dmoz /Adult/Image_Galleries/Hardcore/Free/F/ dmoz /Adult/Image_Galleries/Hardcore/Group_Sex/Free/G/ dmoz /Adult/Image_Galleries/Hardcore/Free/H/ http://dmoz /Adult/Image_Galleries/Video_Clips/Hardcore/Short_Clips/Free/ Hahah so Dmoz is really dmoz. cool quality! so everything is fair in love and War!!!!
Everyone rants about getting into DMOZ and yeah perhaps it does help, but as far as I'm concerned the sites listed are mainly out of date or at least certainly not "quality" sites, the sooner it's completely abandoned the better!
Yes And in all addition to this it does not run on a database If it had run on database This problem of this magnitude(dmoz not being able to accept submissions)would have never occured
It just amazes me that such an "Authority site" doesnt have either the technical ability or the sense to back up properly, surely this would have enabled them to just roll back to the last good backup and cary on !!!!
Well to get technical about it, AOL-Time Warner actually owns Netscape and DMOZ and AOL is the one who holds all of the DMOZ cards.
And now What is AOL doing? I think Google gave so much importance to Dmoz because of these factors only When Google was started first Dmoz was only the Big directory around with over 1 million listings So google crawled Dmoz again and again since it had lesser resources at the time And this why Google gave so much importance to Dmoz
From the looks of it, laying of call center employee's. Sure that makes sense and is probably a big part of it. That being said, how is that dmoz's fault though? Blame Google, IMO.
It is not the fault of DMOZ that Google put more faith in the directory than it ever deserved. It is the fault of DMOZ for allowing the project to degrade to it's current sorry state.
Those working (or purportedly working if you prefer) on the situation are AOL techs and not dmoz editors, the 'sponsor' is doing it. So when it is officially back or officially gone, you will have your answer as to what the 'sponsor' really wanted.
I would like to see something other than rumor or "I have heard..." or "I know..." to substantiate this statement. Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that AOL techs have taken this long to resurrect the dying beast. If true, it's further evidence that they're not giving it much priority.
I think all of us would like to see something official publiclly from AOL. Only AOL can speak for themselves, so until they step up and say something, all we can do is speculate. The fact remains though, that only AOL can be working on their servers. Not ODP editors (no matter how technical they are) so any changes that are being done are being done by AOL.
If that's the extent of your evidence, it's pretty weak. Any webmaster with shared hosting can be "working on" a site and/or database that has gone bellyup for whatever reason. They don't usually have "access" to the servers either - merely to the sites hosted on the servers.
Very true, but I wasn't speculating about the pages being genereated. I was speaking specifically of the server problems. Only AOL can access the servers to make any repairs or upgrades, not the editors. The editors cannot make any changes to the directory data if they servers are not available to us, and only AOL can determine when/if the servers will be available. The editors can and are doing things unrelated to the servers, that are within their abiliities. However, it is all moot until AOL gives the official all clear and brings the servers back up.