DMOZ is heavily biased

I would love to see that debate, but I don't think they will, because they are to busy working their asses off asanthonycea said.

 

Sure, that is what makes a great thread, both sides must have an opportunity to speak, when that is cut off it makes the forum look bad.

 

You mean like at the Resourceless Zone, right?

Live by the sword, die by the sword, AC.

 

They never told me not to speak, they just said don't ask again for 3 months or something after you make your next submission

 

You mean SIX months. Wait a couple of weeks and the new rule will be 6 years.

And I'm not telling anyone not to speak either. I'm just saying if your one of those Resourceless Zone people, we'll cut your balls off. While you're speaking.

 

I think the DMOZ program has its problems, but that's the nature of the beast. For every good category, there is a bad one and vice versa. Sometimes sites don't fit within the confines of their directory structure. Sometimes they have biased editors, and sometimes they have editors who don't pay attention to submissions as much as they look for sites on their own.

I've volunteered to help out a couple of times, but have been denied. What can you do? Use it and get a listing if you can. Otherwise don't pay attention to it. That's my current philosophy. Paying attention to it just makes you bitter.

 

When I asked if they could check the submission that I submitted twice they said I would have to have the exact URL of the section that I submitted to.

I told them I did not know and they told me to start all over again and submit that URL to them to follow up on but not before 30 days or something after the submission.

After that I just said to myself that I am wasting my time with this process

 

I like bitter once in a while... my current new favorite is Harp Lager on tap, though...

 

Now they will use that against us, I can hear it now.....

Those guys over at DP are just a bunch of drunks

 

Um. Maybe there's more web hosting links in the USA category because most web hosting companies are in the US? I know I've always had trouble finding competitive hosting companies locally, both in the UK and in Australia, and as a consequence I've always used a US webhost (in one case I used a Canadian one). The value for money is usually better due to competition -- and where does the competition come from? All those web hosting companies!

Also, I think it really is the case that people think DMOZ has an automatic obligation to include their site in the kind of time frame it takes to get included on paid-inclusion sites, and whenever they don't get listed the typical response is to find some web design forums like these or resource zone and kick up a fuss.

The biggest problem is when people start thinking about resources like Google and DMOZ as if they're paid services -- "My business is doomed if I don't get put on DMOZ and get #1 rank on Google - therefore it's their fault when I don't get these things!" One thing people really need to keep in mind is webmasters aren't paying G or DMOZ, and they have no obligation to put people's sites where the webmasters think they should be (number 1 spot of course - just like everyone else...)

 

Obviously, the first question I asked myself. Even allowing for this, the discrepancy is a huge one indeed.

Agreed -- in some instances. I have seen posts from people who are disgruntled, however, in light of my recent observations I am now inclined to be a bit more sympathetic towards their complaints.

Which is why I made the point that it was an observation I had made and not a complaint because I didn't get a site included. I simply found the heavily biased slant a bit unsettling, perhaps because of my previous 'stop whinging' attitude whenever I came across one of the plethora of anti-dmoz threads in the forums.

I think the Florida-update put paid to the belief that people could use Google as their guaranteed source of free revenue.

As far as I know, people are waiting months and months for a dmoz listing - hardly what you would expect for a paid service. I don't think many people are under any illusions that way.

 

It has nothing to do with if it is a paid or non-paid database, it has to do with the quality of the listings in the database and if it is truly an open directory as in the "spirit of open source"

I would rather look at a paid database of vendors or websites if it is more relevant to what I am looking for versus a directory with all kinds of spam that is nothing more than a link farm and an email harvesting tool.

 

It's a nice idea - having a place where they only list useful sites and not spammy sites. I think that sort of human edited stuff can be of great value.

DMOZ doesn't have enough editors to do that job. They'd only get enough editors if they paid money for people to edit. Why not have a $10 submission fee? Not the crazy $300 of Yahoo. Have affiliate editors and boot them out if they are naughty. After all - how long does it take to tell a well meaning site from a spammy one.

They seem to reject a whole load of editors, and the way things work when you get in are baffling. I'd have been happy to edit some other categories while I was an editor, but the whole process was confusing to me. My 10 site category didn't get enough submissions to stop me from timing out as an editor.

The number of useful websites on the web is growing all the time. I seem to launch a couple a year myself. I've never had one accepted by DMOZ - largely because of a lack of editors.

DMOZ needs a rethink in my view.