What's the big deal about DMOZ?

Not at all really... though it should be noted, that I'm not the one that keeps bringing it up either, so that should tell ya who just has the issues with it. There is no difference in 1 edit and 100,000 edits. Why? Because the guidelines that should be followed are for the public to view. I have read them and post about them all the time. Though if ya look around you may notice that the editors here care little for them and often will post things contrary to them. Double standard much?


And again, I WAS NOT REMOVED! So please, please, please stop lying! Being a liar is NOT a prerequisite for being an editor as far as the guidelines are concerned... so it's very strange that soooooo many editors enjoy it. It's strange that following the guidelines, like I did, gets editors all in a huff, and to think, its the very same editors here that have been banned for breaking the rules of Digital Point. Is it ODD that I am brought up so many times for FOLLOWING the rules as if that was something bad? Heh... I really do not think so.


So yeah, keep on spreading lies about me. Keep making thread after thread about me... it really helps bury the real issues that revolve around the ODP. And it certainly helps to keep things on topic about Digital Point.

 

DMOZ was a big deal in earlier days before search engines became so good. The Yahoo Directory was a big deal then too.

The reality now is that they are both high-ranking directories that provide credible, relevant links and some visibility for those listed therein. With Yahoo you pay $300 per year for the privilege. DMOZ is free but you may wait a long time to get in as it is volunteer-edited and a bit picky about the sites it lists.

DMOZ has an additional benefit; they provide a weekly update of the entire directory. This has been the basis of the Google Directory and countless hundreds of other directories of lesser repute. This "feed" of DMOZ websites is useful, perhaps valuable, to directory builders as a source of websites that have been examined, considered, and edited to their appropriate categories. At a minimum the sites listed in DMOZ are functioning, useful, usually offer unique resources, and are accurately described.

 

For the most part I do agree, however...

With most search engines now penalizing duplicate content, is the RDF really all that good? How often do you actually find such information in the SERPS? And with their slow approval rate, how often do you think the bots actually bother to even look at the directory as a source of up-to-date information, especially when there are 'hundreds' of other sites out there that are offering the exact same content? Many of the categories offer page rank, but at what cost? The number of out-bound links in many of them are certainly falling under the link farm criteria set out by Google, and then there is the number of outdated listings which hurt the other links on the page.

Yes, the ODP used to be tops...but now they are falling closer and closer to the bottom because it's full of 'volunteers' that do a great job at only doing their once every three months edits just to stay editors.

 

It's reassuring to see that nothing has changed. Same old stuff being talked about, same faces complaining, same replies being given.

Looks like I haven't missed much.....

 

Waves to alucard