Forum Moderators: open
i think dmoz should use spider kind software for editors otherwise any new dmoz will come and which will submit site in two days time period and like yahoo directory we will learn about dmoz in history.
dmoz peoples should think about users need new dmoz directory?
and i think directory also can use spider. there no guide lines that only search engines only can use spider kind softwares. if human can add, edit and delete listings then software can do very fast same thing.
Doesn't Google/Yahoo! fill that role rather well in most cases?
That's debatable. [webmasterworld.com]
DMOZ is a human compiled directory. Humans just won't ever reach the efficiency of programming, but alas, it seems programming won't ever reach the quality of humans. Of course, humans also err, goof off, forget, get mad, get even and get a lot of other things that would be hard to duplicate with a few spiders and some technology.
<Lemme get off this box>
Try to look at it as a chance to practice patience, or anger management... or some other human thing :)
And let me mind my manners, Welcome to WebmasterWorld primelibra.
"But," I whine, "they both have buildings with roofs and walls and windows. And they have so many rich people staying there, that have their own homes to stay in! They could let all those rich folk go home, and focus on housing the homeless."
You probably wouldn't even respond. You'd just shake your head and add me to your short list of people who would have to have a brain transplant to aspire to mere gormlessness.
If you want what spiders do (and there are many people who want that) there are many sites that do that. Go patronize them!
If you want quick listings for advertising purposes (and there are many people who want that also) there are many sites that do that. Go patronize them!
The ODP does something else that no spider can do: categorize sites. If you don't need that (and many people don't) don't patronize the ODP.
The ODP has no real competitors for its niche market. That's partly because it did its thing so much better than anyone else, that everyone else gave up trying to do that, and went to focus on what they could do best.
There is no reason, and no need, for the ODP to go compete with Google, Inktomi, Overture, or MSN. Let Habitat for Humanity and Humana Hospital exist in the same community, doing different work. And if either one doesn't do its own job well enough, then ... anyone else can start competing. Just like Looksmart and Newhoo did when it seemed Yahoo was faltering; just like Google did when it seemed Excite and Altavista were faltering.
You think you can write a spider to create a better directory than the OPD? Have at it! If it seems at all workable, ODP editors will try it out. If it works at all, ODP editors will be among its most enthusiastic users.
very serious matter if you have quality products
Having products to sell is only a small part of the Internet, even though concerns about using the Internet to sell things is a very large part of WMW's postings. Don't let that bias at WMW blind you to the extent of the Internet, and the equivalent reach of the ODP.
Froogle is presumably the new ODP for selling things. Any commercial site that is aiming for an ODP listing should as a matter of course aim for a Froogle listing first.
If you can't get a Froogle listing, then maybe it is time to get a new hobby.
Yahoo has quite a good directory, with what some might consider a considerably more useful directory architecture.
The ODP overtook it (in both size and scope), and left it way behind, several years ago.
As in any directory, there are standout categories and wastelands. But across the board it was never comparable to Yahoo. And it was unfortunate in its choice of sponsor -- Looksmart was more the "If the eggs are gold, betcha the pate de fois gras would REALLY taste rich" kind of monetizationalizer.
Because it maybe, that the editor of the category didn't think your site was good enough (he maybe right) and rejected it.
So what many people think is any site submitted into DMOZ makes it into it sometime or the other - which is entirely not true. To get into DMOZ, your site has to be compatible with its strict editorial standards (read more here [dmoz.org]).
And it also maybe that DMOZ isn't slow at all - it's just your site that got rejected because you weren't good enough - so why should you be blaming the DMOZ editor? They're just doing their work.
But Yahoo! (IMHO) just bribes you into paying, or sometimes just accepts the site submitted regardless of its content (unless it's off-topic or contains adult content) - which is the exact reason being why many people like the Yahoo! directory so much.
But DMOZ isn't like that - it awards your website through it's content, not through money.
So the bottom line is, guys, directories are not made for webmasters, they are made for the purpose of finding things throughout the web in a categorized format.
Link farms are made for webmasters, and so are link campaigns - but directories are a whole different thing.
Sid
There is:
- no information about what's going on,
- submittals take forever,
- there is very little recourse for very smart people with very good websites to get a prioritized review.
The third one is particular deadly because those smart people generally have a lot of influence and if you cross them than they will influence lot more smart people to start dissing dmoz ..
You also stop attracting quality editors because they hear from their quality friends that dmoz is a waste of time.
And then the influence of dmoz begins to wane. Or, at the very least, it's not appropiate given the vast quantity of content that exists in the directory.
The opposite of that are the hundreds of thousands of sites that were added to the directory without ever having been submitted at all.
Is that an infinitely small number or even a negative number for the review time?
When in fact it's just corporate ambivalence.
Those professionals have some very definite ideas about how the ODP should be run. VERY definite. It happens that those ideas are different from (all right, diametrically oppose) many ideas that are current among outsiders without management or volunteer experience. (Not, of course, that experience managing different kinds of volunteers necessarily transfers well: so every now and then we run into someone who has trouble comprehending the fairly unusual concept of a knowledge-based collaborative effort.)
