More proof of how lame DMOZ is

Ain't that the truth. And it's especially hard when you don't know who the posters are, what sites they own and signature links are so commonly sold. What a mess!

 

Yeah, annie, it kind of screws up any kind of lists one might want to create, should one be so inclined.

Fortunately, our focus is on the sites themselves and what's best for the web surfer, and not on the big mouths that own the sites, .

 

You are right, it is unbiased, and not fair. Thank you for showing the true color of DMOZ today. What you have said has shown many people just what kind of editors populate the directory.

I am proud to be on the list that would prompt my site to be delisted based on a few minutes of server trouble while sites not on the list have been down for weeks on end yet retain their listing. Unbiased indeed, where such a list exists.

Though maybe if the editors would be a bit more fair we "big mouths" would not need to be so vocal about how unfair the directory truly is.

So, to recap on what is best for the web surfer, 10,000 CNN links, thousands of which are redirects or dead links, and 10,000 topix listings in regional where most should be deleted in favor of a higher directory listing, while site after site can not get even a single listing. Yes, two sites with over 20k listings sure help the average surfer more then 20k sites with single listings.

Lame? Not totally, but certainly not fair, and from the looks of it, a bit biased.

So I'm sorry that the truth can hurt and that those that speak the truth make you "less than ambitious to accidently list one of them" but if it's an unbiased directory that you are defending, then show us how it is unbiased...you've already said it's not fair.

 

Ah, you're a good guy, Q, deep down, but you keep allowing yourself to get hung up on topics that have been addressed over and over again, .

Surprisingly, my big mouth comment wasn't aimed at you and Ivan, you're like old friends now, and I believe your sincerity, as misguided as it might be.

 

Ya know, I'd stop bringing up the same old same old, once they are properly addressed and dealt with.

Ya see, I'm trying to make the OPD look fair in the eyes of all involved, and honestly I would settle for unbiased....but as it stands, unbiased does not even cover how it is set up and maintained.

So yeah, I keep bringing up TOPIX and CNN, and why shouldn't I, I mean, you said the directory was unbiased, those two sites needed to be mentioned (again) to show that unbiased is certainly the wrong word.

 

What makes you think you were delisted because of a few minutes of server trouble? It seems like the odds of an editor wandering by and checking it at that moment would be pretty slim.

I spend a lot of my editing time checking those and relisting them if they're back up or I can find a new URL for the site. I hate to see sites sitting in unreviewed that have already been reviewed and listed.

Geez y'all. We're just people who have a weird compulsion to work our butts off for free. So shoot me for finding it easier to list sites that are submitted to the correct cat with an accurate title and description where all I have to do is go to the site and look around a little to verify that it is listable. I spend most of my editing time in areas I actually have some interest in - lots more enjoyable that looking at websites that bore me to death.

 

Actually, Topix is very useful to have in many small localities (cities) that don't have a local newspaper to cover the news, so even if they hadn't been mass added (which is really putting the cart before the horse) , hundreds of them would have been added one by one any way.

On the other hand, they are sometimes very hit and miss, in covering the local news, and they get deleted for that reason if a better site is available. The same is true for a bunch of weather sites that were mass added.

The fact that Topix was added by one of our founders, and that that founder had something to do with Topix, is a sore point among many editors, and not standard procedure, but again, despite those facts, the sites can and are of value to the residents of small towns, and that's our main goal, to be of service to web surfers.

As there are tens of thousands of localities, and the Topix and weather sites are fairly informational sites for the benefit of the public, I can see a case for getting them into the Directory all at once, it might takes years to add them one by one. That's not a cop out, it's an unbiased opinion.

Were they unusual unconventional steps? Hell yes. Did we all agree with it after the fact? Hell no. Was there some kind of financial gain intended by the founder? I really don't know if it was completely for that purpose, the sites are useful, so it was probably half of each, financial gain and useful sites that should have been listed. You'd have to ask Rich Skrenta.

Are they being deleted? Yes, the ones that don't meet our needs, and any editor can do that, but it's not a real high priority for most of us, I think, any more than the weather sites are.

Does that give any of you the right to mass submit something? Hell, no. Build your own damn directory, and fill it with whatever you want to, you aren't Rich Skrenta, and you aren't a founder of this directory.

Compostannie and suzy1212 might know more about this than I do, I'm just putting bits and pieces together, it's not a big issue to me.

 

I agree, those odds are pretty slim aren't they.

You are right. The directory is unbiased. An editor can have 10k++ sites listed, but I don't have the right to have (or apparently even submit) more then one

I'd really rather see the largest human editor directory be just that HUMAN EDITED by removing the automated entires such as CNN and TOPIX. I love the premise of the ODP, I just wish it would be open. If that upsets you, then I'm sorry...

 

Nope, doesn't upset me at all, , neither do the mass adds. There's too many really good things about the Directory that are much more important and interesting to me. Like what suzy1212 is doing in her cats.

 

For the greater good then?

"yeah, we show favoritism, but hey, the sites we do list ROCK!"

or maybe...

"Yeah, we have some cat's filled with dead links, but look how nice these other cats are."

I can agree that there are MANY great things within the project, but that does not take away from all of the bad things.

 

Name ONE cat filled with dead links. We don't need a bunch or even a few... just find ONE.

We'll wait.

 

CNN archives.

And are you sure you just want one?
http://www.dmoz.org/News/Online_Archives/CNN.com/2003/May/Weather/]

 

Nothing is ever as perfect as we might like it to be, and as robjones said, we welcome having dead sites pointed out to us (if our automated QC tools don't catch them), there's a special thread devoted at the Resource Zone for reporting such sites.

If you think some of the things in the Directory, like the few times there have been mass adds by staff, are favoritism, well you're welcome to have that opinion, but they aren't going away because of your disapproval (or mine either) , so you're beating a dead horse, .

If you look hard enough at anything, you're bound to find things that aren't right with it, especially something as large as the Directory, but you should also consider the lack of man power and resources available to correct those things as quickly as they should be corrected, and be willing to have a little more flexibility and tolerance in your views.

 

Oh, I know they will not going away, and frankly that IS the problem!

And it's problems like that, that are making DMOZ itself, the dead horse. How can you claim to be unbiased when it's perfectly normal for one site to have 10,000 or more listings while another site can not even have one?

How is that not favoritism?

 

Because the 10,000 have some value to web surfers (or least the major majority of them do), and the one might have no value at all. That's not favoritism, that's unbiased editing based on the facts.

 

Let me know when English wikipedia passes 10,000 since it is far more valuable then all Topix and CNN links put together.
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=en.wikipedia

 

Do you even read what you post, crowbar? "unbiased editing"?

As for, "have some value to web surfers", WHAT web surfers? There are only three groups of people who even know about DMOZ:

1. DMOZ editors (the requisite 4 times per year or whatever the ridiculously low number of visits is);
2. family and friends of DMOZ editors (for the few who are able to actually get friends);
3. webmasters looking to see whether their sites are listed or whether their competitors' sites are listed.

• "Web surfers" don't even know DMOZ exists.
• Even if they did somehow learn about the existence of DMOZ, they don't use directories to find information - they use search engines.
• Even if for some reason they felt compelled to use a directory, they would use Yahoo!, not DMOZ.

 

So, Topixs fits the criteria for deeplinks?

If it does, then why are there not more sites with them? OH YEAH, your unbiased editing of including topix 10k times is an automated system. Largest human edited directory? yeah, only with the help of robots!

You can NOT call the adding of Topix links "unbiased editing" when a human did not add them!

Besides, "In the vast majority of categories and branches, deeplinking is the exception rather than the rule." So any clue just how many other sites within the project have 10k deeplinks that all fit the "exception" or is this just limited to editor affiliates?

You can call it unbiased all you like I guess, anyone and everyone else can see it for what it is...even the editor that added them.

 

I think you're probably right, minstrel. I use the Google search myself, or I head on over to Wiki. Mainly because a Google search is faster, and wiki has has wonderful information.

My third choice might be to look in the Directory for sites that are all gathered together in one spot about the topic or geographic information, but, as you said I know about the Directory, most surfers wouldn't.

But, the way we select and organize sites seems to have value for those other search engines and directories or they wouldn't be using our data, they'd be collecting their own. Perhaps they do both, which would be wise, but I don't see any reason we should change what we're doing or how we do it because none of those factors you mentioned are a consideration for us.

We simply selectively list data and organize it with the web surfer in mind, so it's there. How outside entities use it, or how the web surfer gets to the information is something we have no control over.

We need to do a better job of making ourselves known to the web surfer, so they have a different kind of option when looking for info, that's true. Our blog is one attempt to do that. Though it's mostly the pros who are reading and commenting on it right now, it's really meant for the web surfer.

Am I wrong to say that search engines and Directories have different purposes? Directories collect and organize data, and search engines find, rank, and deliver that information to the searcher by using the data that directories list and organize?

Two different kinds of entities, with different purposes, shouldn't behave the same way, should they? Aren't the rules different because the purposes are different?

 

They both serve the same end user, and both have the same basic concept backing them up. To deliver the best possible result/sites for a given term (separated by search term and/or category).