the Dmoz directory - but is NOT yet coming up in the Dmoz search.
I am still getting references to Sept 28th and Dec 9th when I do "search.dmoz.org" and there are various & different dates at the bottom of various directories/sub directories if you go the directories "themselves" without doing a search.
example:
[search.dmoz.org...]

Search database last updated on: Sat Sep 28 00:54:00 PDT 2002

Search database last updated on: Mon Dec 9 21:32:07 PST 2002

THESE TWO DIFFERENT FOOTERS FOR THE ABOVE SEARCH TERM WAS RETREIVED WITH IN ONE MINUTE OF THE DOING THE SAME SEARCH!

[edited by: aaaaa at 8:26 pm (utc) on Jan. 2, 2003]

[rafalk]

aaaaa, you have been told numerous times that the DMOZ search function - and when it is updated - has absolutely nothing to do with the RDF dump or when the Google Directory updates.

Please stop spreading this misinformation!

[dvduval]

I believe DMOZ is waiting for someone to come back from vacation and then they will try again. There is still no updated RDF, AFAIK.

Why can't they update the RDF in peices?
All or nothing seems to be turning up nothing.
Whay not start dropping in tables?

[arc_light]

I've been waiting around like the rest of you for this and trying not to be too impatient about it :) I got my first site listed in ODP a couple months ago, and I'm wondering how much traffic you guys usually see from Google's directory once it's updated (vs its crawled results)...or is it difficult to determine that number from your logs? (Most of my experience so far has been with Zeal, since it's a bit easier to get listings there.)

[g1smd]

From: [dmoz.org...]

>> RDFs not pushed
>> RDF tags used in the current RDF files (2002-12-09)

Same as before. Easy to check first before posting. I did.

[hutcheson]

>Why can't they update the RDF in pieces?
Actually, as any programmer could guess would happen, accidentally doing it that way caused many of the problems. The difficulty is that, because of category moves, pieces selected at different times overlap, and overlaps cause database incongruities and inconsistancies, which cause problems for all RDF users, as well as being exacerbated by further DB operations. And the ODP experiences thousands of DB operations an hour.

>Why not start dropping in tables?
The problem is not that Netscape does not have programmers, and is instead relying on people who haven't yet heard of tables: as any programmer could see by looking at the RDF --which represents tables in an XML format.