To most editors you will find there is no "market" other then the editors themselves.... so really, as long as you are NOT an editor, according to them, your voice will never be heard. Try to contact AOL yourself and get your voice heard, contact google and get your opinions known.
Well. Not too guilty anyway. I would say I'm 80% sure about one of this guys. The other one I really don't know. Believing this ex-editor is just like believing what crowbar says here. As there is no proof I have to follow my instinct.
You can read across this forum and other where DMOZ editors talk with webmasters. You will find out there is no chance they will hear what we're saying. You can check in posts like: forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12216217&postcount=55 or forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1442993&page=2 You can go to res...zone.com, a forum started by editors, and take a look. You will see how editors reply to feedback.
Well, that's a simple one -- webmasters are not DMOZ' 'market'; end-users (i.e. people who browse the directory) are. They are not here to serve you, me, or anyone else on this forum as a webmaster. Now, I'm sure if you gave them a suggestion regarding how to enhance the end-user experience, your suggestion may not fall on deaf ears...
Welcome, cocoonfx. The ODP is free because we are all volunteers who do the work for free. It's a community project that's meant to serve information seekers rather than information providers, and we do it as a hobby. As such, I think we've done quite well in becoming the world's largest Directory, so the current model seems to be a good one, though it can always use improvements. Becoming a paid Directory would be an AOL decision, as they own it and support it financially, it's their money, and their call, not ours (the editing community). As most of us have real jobs, and view this as a hobby, I believe going to a paid system would cause most of us to leave. A lot of people might applaud that, but what would probably happen would be a long delay in anybody being listed because a huge amount of new people would have to be trained. I also suspect, that sites that are not listable, would not suddenly become listable for money, and they would lose whatever they paid in. There must be a reason that no paid Directory is anywhere near as large as the Dmoz Directory is, so I suspect there must be reasons that that type of system hasn't been overwhelmingly successful, but there are paid directories out there that you could take advantage of. Added: I also think that becoming a paid directory would be an insult to all of us who have worked freely all these years to build something for the Internet community.
DMOZ traffic has been decreasing in the last eight years. I see that as an end-user reaction. In the other hand, who uses DMOZ directly? What's DMOZ end-user profile?
Funny you should say that, I was researching Croatia just the other day and ended up following a link from Wikipedia to DMOZ. It's probably one of the very few directories that people do actually use to access information.
As a firefox-search bar user I rank this engines: 1. Google 2. Wikipedia 3. Dictionary.com 4. rae.es 5. IMdB 6. Yahoo!
I use Google search exclusively, for personal searches, but Dmoz is not a search engine, big difference between a search engine and a directory.
We aren't st**id. We know the difference. I would be rich if I had a cent for every time a DMOZ editor explains the difference between a search engine and DMOZ.
I think you're trying to dispute a tangent point. My point is: your suggestions are generally null and void because they serve your intentions as a webmaster. As I said, if you made an end-user suggestion, it'd probably be looked at. The rest of what you're saying is moot and has nothing to do with what I'm even trying to get you to grasp. Who uses DMOZ directly? I don't know -- I've come across it a few times while researching, so I'm sure there are others that have too. I don't navigate to the ODP, then try and research, but if it happens to come up on G, there's no reason to disregard it. I think the simplest way to explain the decline in traffic has little to do with the overall quality of the directory (which you seem to be inferring?), but moreso because search has become more sophisticated. (See: Google) It's pretty hard for a manual directory to keep up with a mostly automated algorithm. I thought that was pretty obvious! I can understand why crowbar felt the need to explain it to you; you did just rattle off a list containing SEs. Note: I'm not an editor, and I'm not here to defend the directory. I just think you may be a little unsure of what you're even talking about now.
Well, I do, but I know about the Directory, most people probably don't. Search engines are king at finding specific information quickly. The Directory is king at giving a searcher a wide view of a topic as a whole, and showing you a lot of information that you might not know existed, therefore you wouldn't search for it. It expands your horizons.
Apparently if you look hard enough in some categories you can see the fossils of web sites that died many millions of years ago! jk
My suggestions and suggestions made by other webmasters aren't void or null. Editors chose to think they are void because they prefer that, to changing a situation which gives them some privileges. You are welcome to quote my suggestions and explain why they are void. If you have read a single suggestion I made at all. Moreover, I would like you to explain how will I get benefit from my suggestions. If you can't explain that, you accusation is NULL with capitals. May be you though I had a submission pending on DMOZ. Which nobody but editors knows for real. May be a friend of mine suggested my site and forgot to tell me. May be a girl mad at me suggests my site on a weekly basis and makes it look like spam. Who knows?
How is it possible to give a wider view if you have a short, poorly maintained list of websites? Including sites in the wrong category and sites outdated by eight years or more.
Maybe you should invest in more flowers for her. That might be a problem for you, perhaps, but not for us, as we're not a listing service. We build categories and there's lots of other sites out there. Wouldn't affect us in the least.
I never said it was a problem for you. But it would be more interesting to answer the question about how do you give a wider view with such poor content.