Dmoz?

I don't have a list, Michael. But this has been stated more than once on more than one forum by various DMOZ editors as a justification for not adding new sites to categories which apparently haven't been updated in some time. I'm not a DMOZ editor and never have been, but I presume that the editors who have stated this would no reason to lie about it. I wouldn't be surprised if you can find some reference to it at the ironically named "Resource Zone" -- if not, I'm pretty sure you'll find it in one of the many DMOZ threads at WebProWorld.

 

OK I will take a look, thanks minstrel.

- Michael

 

There is nothing in any editor guidelines that says to not accept sites when a category gets "full".

For example, I edit a sub-category of web-designers - it has hundreds of sites there - personally I don't think the category is that usefull to anyone [no ODP user goes through and tries to find web designers who's company starts with a particular letter], but if I get 500 more sites there I would go ahead and add them.

However, I could think of some examples where an editor might not add additional sites, since they would be redundant. There are a lot of sites around that list PHP commands, many of them are word for word copies of the same text [which is public domain]. There's no particular reason to have five different sites with the same content.

LIkewise forums - let's say a forum for a particular game. When the category starts up, an editor might add whatever sites he finds, just to have sites there. But as sites build up in the category, there is less reason to add forums with a small number of posts, they don't provide value in comparison to the other sites. Also the longer a forum has been around, the more posts it has, newly created forums become much harder to justify listing.

On the other hand if I had 300 sites selling pink diamonds, there is no reason to prevent more sites being added, since presumably they are different in price, shipping and the area of the world served.

 

I don't think I ever claimed there was "a DMOZ rule". I did say that more than one editor has indicated that this is DMOZ practice, at least for them. In effect, that's as good as a rule.

In theory, that may be true. Show me a category where it is true in practice. And we're not talking about mirrored sites so please don't drag that old herring up again.

 

I'm waiting for going on a year for one site. Another of mine was added within a couple o' weeks. The site I've been waiting for a year doesn't have a clear cut category, so I suppose I'm out of luck in that department. It's been moved through 4 categories now, so people are working on it, they just don't want it in their categories . The one it's in now is one of those big categories with a big waitlist so I think it's pretty hopeless.

I volunteered on three separate occassions only to get rejected and it's a bear to try and find a category that is small and I know a lot about. There are a few non-existant ones, but you can't volunteer to edit a category that isn't up yet .

 

Here is http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Basic_Service/S/

Over 700 sites there - and more keep getting added. [I don't edit that category]

The truth may be that editors just get bored of working in a category, and if I was editing web designers beginnning with S, I might just get tired of it after a while and quit the category, and maybe no-one would then want to take over that large a pile of sites. So it's not so much a rule as a side effect.