"DMOZ is Dead...Long Live the Open Directory Movement!"

There may be a huge online party to celebrate instead though

 

But before the party...

Someone must recite a eulogy for the defunct lizard!

I can't do it myself, I know I will weep uncontrollably.

 

Well, I can't do the eulogy.

I'd feel so silly when the big green fella comes back.


Beer please!

 

Why though? What does it matter whether it lives or dies to anyone who is not a direct stakeholder (editor, data user, direct directory user). Is it because it is one of the few mediums on the Internet that can't be influenced by keywords and money? What you can't control you want to destroy? Let's face it, being listed provides a marginal at best single backlink advantage, and not being listed has never stopped anyone who understands SEO properly from reaching high positions on Google. Your site isn't doing well, DMOZ isn't listing it, DMOZ is an easy target to blame. That is the opinion of a lot of webmasters and it is a poor excuse for bad SEO workmanship. It doesn't matter really that DMOZ has a lot of issues, some terrible quality control ones, some corruption or at least traces of it not erased from the listings, a lot of unmaintained areas. It doesn't matter because the value of a listing is so marginal and the effect of not being listed easily recovered through routine SEO techniques. Not so long ago people were complaining because they felt the listing was damaging their marketing and DMOZ wouldn't delist them. Save the party for something worth celebrating - DMOZ survival or death should not have any effect on any webmaster.

 

How did you come to this conclusion?

You admitted yourself previously that anybody can pay the "senior" editors under the disguise of "SEO" work to get listed in DMOZ. Therefore, in my opinion DMOZ can easily be influenced by money.
Do you mean that we shouldn't care about any kind of actions and social disease as long as it does not directly effect us? The way DMOZ is run is a disgrace to everything that volunteer work stands for and therefore it's demise will be a good news for all real volunteers and non-profit organizations that are trying to do something positive.

 

For the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of submitters who submit their sites annually there is no way of influencing the directory through SEO techniques or money. For the tiny minority of submitters whose SEO work is done by a senior editor their site still has to be eligible and their competitors have to be added at the same time to avoid impropriety. Where editors list ineligible sites for money that is abuse that should be stamped out. But for the vast majority of webmasters it is irrelevant since the effects of being listed or not are so marginal.

Why do you keep saying "do you mean..." to things I post and then put some entirely different slant on it in order to make some point of your own. For the avoidance of doubt, I mean what I write not what you would like me to have written. Thanks.

 

It is odd way of thinking that we shouldn't care about anything as long as it does not personally effect us and that was the reason I wanted to make sure that is what you meant. If this is the case then it is your opinion and I have no problem with it but do not expect that others have to agree with it.

 

LAWL ROFL CRY PEE LAUGH DIE LAUGHING, CRY.

 

It is indeed, but I didn't say that.

No it wasn't, it was a less than endearing habit of yours to attempt to twist what people say to suit your own agenda.

In other words you love DMOZ, all editors, and everything they say and do.

 

It seems you are confused about what you have posted.

 

Not at all - my statement relates to whether DMOZ the directory lives or dies - it doesn't affect anyone but the stakeholders - people who look at it or use it to surf or who edit it. It excludes people who are pissed off because they can't get their spam listed. It's effect is marginal and easily countered by other SEO techniques.

Your "we shouldn't care about anything as long as it does not personally effect us" is an all encompassing general statement which would be an odd attitude. The next US Presidential elections don't affect me personally since I am not an American but I care about the results because they will have an impact somewhere along the line. It is an entirely different matter to the survival of DMOZ.

Hope you're not confused any longer

 

yes, I agree that post.
I have submitted my site to DMOZ for over a month, but they didn't even send me an email. so awful.

 

DMOZ can't die before I manage to get at least one site listed, that would be rude

 

How about people who just don't like the corruption in any place, especially when it gives a bad name to volunteer work and social responsibility?

 

I have a site that has gone onto great things which has been in the 'review process' for 3 years now. Meanwhile all these horrid affiliate and spam sites, or some editors sisters first site she threw up in a couple of hours have been getting in......if this is when dmoz is really dying, good riddence. Ken lay and DMOZ in the same year, something is going on.

 

I think it's actually the opposite. So many high quality, relevant and authoritative sites have been on the shelf 1+ years while, as so many others ares saying their lessors are added with ease.

It's not that the site owners necessarily give a crap for their own site's sake, but it does confirm an overall sense that DMOZ is no longer relevant.

 

Then don't use it, it's easy. I don't very often if ever these days (except to pick out bad listings), Wiki is so much better for the information I want. Or Google if you know how to search effectively. I added over 8000 sites, so I wish I didn't feel that way. It needs leadership, focus, professional project management, and a new way of doing things, all things that could be solved with some willpower, to make sure high quality, relevant and authoritative sites are listed in preference to crap affiliates lurking ten to the dozen in travel services categories and elsewhere. But the vast majority of people who complain about DMOZ are webmasters who think DMOZ and its editors owe them something, or are affecting their web money making schemes, and they are wrong on both scores.

If that makes you a stakeholder then such things would affect you. If you are a ringtone or travel affiliate webmaster whinging about not being listed then you aren't a stakeholder. I have zero sympathy for those whose gripes about DMOZ are based on how it affects their website marketing as it shouldn't, or if they are doing their homework properly it doesn't.

 

You've missed the boat completely. While the vast majority of DMOZ complainers probably are webmasters who aren't being listed, these are the only objective parties that have the knowledge of the DMOZ system to routinely call it out.

DMOZ owe's webmasters nothing, but it DOES owe the web something. The goal of dmoz is to be a comprehensive directory. If it's failing at that, the web at large isn't going to call it out. Webmasters are.

 

ROFL. The last people that DMOZ will ever listen to is webmasters. Because webmasters are the least objective of all possible judges.

It is aimed at surfers and they make their judgement by using it or not using it to find information. And editors who make their judgement by editing or not editing. The evidence seems to point at DMOZ not meeting its objectives, not serving its users effectively, and not retaining its editors. Quality is deteriorating and productivity falling. The solutions, in a volunteer, non-commercial environment, for a project aimed at the best interests of surfers alone, cannot ever take into account the interests of webmasters.

 

The problem is that DMOZ only considers the interests of one kind of webmasters, it's senior editors. More and more DMOZ has very little to do with surfers or anyone else's interests and it only existed to serve the interest of it's "senior" editors.