I submit my site to DMOZ for almost 7 months, but until now my site isn't indexed. So why really DMOZ is popular?
I have never heard a concrete answer from anyone as to why it is so important to be listed, and what it does for them as a site owner/webmaster, but, I will say this...what ever magic it used to hold and status as a "Human Edited Directory", therefore supposedly returning a better quality of websites..is all but gone in my eyes. There are many times that I have checked on competing websites to see if they were listed, and found sites that are listed, but have been defunct for some time...many times years, yet still part of the "Human Edited" Directory. To me the DMOZ has become a huge dinosaur of dead links and old information. I see websites listed that are now parking pages, different niches all together, and links to "good bye" pages where the website has ceased to exist, some as old as 2004...I mean really...in 5 years an editor doesn't notice a dead link on the first page of a category that only has 2 pages? (and that is in categories with only a hand full of listings). Sites like that would be dropped to the back of the serps in most major search engines, if not removed all together, but in DMOZ they still live as a quality listing. So why would people use it ? Example :http://www.naughtybooth.com/goodbye.html - closed in 2007... http://spins.atonline.com/ - closed in 2004... http://www.djwoody.com/ - No activity since 2006.. .http://www.legal-mp3.co.uk/ - Last updated in 2006.... http://clubdessai.tripod.com/ - Nothing but Google ads, no content. ....and many of these were right in a row on the first page of a category..I didn't have to look hard they were all listed one after the other, so how the DMOZ is still considered effective today is beyond my understanding. I just happen to remember some of these sites and they only live and can be found in DMOZ , making it more of an archive of what used to be good sites, rather than a directory of quality. I have a custom search engine on one of my sites that returns better results of quality related sites. Is it possible that I just happen to close my eyes and pick the one category that hasn't had an editor in 5 years ? Maybe, but if that is so, then how effective is it really as a "credible" directory ? The directory doesn't appear to be as active or as reliable as it used to be for quality listings, and it appears that the "Human" part of it has become it's achilles heel in providing reliable information and quality websites. I don't see how being listed along side old and irrelevant websites, and dead links gives your website any credibility at all, yet so many would actually pay for it. Strange. After searching for a category and getting 4 or 5 dead sites in a row, I don't see how the average surfer would have any faith in the directory as a whole either, nor return..I mean who keeps going back to a directory with bad information? So I ask the same question...What does the DMOZ do ? For you ? For the web ? And where is the quality information that it supposedly provides ? The good thing about that is, it seems that once a domain is listed, no one ever goes back to see if it still exists so it is a lifetime listing. I have always said, I don't see what the big deal is anymore. At this point I am almost convinced that the majority of the hype, and traffic for DMOZ comes from webmasters trying to get in, not web users , or consumers looking for information, or quality sites. I just happened to go back and pick a category at random : http://www.airbrushtattoos.com.au/ - Site not found (Listed Number 1 !) http://www.barnadreams.com/english.htm - Site not found http://members.tripod.com/alantsu/index.htm - Nothing. No Content. http://inkbrothers.com/ - out of Business since 2007 ..again all of these on the same page.
All editors are volunteers, as you know, and it is impossible to keep watch over each of the hundreds of thousands of categories. Fortunately there are a number of automated link checkers which find the vast majority of dead sites, but they will always miss a small percentage, which is why we keep asking people like yourself who notice problems to report them so that a human can attend to it. Having found them, it seems sensible to report them so they can be fixed, otherwise your time will have been wasted. There are two very simple methods of reporting them (both taking no longer than it did to post them here ): in the QC thread at Resource Zone, or by using the Update URL tool on the category page. Thanks for helping!
With so many listings, I am sure it is all but impossible to catch everything, and I don't know how the volunteer thing is set up...if editors are assigned to certain categories, or it's just a free for all with everyone involved in every category. You are right, I certainly could report all the crappy sites, dead links, and sites that haven't been touched since the Pentium 2, at the very least in the categories that I am listed in, or, I could recognize the opportunity to build my own current database of information and knowledge in that niche to provide a real resource of quality sites and articles, since one doesn't exist....tough call.
Are you crazy? They can't do that! They will have nothing to whinge about if they did that! They want to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution! If DMOZ has 5 million listings and if 0.001% when 404 each day (or each week), then thats 5000 sites down a day (or a week). How can any directory keep on top of that (let alone review the zillion new sites created every day)? I just noticed that Yahoo! Directory has a lot of dead links as well. Can I ask why no one is complaining about them as well?
I'm assuming that I am the "they" that you are talking about in this thread and I don't see how expressing my opinion to a question by the O.P is being a part of anyone else's problem...and you are also assuming that I should want to be a part of someone else's solution. My view is, if it is too much to keep up with and still retain the quality of it's listings, then maybe a different way of doing business is in order. Because this thread is not about Yahoo.
I still don't understand why you can't spend 3 minutes reporting the dead sites you found so that they can be attended to, when it took much longer than that to a) find them, b) post about them here, and c) keep complaining about dead sites which aren't attended to.
Er no, that would be the Wikipedia model, not DMOZ. There are a few hundred volunteers who can edit anywhere (if they choose), but that freedom is given only to the most experienced in the community. Most editors have permissions in a very limited area until they can demonstrate an understanding of the editorial guidelines.
I'm not complaining about them, I was merely pointing them out. dead sites in DMOZ are not some big secret, as with just about every directory. Actually, it took me a lot less time to find them, many were all listed right in a row on the same page...I wasn't exactly looking for them...I clicked a link and it was old, went down the next one, and so was it...and so on. Why are you on my case about the directory that you are an editor in. You are now aware of them, is there some rule that says you can't get involved and report them?...after all you are the volunteer. I think you guys are confused about if I am under some obligation to help a directory clean up dead links...I don't volunteer there.... just pointing out some things that I found since this section of the forum is about DMOZ. It doesn't affect my existence one way or the other, so I don't know why you are all in such an uproar just because I pointed a few things out. If you all care so much...stop bitching at me and start hunting down links and reporting them. If I get around to it, I may, but I may not..As I said, I am working on my own reliable source of information in that niche, so why do I care that someone else is dropping the ball? Get real.
Oh no, I'm not confused at all. The confusion about obligation seems to be entirely on your side. As for "cleaning them up" myself, doing so in response to a post here would bypass the easily accessible and efficient system that already exists for reporting them. However, many editors read these forums, and if any of us feel like hunting out the sites you mention, we can do so. Your interest (albeit limited) in quality control is appreciated.
Wow......"if we feel like doing so". You do understand that it is just a directory ...right ? You also understand that you work for them, and not me so if anyone is supposed to care, shouldn't it be you ? Why spend so much time worrying about my level of concern when it is your directory. I don't work for them. I don't have any affiliation with the DMOZ at all. Seems strange that you seem to have the attitude that I am supposed to do something. Who cares how you came about the knowledge ? If this is the level of arrogance and bureaucracy to get something done there, I can understand why so many dead links exist when the volunteers would rather point the finger, than fix the problem. What if I don't feel like creating an account to report them ? You felt the need to comment on the fact that I pointed them out...., so now you know exactly who and where they are....what's the problem ? You already have an account ...report them....you would rather spend time discussing why I don't do it ? Absolutely incredible.
Er no I don't. Like all editors I am a volunteer, and like all volunteers I am perfectly free to choose how to spend my time when I feel like spending it on DMOZ activities. I might do some quality control work, as you have suggested, or I might do any of a great many other editing activities. My choice.
Well I am not a volunteer. I'm just some guy on a forum. If I had to hope who would care more, I would hope it would be the volunteer.