More proof of how lame DMOZ is

But aren't most search engines charging fees, and trying to make a profit? Whereas the Directory charges nothing to anyone? All data is freely given to everyone.

The Directory does provide a way for websites to link directly to it, for the public's benefit.

 

What other search engines? Yahoo has a long history and their directory had value in the early days of the web when search engines were still in their infancy and Yahoo was THE big gun. Google saw that and a few years ago ventured into the directory realm using a customized DMOZ dump in order to compete with the Yahoo Directory. But that's ancient history now. The tables have turned and Yahoo (and Microsoft) are now trying to emulate Google's model given its obvious and phenomenal success. In the process, with no need to chase Yahoo any longer, Google has progressively pushed it's DMOZ-fed directory into the hidden corners of its back pages, barely even bothering to update the feed let alone publicize its existence.

There was still some demand for DMOZ feeds for a while based on webmasters who saw a possibility for monetizing the feeds and fattening their wallets by creating their own directories with a minimum of work. For a time, it was commonly believed that all those DMOZ clones added to the value of a DMOZ listing by cloning listings and thereby adding PageRank value. I doubt that that was ever really true but it's certainly not true now.

Legitimate directories these days DO collect their own data. I don't know of a single legitimate directory (other than the well-hidden Google version) these days that uses a DMOZ dump.

I don't expect my comments or the criticisms of anyone else to have any impact on anything DMOZ editors do - I've long ago given up on any hope of that. I have never believed that DMOZ has any interest in whether what they do has any value for anyone other than themselves. It's like a club for people who collect matchbook covers or old Avon bottles - the point is in amassing the collection, not whether it actually means anything or has any value.

Evidently not. Again, what web surfers? What has DMOZ ever done to actually identify a target audience other than editors?

And no interest in.

Why? If you were truly interested in that, DMOZ would have a very different organizational model.

That's positively laughable. Why on earth would average web surfers have any interest in reading a self-promotional blog about a pointless directory they'll never use?

Yes, you are wrong. Whatever directories do, search engines do not rely on directories to "find, rank, and deliver" information to searchers. They have their own spiders which are far more efficient in doing that than any directory, especially a human edited directory, can ever hope to do.

In the vast majority of cases, directories have their own rules because it suits the directory owners, not because they have a different purpose or even any purpose at all other than benefitting the owners and editors - that includes DMOZ.

 

I don't think that accurately describes either DMOZ or the majority of other general directories.

Some do; some don't. That in itself has little to do with the value of a directory.

So does any other web site. And that is usually for the benefit of the web site or directory, not for the benefit of the public.

I've been of the opinion (and publicly stating that opinion) for at least 3 years that there is little or no value to the average surfer in general directories. They are simply to clumsy to navigate and maintain to provide the kind of currency, relevance, and quality control that would make them actually helpful in finding information. The day of the general directory ended a long time ago. They now hang on solely for the benefits of owners (profit) and editors (profit and perceived status).

There is a place for niche directories with real quality control and strict criteria for site selection (one example in my own profession is therapist directories).

 

I think that's true right now, it may change in the future.

True again, it doesn't have any effect on our editing tasks inside the Directory.

That could very well be true, but my experience in business has been that no business can survive long without customer satisfaction with the services offered. Even if they spend a million dollars on state of the art everything, if the service isn't there, they won't survive, they'll go under in short time.

Even though the Directory and it's editors do not make any kind of profit, whatsoever, and offers it's data freely to everyone at no charge, and we don't offer a service, the fact that it's still in existance is proof enough that it does provide a value of some sort to outside entities.

If the Directory ceases to exist, then it's a win-win situation for everybody. Most of you can stop fretting over not being listed, and most of us can find other hobbies, .

 

Highly unlikely. The relevance of DMOZ has clearly been declining for several years. There is no objective reality that would suggest things will turn around in the future.

That doesn't apply with DMOZ. First, customer satisfaction isn't an issue because DMOZ has no customers. Second, the costs to AOL/Time Warner are negligible.

Not at all. It's proof that there are still a lot of hobbyists who like being DMOZ editors, still a lot of other editors who think being an editor gives them some kind of prestige, and still more than a few who think they can use DMOZ to give them some credibility in the SEO industry or to promote their own sites. It tells you absolutely nothing about value to anyone who isn't already involved with DMOZ.

It would not be a win-win situation for many editors - see above.

 

That is probably true. A lot of us do enjoy collecting sites, and a lot of us do get a kick out of putting a small city on the Internet map, or listing a small nobody business struggling to survive. In that sense, there is prestige in empowering someone by getting them listed, but it's less about power and more about empowering.

There's also the good feeling of being entrusted with higher or wider privleges within the Directory because you've got the experience and knowledge to be trusted with the privleges by your fellow editors. We get very few rewards, I suppose that could be considered one of them.

I would consider that a legitimate claim of truth, if an seo or webmaster was an editor, but they'd have to be more careful than the rest of us to keep the two seperated. No call to be envious though, anyone can apply. Whether they're accepted or not is another matter of course, but I've seen new ones accepted recently.

As long as they list the competitors along with their own site, and treat each equally, there's not a problem. Not listing their own site would be a reversed discrimination, and not considered unbiased editing. It works both ways.

 

Minstrel can say whatever about the directory's relevance, but the telling fact... he made sure his OWN site got there.

 

By becoming an editor and listing it himself? Oh no, wait... he was never an editor. After all, I'm sure his site isn't worthy of a sacred DMOZ link, and that he either paid someone or had to of listed it himself. I mean, there is just no other way his site could have been listed otherwise... right? I mean, it's just absurd that a website could find itself linked too from a web directory *keys spooky music*

Oh, I guess none of that really matter though does it. Heh, you are just trolling ain't ya?

 

Q has already made the point but would you care to answer that, robjones? You have been quick to dismiss any criticisms from me as coming from someone who was never a DMOZ editor and I'm sure as hell not popular with DMOZ editors like you so... just how was I able to "make sure [my] OWN site got there"? You can't have it both ways.

So... Just how exactly did I manage to do that, troll?

 

Thanks for the laugh.

 

Which ever editor that works for them seemingly is in real estate.

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_...es/U/Upland/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/]

Has eight listings for agents that work for Century21 Prestige Properties (as well as their main link).

Now I wonder which editor works in real estate...

 

Q, not sure how much you did in Regional while you were with us, but see http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html - the publicly-available Real Estate guidelines.

It is legit to list the agency site and a site for each agent, at the editor's discretion. The individual sites need to have good and unique content though, and that is one of the toughest things to spot.

 

LOL. Minstrel... you're my new hero. I just made ten bucks. Had a bet I could get you to personally point out we don't just delist sites of known jerks and there isn't a need to have pull with an editor to get listed.

Only way I'll ever top that one is if Pavlov's dog logs in. Thanks!

btw... tell your girlfriend there to recheck her URL... no C-21 listing on that page. Have a nice day.

 

Oh, that's fine, I was mainly just making a "works for Prestige" joke. It was going after real estate, a cabinet maker, or some silly movie. Real Estate, given it's nature, I thought would be the easiest mark

 

What have you won? You get paid to troll now is that it? Or wait... not only do you get paid to troll, you are betting on trolling methods? Fantastic. Truly a meta in the making. The admin and staff of the directory likely have you in their sights for a promotion. When you get there be sure to put in a good word for Anon, he is equally unhelpful...

It's good to see that you are following in Nebby's footsteps. maybe you and her could hook up sometime and have little troll babies. I'm sure that second gen editors would be welcome within the project.

yeah, noticed that my self. I'll fix it in a moment.

Though you may wish to send Minstrel a PM for mental help. It really does seem you have gender confusion issues. OH WAIT... you're just a troll, lol...I keep forgetting that that you are not here to help. Silly me.

 

I'm not sure I understand why you would view this as anything to celebrate.

Would you care to point out where, at this forum or anywhere else, I have ever claimed my listings (yes, plural) had been deleted or where I have ever denied that I was listed in DMOZ?

I don't recall ever submitting any of those sites to DMOZ, although it is a possibility with the oldest of them. The others were added by DMOZ editors on their merits without any prompting from me. Indeed, I wasn't aware until Google alerts informed me that they even existed.

So, to return to topic, how does any of this reply to your ludicrous and clearly incorrect statement that I somehow "made sure" to get my site listed? That was obviously (1) a blatant lie, (2) a deliberately misleading claim, and (3) a ridiculous claim to have made for any reason other than trolling.

Do you at least have the decency to admit it? Or is that too much to expect?

 

Very little anywhere is the correct answer

 

Could not have said it better myself!

I proudly admit that I only added a handful of sites I made my corner of the directory a better place. And to think, I did all that with little to no help from all of the broken help files, the dead cats for newbie editors, and of course there are all the kindly editors like yourself that treat those with lesser edit counts like they are not worthy of your time.

And to think, I had meta editors in my cat rejecting my submissions because I spell magick with a K on the end who claim I spelled it wrong. yeah, such wonderful research on their part.

It's little to no wonder I didn't do more for the project. LOOK HOW I AM AND WAS TREATED. I truly hope that those thinking about applying see this

 

This am not sense making.

 

^^^ That is trolling.