i have heard a lot about DMOZ and thought very high about it but today i came across a website which has less then 200 words,2 pages and listed in DMOZ.can anyone explain how this is possible? Website: http://gironaairport.tripod.com/ dmoz location : http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe...munities/Catalonia/Girona/Travel_and_Tourism/
Please feel free to offer the site in your signature to us if you think it is better than the ones we have got, but no one is guaranteeing when it will be reviewed.
i have submitted it already but what i want to know is this website which have mentioned has just two pages and 200 words .if i am not wrong.i have read in guide lines that complete sites ,with contents etc for DMOZ so what is the criteria or its just pure luck
I don't think it should be in dmoz... It's a PR due to being on a tripod address, therefore tripod is the PR5
DMOZ is full of spam, out-dated sites and sites not-meeting their guidelines. Yet, getting listed in DMOZ is almost impossible, as well as applying for editor and getting accepted. You can read across this forum for conversations regarding this suspicious reality. There is a lot of sites listed on DMOZ which have no reasonable explanations. These sites doesn't meet listability guidelines but editors refuse to remove them. No body understands why is that. As for the original question: DMOZ can give your site a little traffic (if you are lucky) and a little pagerank to your site. In the other hand your site will be listed among spammy, low quality sites —as you already noted. A user browsing the category can see that from two different points of view: it would look better as the rest of sites there can't compete with it. Or it's just another low-quality site, since the category itself seems to be a low-quality list.
LOL ! Just like the X-Files (Plausible Deniability) You have to understand that there are only about 200 active editors so its impossible.
... and some dmoz editor sell their service with 100% guarantee listed. they are su(k, and Google still trust it. Silly!
Is this a good example of how a directory should be run http://www.wwebdirectory.com/index.php?s=2&category_id=144&country_id=3 ? It's a good job DMOZ is of such low quality that Google still chooses to use it for their directory it has many others to chose from, I have given an example above. I think many people still believe we are influenced by page rank or flashy sites. It matters not to us how good the site is, it's page rank or anything else; only does it offer unique content and then it can be written in pencil, with bad spelling and grammar on toilet paper and I will list it.
DMOZ has hundreds of one-page spammy sites listed. I think that's what editors call "unique content". Sites created using FrontPage in about three to four minutes just for adding some ads on it. A website must be qualified by taking several factors into account. Obviously there are three you have to look at in the first place: content quality, content disposition, and look-and-feel. Content quality: the actual information in the site and its veracity. Nothing to do with uniqueness. Having up-to-date, clear information is what really matters. I could write hundred of sites with unique content and they could be really useless if it's old information or wrong data. Content disposition: information must be ordered for being useful. And relevant data should be easy to find. Look and feel: Having a lot of information (even useful information) but an ugly design is worthless. It's much better creating a site in pure HTML with H1 and P tags than using a FrontPage template. Those are the first three factors anyone familiar with internet would appreciate about a website if they are asked about its quality. DMOZ editors' work doesn't fit with this. That's why most users complain about DMOZ poor quality.
Not if you want information and the only site is one that does not handle well but does have the information you need. I reckon that I would want that one rather then 100 others which all felt nice, handled well but did not have the unique piece of information that I needed and all repeated the same old junk that was no help to me. Yes we like sites that work well and feel well, but we have no problem about listing sites that don't if they carry the right information. I have listed some bad sites in my 30,000 or so listings, I am glad that other editors removed some of them, so I kn ow that there are some sites in DMOZ that I might de list or never have listed, but to suggest that we all spend our spare time almost deliberately listing sites that are no help is just not true or that most sites in DMOZ are spammy. Also the people who criticise our listings do often seem to be the people who complain that their site is not listed. Interesting that. On the whole I will not comment on individual sites but this thread began by someone complaining that they had just found, sort of stumbled upon accidentally, a site that they thought was not as good as the one they had in their signature! They may well be right, but we have had another site listed and it may be a while before an editor gets around to wanting to review that category again and perhaps add or change what we have. Though I think the op has submitted the site to the wrong category if it was submitted at all. But no, it has to be done NOW, and the people demanding don't want to offer their spare time to do any of the work. This is a voluntary project, with volunteers giving up their spare time for no financial reward, not a commercial directory. Some want it to be commercial, but it isn't. Neither do we bribe Google or all the other downloaders to use us. They make a choice to do that. We exist to fulfil our desire to have a hobby of collecting and collating websites and that designed to give the searcher unique content sites that are categorised.
Half the work seemingly has already been done... the site was submitted! In fact, the actual HARD work was already done... the site was created. Try working on your hobby WITHOUT the webmaster and see how many sites you can list Does a person really need to be an editor get their site listed? Funny that...
Let's pick a link at random < http://margo.student.utwente.nl/admin/linuxlogo.html > and take a look to it. It's a transcript of Linus Torvald's idea for a Linux 2 logo. There are thousands of sites showing the exact same text, but adding a lot of content to it. If I ask you to submit this link to DMOZ you would say it's a waste of time. But, it's already listed. Unique and relevant content, for sure.
that site is listed there rather then http://www.linux.org/info/penguin.html because http://www.linux.org/info/logos.html is already in the same category... we wouldn't want too many deeplinks that don't belong to editors now would we?
Just because your don't agree with something it doesn’t mean that information is useless. Maybe for you but you are NOT representing spectrum of general public and their interests and surely public never elected you to be the judge what is important and what is not. Dah! LOL, guess why Who said that DMOZ editors have no sense of humor?