Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Dmoz discussion is allowed because it's 'news' and makes sites popular.
That is true. There are obviously webmasters out there who take an interest in it anyway, though, and ask about it periodically. Presumably WebmasterWorld doesn't want to ban them from doing so.
And conversations like this one DO have useful information in them for webmasters who care and are listening closely. Knowing where the ODP's goals do and do not intersect with those of individual webmasters is valuable information for the people who do consider the ODP a worthwhile site. And those who don't can always skip threads about it, if they want to save some time. I don't see the harm.
Some people think the scrapping of the Google Directory would would reduce the amount of spam directed at the ODP, but I seriously doubt it. It's free to suggest a site, so spammers would probably keep doing it just for the potential benefit of a free themed link, as would non-spammy SEOs and webmasters. Traffic would go down a bit. Google SERPs would stay about the same, I'd bet my hat on that. Probably not much would change, beyond messageboard chatter. :-)
I confess that I am one of these. In my opinion two of the main groups of people spamming the ODP would be reduced:
a) People not knowing better.
Those might read a "How to get ranked in Google" guide mentioning that a listing in the ODP would be great for ranking. So they think "Hey, let's take 10. Or better 100 of those". If ODP was dropped by Google, over time those guides would vanish. At least most of them.
b) Some SEOs who are trying the "make money fast!" system (i.e. without improving sites). If ODP was dropped by Google, those people would try other ways, easier ways.
BTW: After checking the alternative directories, I still can't spot one that would be better for a general search engine. If search engine users were plainly interested in commercial links, I would agree that there are better directories. If the search engine was only up to "make money fast!" I would agree that there are better directories. But as it currently is, I still think my contribution to the ODP is worth the time I spend on it.
If I want to search for a commercial business, I wouldn't use dmoz anyway, I'd use Yell or Google or something.
One of my favorite search strategies for commercial products is to do a search within the Google directory. That way all the results I get back belong to the subset that have been manually reviewed at the ODP (i.e. little spam and not all affiliate sites offering the same product,) but the Google search is scanning the pages for the specific keywords I put in, thus allowing me to narrow my search effectively.
I don't think too many people avail themselves of this option, though.
I wonder if anyone from dmoz reads these posts about them
which is why I am asking if DMOZ should simply be banned from DMOZ.. they dont have an official represenative like Google guy , Yahoo Mike ,MSN Dude etc..
DMOZ dosent because they dont even offer any SERVICES to webmasters like G , Y , Msn etc..
In fatc DMOZ editors have made it clear that DMOZ dosent offer services for webmaster intentionally becuase that isnt what the directory is about...
That assesment is correct so why are DMOZ editors allowed to promote DMOZ? Who cares what dmoz is doing ..they dont offer anything useful for webmasters anyways..other than instructions on how to clone it
Maybe all DMOZ post need to be in the advertising section? personally I'd just ban them since they dont offer any assistance for webmasters.
They have their own forum at dmoz resource center ..I se no reason to allow them to promote here
I don't think the moderators here really want to ban their users from discussing things just because you're frustrated with them. It's a big Internet, and there are a lot of websites and organizations that don't offer services to webmasters yet are still of interest and value to some of the savvier ones.
If threads like these just frustrate you more, I don't blame you for that a bit; but they're easy enough for you to skip, really, without preventing other people from having their discussions.
Dmoz is about quality and there are other quality sites out there that exist for the 'quality purpose', but some are expensive in submission fees, so the web needs something free that replaces dmoz and satisfies webmasters.
Obviously any large project will have problems, but I rarely hear good things about DMOZ and often hear about this type of abuse. If true I suggest DMOZ - for it's own good - consider an automated process where all editors are reviewed and new editors are added on probationary terms to make sure they are legit.
Wikipedia seems to avoid these abuse problems and is becoming a much better resource than DMOZ - I'm not sure how they police content and editing.
DMOZ defenders continue to maintain that the work load is overwhelming while at the same time routinely ignoring or failing to process thousands of well qualified editor applications.
hmmmm I am so tempted to do so - it burns, but I'm doing something major at the moment and have a plan for another directory, but unfortunately not a general one. Also, the time is a big factor and knowing how long it takes to get just one off the ground, to start a brand new one and a general at that, it would have to have some way off fending off the spam and terrible sites out there. It's the time thing really.
If I was to do this, it won't be for a couple of years at least and I'd introduce a review fee, where if spam sites are submitted, they have to pay to be listed and would lose the fee and get booted if they tried spamming. This could stop the spam I guess.
That is the only way of doing it realistically. Free would be perfect and welcomed by webmasters I'm sure, but there has to be something in it for me as I'd be giving up my time to do this.
To accomplish this goal properly - yes!
The submissions would be dealt with so fast compared to dmoz - you wouldn't believe. I'd estimate sites could be listed in 24 hours to start with then as the submissions increase I'd say you would get listed in about 7 weeks, and no longer than that. No 2 years waiting to be listed and all that rubbish lol.
Putting a decent directory together takes planning and cashflow. I'd make dmoz look amateurish.
No offense taken. We _are_ amateurs. I happen to think amateurism has some advantages, actually, over corporatism. But not for your purposes, so go for it! Do it! Make our jaws drop in awe!
If your directory is bigger and better than the ODP and offers itself to Google for free, I'm sure they'd switch, or at least find a way to offer both. It's a big if, but if you did get there, I doubt Google has any directory loyalty to speak of. You'd have to either include non-commercial listings in there or find a way to make your directory easily compatible with the ODP's non-commercial categories if you really wanted that to happen, though.
You'll never know if it would work till you try it. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, or to b*tch about the fact that other people like the lights off at night. ;-)
Yes, ofcourse. I'd handle it myself to start with, upto a limit of 500 submissions per day. No point in paying staff to do something I can easily handle.
All 500 submissions can easily be submitted in a day.
I don't check site descriptions as it's accepted that if the client makes an error, it's the client's fault and these small details can be corrected at a later date anyway. In my experience clients will rarely make a mistake when submitting their company website - it's too much of an important thing to mess up. If they enter the wrong url, they won't get any clickthroughs etc etc.
Only things I check for submissions on a daily basis are:
Correct company name
Region of Company based
No other details are checked. We aren't a quality listing company - we are a commercial publisher. Like Business.com or Google etc. Any entry spelling/grammer errors are corrected naturally ofcourse!
Once it gets to a point where I cannot handle submissions within the allotted time period, I should have some form of investment by then anyway and will pay staff to aid this process.
Agreed, but my site wouldn't be the same model or have dmoz's problems anyway - so your editor staff figure is irrelevant to what I have in mind. Lets just say that it would be vastly different to the way dmoz manages it's directory, as impressive as it is.
Building my directory won't be the problem you think it is. Although maintenance is a different matter - but managed properly, you'd be amazed at what is possible.
I wouldn't be doing that anyway. I have a different agenda at this time.
So would you be willing to work, say, the first year for free, fulltime? (Much like those thousands of editors have done, actually...)
Good luck by the way....
What I'm offering is fast entry, great service at an affordable price. Price has to be just right so most can afford the services.
Our paid services will be fairly cheap, until such a point as site's popularity reaches growth and then the prices go up according to the results wanted. We have to deliver and we will deliver. Once we reach product maturity a decision will be made on whether to keep it going or not.
This is no PR or get rich scheme, we have no interest in that route. We take pride in our quality, just not to the extent of dmoz, as timing is critical for other projects.