Forum Moderators: open
2000 sites a day sounds like a lot. It's about one new site added per 33 editors, one new site per 295 categories. Or, if you look at it on an annual basis, that's an average of about 1 site added per category per year. Accounting for de-listings may push it up to an average of 1.5 sites added to each category over twelve months.
Which is fine of course, as long as the internet community isn't inconsiderate enough to - among all members - launch more than 1.5 good sites a year.
You don't know the number of sites being handled each day by editors because the raw statistic hides (among others):
About all you can realistically do with a figure of aronnd 2000 sites per day of real growth is turn it into an annual percentage:
2000 sites a day is around 730,000 per annum.
The ODP has around 4,000,000 URLs in its categories, so that is an annual growth rate of around 18%.
That is faster than any other directory I know of that has in excess of 1,000,000 unique entries.
Whether it is fast enough to keep pace with the web as a whole is (still) the more interesting question.
Whether it is fast enough to keep pace with the web as a whole is (still) the more interesting question.
It is an interesting question.
My take on it is human/manual indexing and categorising could never compete with spider/automated indexing and categorising in terms of keeping up with the "density" of the web.
So our reliance has to be on the search engines to do the fast upkeep of the "web as a whole".
The principle of a hand-edited directory is that it should lack spam and only list quality sites of unique content.
I think that's what the directories as a whole need to strive for, over and above fast inclusion or indexing.
TJ
The ODP has around 4,000,000 URLs in its categories, so that is an annual growth rate of around 18%
Er, I make it less than 3% pa over the last two years [web.archive.org].
Do you disagree with my calculation of a net growth rate of 1.5 new sites per category per year (accounting for delists and relists)?
Errr yeah well we all know that, don't we? This is not news.
As a webmaster, I know the value of an ODP listing. But I've had things queued up for goodness knows how long, but so what. It'll most likely get reviewed one day. There are other ways to promote a web site though, with plenty of competing directories.
It's mentioned a lot elsewhere, but if your business model depends on an ODP listing, then you're in the wrong business.
(By the way, there are actually over 4.3 million sites listed in the ODP)
Er, I make it less than 3% pa over the last two years.
You'd get a more useful set of figures by downloading the RDF once a week for (say) six months, and running a few diff utils against consecutive versions.
That would give detailed and definitive answers to many of these sorts of questions.
Do you disagree with my calculation of a net growth rate of 1.5 new sites per category per year (accounting for delists and relists)?
Yes.
Yes
Ah, OK, your persuasive one word calculations have me completely convinced ;)
But hold on....
The number of sites as quoted on the home page is rarely updated.
Get some ODP RDFs. Run some stats.
Any volunteer critic of the ODP who hasn't taken a few moments to do that is not well equipped to comment.
Is several weeks a normal wait just to join the ODP forum?
Doh!
It should have been immediate - there is no wait. Did you put in the correct email address? Did it get caught by a spam filter?
So my advice if you submit and don't get listed first, look at your site and see if there is anything about the site that makes it worth listing, if there is contact the editor of the category detailing your reasons, if you get no response work your way up the food chain.
If that doesn't work then give up and work on other ways to promote your site.
Have I missed a change in the ODP guidelines? I was under the impression I was never compelled to add a site, except under the very unusual circumstance I might have in that category an affiliated listed site that I could be seen as editing with bias. If "fail to add a site that meets ODP criteria for fear of being booted out" is the rule at the ODP, I'm gonna have to resign as an editor. Along with all the metas and editalls who have failed to add sites meet ODP criteria for being added. Metas and editalls can edit in any category.
Get some ODP RDFs. Run some stats.
Don't need to. The numbers I've published here are demonstrative enough (and verifiable by other members casually reading this thread). I have no intention of spending several days digging out and publishing the bleeding....
For those of you who think ODP is fantastic, then, well, great. For those of you who realise the current state it's in - here's what you do: Browse through a few categories, find one that hasn't been worked on for a while, pick out those sites in that cat that look negelected and you'll be able to pick up a few good sites for a pittance. In fact, the ODP is so, so rubbish in one category - and there are so many neglected and unwanted sites in there which I have bought - that I've almost cornered the market for that widget. Pretty much any site you go to in the category (or Google directory's equivalent) will lead you to my widget site. But, I can't cover all categories. There are a lot, lot more ignored, out of date categories that you too can exploit. For those of you who recognise it this is a unique opportunity and you heard it here first. (Even if that monopoly lasts only for a year or two you can make a very, very tidy profit).
Turn a problem into an opportunity :)
To reaffirm an earlier comment, NO, I'm not interested in improving the quality of the ODP ;)
I have no intention of spending several days
I understand your position, macro.
You are a volunteer critic of the ODP who puts clear and precise limits on what you are prepared to do with the spare time that you spend as an ODP critic.
But yet you have various demands and suggestions about what extra tasks volunteer editors should take on with the spare time they spend with the ODP.
Lead by example. No one ever put up a statue to a critic (as Sibelius said)
Er, you're making it up as you go along. What "extra tasks" did I suggest?
>>You are a volunteer
"Volunteer"? Don't tar me with the same brush as ODP eds ;)
and you heard it here first.
Oh no we didn't, this has been going on for a very long time and like you say it is a unique opportunity ;)
I didn't say it's a new idea or that I'm the only one who's ever thought of it ;)
If you have some earlier thread suggesting the "cornering" of a walking dead category by buying as many sites as you can within it I'd be interested in reading that thread (whether it's here or elsewhere).
Er, you're making it up as you go along. What "extra tasks" did I suggest?
For starters:
macro:
Someone take a minute away from that hectic one-page-a-day work and update your home page! Do it at least once a year. It is, after all, the face you show the world.
>>For starters
Do continue, I'd love to hear all the other "tasks". This is most interesting :)
*That was my suggestion to the ODP in general and not you as an editor. I doubt normal eds have those priveleges anyway. You'd probably need to be a meta, mega, editall, supermeta, somethingortheother.
I mean really... whats the big deal its one directory! why all this?
enlighten' me plz!
edit:
The Contractor:
LizardGroupie get your jabs somewhere else or stay on topic.
msg #:31 &
Ok, I'll stay on topic...
[edited by: rj87uk at 11:40 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2004]
Read the thread.
My question is why do people see ODP criticisms and automatically assume it's a "my site didn't get listed" issue (instead of actually reading the thread). <sigh>
I have two sites that I built over two years ago. I have tried over and over to get listed in the open directory project but can not get listed. What is the deal with these people? without being listed on their directory aol search and google will not list my sites. I know they use editors for their listings but for some reason these people have decided not to my site. Is there anyone I can contact there to find out what's going on? Or does anybody have any advice on getting listed?
what is the deal with the ODP & won't list my websites
submit and forget.
DMOZ What a bunch of hypocrites,
I've been missing these ODP bashing threads...
Webmasterworld is full of too many ODP-haters and baiters. ;(
..automatically assume it's a "my site didn't get listed" issue
[edited by: rj87uk at 11:50 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2004]
>>Some urls have up to 7-8 listings
There are some sites with tens of thousands of listings (like some news sites etc). That's not an issue if every listing meets the ODP guidelines and rules. But, there is so much else wrong with the ODP as I've been trying to explain in my posts. From a home page that doesn't get updated ... to a search feature that often goes down ... to some categories which are so badly outdated they represent great opportunites (sometimes ODP's problems can generate more money that a listing can :)). So don't just submit and forget! Monitor it. If you aren't getting listed come back and read msg #75.
I read and read... but i cant understand why people are so upset when the website they submit doesnt get listed! Its just one link...I mean really... whats the big deal its one directory! why all this?
Because OPD feeds multitudes of other directories as well as the Google directory--you can't get in Google Dir. without being in ODP first. And a lot of people use Google Dir to find sites to link to and those ranking at the top of the Google dir, i.e., most PR, get the most people requesting you to trade links
In summary: ODP = Google Dir = ODP clones = more traffic = more links = more PR.
If nothing happens after 6 months, go to the ODP Public Forum just to check that it hasn't been rejected. If you think you can see obvious, demonstrable fraud then report it. But by and large.. the site will eventually get reviewed.
Don't worry.. be happy.. :)
