HUMANS do it better

so says the DMOZ site

[cornwall]

There seems to be differences of opinion as to whether in fact "HUMANS do it better"

Those webmasters excluded by DMOZ don't think a lot of them there Humans at DMOZ.

So do Humans really do it better? Or is that ole Google bot doing a better job?

[GilbertZ]

Although I don't think the contractor's idea would work in the real world, because no company would want to collect fees and return them :), I do LOVE the idea...

5 bucks isn't enough to deal with appeals and facilitate "real" customer service, thought it might be enough of an obstacle to weed out some frivolous sumbissions. The other thing is once payment is accepted, there is an expectation of a listing, and an explanation of why the site was not accepted if it is in fact declined.

In fact, for me the main reason for the fee is to weed out the bad submissions, resubmissions, make the actual submissions more serious with better descriptions, reduce secondary submissions for each subcategory, regional almost a page sites etc... It would cut out a lot of the crap. As for being offended for not being listed, I don't think $5 is a lot of pressure and if someone is offended for losing their hard-earned $5, tough....

I've had a site @ yahoo rejected for $180 when other much lower quality sites were in Yahoo, and that sure did sour my love for yahoo in a big way...but did Yahoo feel the pressure? I don't think so from the rude tone of the editor....

But if I had lost $5? I wouldn't have really cared much...being rude would bother me more be it free or paid...

[kfander]

>> While submitters can be helpful once in a while, they aren't strictly necessary for building a quality directory <<

Very few of the really good sites that I've added to the directory were submitted.

>> I have seen some unbelievably bad Yahoo descriptions. <<

And many sites without descriptions at all.

[victor]

bird, I think you and I are in agreement -- I was trying to make the same points as you, but maybe I was being too ironic or something.

It's interesting that the busiest forum here isn't Content and the most repeated question isn't: "how do I make my website better?"

Instead it's Google and variations on "how do I get a better ranking so I can sell more things?".

Google doesn't rank sites based on their commercial popularity. Dmoz doesn't include sites based on the owner's need to get a higher Google ranking.

So there is a basic discrepancy between most of the petitioners here (who want better commercial advantage) and Google/DMOZ (which want to give people relevant and accurate access to information).

Most of the "DMOZ won't list me queries" are akin to: "the New York Times won't run the press release for my bargain-basement sale".

If you want to get editorial cover in the NYT have something new and interesting to say. If you want to get into DMOZ have something original. It's so simple :)

[rafalk]

Victor, that's brilliant! :) It should be mandatory reading for everyone here at WebmasterWorld.

[fathom]

Victor, that's brilliant!

Yup,truth hurts -- badly sometimes.

[skibum]

Add it to the guidelines.

[GilbertZ]

Great points Victor. Although I think there is more to it than that and this forum has people from many different fields. As a webmaster, 99% of what I deal with is content... but as a result of the issues you describe, google and DMOZ have had to deal with a huge headache w/ people who want placement for what they do, be it content-filled or not...I've seen many sites do well on Google and DMOZ that have a bit of content and are keyword-keyword.com, with no sense of style...although I like the google simple style, and respected the Yahoo simpleness of old, some of those sites doing well on both dmoz and google have no purpose other than to rank in google and they do use this forum and others to achieve it...even WW has an image here or there ;)

But overall, dmoz ain't a bad directory at all if you want to find sites that match the category you are looking at.

[fathom]

some of those sites doing well on both dmoz and google have no purpose other than to rank in google and they do use this forum and others to achieve it...

Rightly so, but it doesn't mean it is right.

A theft can make a very profitably living by stealing... so could you and I, but someone is bound to get caught.

I doubt the rationale that "well he/she/they can do it and get away with it" would make a good defence.

Working within ethical principles may not always produce the top ranked results immediately, but the flip side... it will not produce immediate negative results either.

In my experience the biggest "whines" come from those that clearly break from ethics, maximize immediate returns, and then start relying on those returns.

When they get busted... it hurts, badly.

The lesser whines come from those that do not wish to put a concerted effort into their business standards, they just want to make money.

[startup]

Google does a much better job. The use of dmoz data doesn't guarantee high quality search results. It's Google's algo that produces the results.
The directory is used because it is free. Can Google achieve high quality results without dmoz data? Yes they can.
Yahoo and AOL are using Google for their primary searches and both of them own their own directories.

[The Contractor]

AOL and dmoz directories are one in the same :)

[startup]

"both of them own their own directories".
I know that. At one time AOL displayed dmoz results for the primary search. They don't anymore.

I think it should be noted that both of them are paying Google to provide the results.

[hutcheson]

>I think it should be noted that both of them are paying Google to provide the results.

It's hardly a secret: in fact, it is probably a matter of pride to many ODP editors. Google has made heavy use of ODP data since its inception; of all the search engines, so far it has made the most effective use of ODP data. IMO, there is a definite connection between that and the fact that Google is so widely respected for its search result quality.

The old AOL search used ODP data in a different way (including some wrinkles that didn't seem to be used by Google at the time) but overall Google did a better job, and AOL probably did well to contract their searches to Google.

I'd like to see some competition for Google: at this point, there isn't really any: also (coincidentally?) no other search engine is currently making effective use of the ODP feed.

[cornwall]

also (coincidentally?) no other search engine is currently making effective use of the ODP feed.

Wandering from the topic a bit, but this prompts the question - does anyone know what the split is among Google users for the main Google web seach as against Google directory searches?

My assumption is that it is very small part of Google use (OK it begs the question on the value of a link from DMOZ, but that anorther issue!)

[startup]

Google uses data from all the directories, Looksmart included. Dmoz may have been a starting point because, it was free. Tracking results across a broad range of keywords has shown that dmoz data is not the primary or sole source of data, nor is it rated higher than any other directory.
It is Google's algo that produces the results and Google can succeed without data from any directory.

[steveb]

"The directory is used because it is free."

Hardly. Google isn't some pauper running around looking for free lunches.

[startup]

We seem to forget that at one time they were a, "pauper running around looking for free lunches". That certainly is not their position today.
Can we get back to the original question? "So do Humans really do it better? Or is that ole Google bot doing a better job?"

[rfgdxm1]

>Can we get back to the original question? "So do Humans really do it better? Or is that ole Google bot doing a better job?"

Depends a lot on what you are searching for. One of the failures of spidering engines is that when it comes to very niche type sites, think here a lot of hobby ones, some of the worthwhile ones get buried way down the SERPs. A directory can list many of these all on one easy to use page. Google tends to be best for finding the largest, most definitive sites on a topic. However, if you are looking for even the minor sites on that topic that have worthwhile content, directories can do better.

[fathom]

Can we get back to the original question? "So do Humans really do it better? Or is that ole Google bot doing a better job?"

Looking at just the merits it's 50/50.

Googlebot is intuitive enough to seek and find new "gems" of information. Its expanse is endless as long as there are new links in its path. It's unbiased -- rating all pages/sites identically, and clearly the best at quality management, drop non-existent page quicker than anyone.

Room to improve -- better identification of blatant algorithmic abuse (e.g. onwers of multiple domains blocking out comparative pages, sites, information, products, and services, attempting a monopoly.

DMOZ - clearly an authority site with a static database of the best the web can offer and quite diverse, all in one place. The resource is supported human reviewers, that although may be not be totally impartial when reviewing a site's quality, but they can appreciate the flavor.

A company that uses mostly dynamic content, graphics and imagery, not knowledgeable about Page Titles, element attributes (alt, titles), etc., knows nothing about the power of links and anchors and having little text copy has lttile hope of convincing Googlebot that they deserve good ranking.

With DMOZ credibility to the site visual merits and thus the change of higher performance.

Room to improve -- productivity; speed of additions, changes, deletions, and also highly recommend at minimum an autoreponse to acceptions, deletions, declines, repositions, amendments. This doesn't have to be a personal email, nor repliable - just an acknowledgement that someone is actioning their request or something is changing.

After months in the quene - a repeat submission will occur and this can be over and over again. My autoreponses built into the system, much of DMOZ's backlog could be avoided.

[1milehgh80210]

seems people have a problem with dmoz?
if a directory wants to take a YEAR to update itself with quality sites edited by human volunteer editors that is their right.. Might add to the quality of their directory.
Nobody forces google or other engines to rely on their data. It's more a problem of the engines and those that rely on them IMO.
If there is some business agreement between them, its something else altogether

[fathom]

After months in the quene - a repeat submission will occur and this can be over and over again. My autoreponses built into the system, much of DMOZ's backlog could be avoided.

This sounds like a plug for me to do the work! It's not, just a typo.

By autoreponses built into the system, much of DMOZ's backlog could be avoided.

[cornwall]

By autoreponses built into the system, much of DMOZ's backlog could be avoided.

You know that, I know that, most non-DMOZ (and I suspect many DMOZ Editors know that, but make a suggestion like that in a forum and dem "humans" at DMOZ take it a a personnal attack on the graves of their ancestors.

Nobody has yet convinced me that autoresponses would do anything other than reduce their unreviewed queue.

Maybe its because they don't pay the editors that work clearing the queue does not cost anything, so their is no incentive to find an alternative and to keep the queue down :)

[rfgdxm1]

It isn't so much that the ODP doesn't pay editors they have no incentive to keep the queue down, but not enough volunteer editors. Made worse by the fact there are a lot of spammy submissions to slog through.

[caine]

I think one of the major problems, is the transients of the ODP editor base, the seniors stick around but the juniors, don't so much.

[cornwall]

The funny thing about this thread was that I started it in "Foo", but it was moved by a Moderator to "Directories"

I guess its the difference between "Humor" and "Humour" as to whether one can have a light hearted discussion on the topic of "Humans do it better", or not ;)

[The Contractor]

I think most all of the dmoz threads should end up in Foo ;)

They always start out as different topics but always end up repeating the same things over and over and over.........

I normally give up on them after the first 20 posts or so ;)

[vitaplease]

Do humans do it better?

Let the human users speak: alexa.com (I'm not advocating their accuracy)

Google = no.5
Dmoz = no. 145 (I was suprised it was that high ;))

How many of the "found pages" are found by Google users using the (Google/DMOZ) directory?

0,7 % in France recently.. [webmasterworld.com]

Does Google do it better than humans? Google.bot can only do it with humans.
It uses the link structure of humans on millions of sites and directories.

Dmoz is just one of them human link structures. Google(bot) could easily do without it, with the current size of the web.

[rafalk]

Google(bot) could easily do without it, with the current size of the web.

And where exactly do you think Googlebot starts his journey 'round the web every month?

[cornwall]

And where exactly do you think Googlebot starts his journey 'round the web every month?

As far as I am aware, rafalk, Googlebot makes a bee line for one of my many excellent sites and gets stuck in there at the start of each month ;)

However it seems to takes somewhat longer than a monthly gap for a DMOZ editor to get round to checking my new submissions ;)

Therefore robots do it better QED ;)

[vitaplease]

And where exactly do you think Googlebot starts his journey 'round the web every month?

It may well be that Googlebot chooses to start out at DMOZ, however, should it decide to start at all sites with Pagerank 7 and higher, would that be a dramatic difference?

Googlelabs, [labs.google.com...]

there are many sites Google regards as quote worthy sources..