Just wondering why there are so little sites listed under this category at dmoz. I mean, what's the big deal? I have'nt seen a site get listed here in who knows how long. I submitted my directory index-it.net 3 years ago and still have not been added. I don't see anything different from my directory and some of the other ones that are listed. Do the editors at dmoz have a problem with directories? If so, then why don't they just remove the category all together. Just don't understand what the big deal is, after all google does'nt even cache the page and it has no google backlinks pointing to it. Any feed back would be nice.
Perhaps there are no volunteer editors that are interested in working in that category. Or perhaps any editors in that area are working in areas that need more attention. We don't want all sites either. I don't edit over there, so I'm not familiar with its idiosyncrasies, but don't assume that because your site hasn't been listed that there is something wrong . Your directory may be perfectly fine, but we're under no obligation to even look at suggested sites, let alone list them. Some editors prefer to find sites in other places. Also, many of us edit in thousands of categories and don't get to every single one of them, it's impossible. That doesn't mean we own the categories or are responsible for them, it just means we have editing permissions over a wide area.
I really find it unlikely that NO editors find an interest in Directories ... my guess would be it's just like anything else within the ODP. No one gets listed without a two year wait unless it's an editors site or a friend of an editor *shrug* Or maybe it's just that DMOZ has something against pointing to competition? Regardless of the reason, that is ONE category that should have several listings and one that gets updated on a regular basis. Directories are popping up and vanishing more then most other categories and MOST of them want in DMOZ....so maybe it's just a matter of no editor wants to rummage through the trash?
If dmoz were afraid of competition, it wouldn't have to have that category at all. I might be interested in that cat, sounds interesting, but I already have categories that take up too much of my time. Maybe when I retire I'll have more time. Now, you're being silly, sites get listed every day. Hell, I don't have any friends or sites, and I'm still listing sites.
Good response, I just wish that if there are some editors in that category that they would have the knowledge to know that not all directories are trash, and that there are some of us out here who are trying to do a good job at providing quality listings and not just in it for a quick buck. Some of us have gone through both the good and the bad and refuse to be counted as fly by nights, and we will continue to provide quality listings for people to visit. Just wondering when some directories will get the respect they deserve and actually get listed in a directory that is suppose to be about listing quality and respected websites.
If I was an editor, i would not list your directory; I would put it in the trash category. I checked a couple of categories and I can't see how any of those categories are of any use to the web surfer. Why would DMOZ want to list a site that is of no use to visitors? I not surprised so few directories are listed in that category.
Some input on which categories you feel are not useful would be nice, anyway, doesn't really matter what YOU think, if your statement was coming from someone with a more respectable voice I might listen.
@banles You make this comment then to someone else you say An editor could easily make the same comment about you. You should take into account that dmoz is not a listing service. Personally, i hate and avoid editing or reviewing directories. So many are crap, most provide content that is not unique, most have very heavy adsense and very few are even close to being worthy of inclusion. And i might add.......i do not know of one editor that has stated he or she ENJOYS editing in that area. That may well be why that particular cat is not edited often, because no one has volunteered to do so
DMOZ is in fact a listing service, it is just done under the table. What kills me is people keep saying that directories do not provide unique content, but what is unique content when it comes to directories? What's so special about the content that dmoz provides? Nothing. It is the same as what you would find in any other directory, all dmoz provides is a title and description of websites, THAT'S IT, nothing special about it. If anything the content is worse because most of the listings have Very short descriptions and do not give much detail about the site that is listed. The same goes for yahoo, nothing special there, just titles and descriptions which are also very short. So again what's the big deal about listing other directories which are going by the same rules that these so called power house directories are? And can someone define unique content for a directory? Because I just can't seem to figure this one out.
I wholeheartedly disagree. A short concise description is the hallmark of a good directory. Users don't want to read the keyword-stuffed ramblings of a site owner, they want to see in a glance what the site's about.
What | would | qualify | as | keyword | stuffing | ? I've, seen, enough, keyword, stuffing, to, last, a, lifetime, ! But - still - people - do - it - and - wonder - why - submissions - get - rejected.
DMOZ lists itself... DMOZ has been down for days at a time in the past and was NOT delisted, unlike many sites that also go down and get removed. DMOZ has empty categories Dmoz has categories with sites that are so far outdated that the listings are no longer useful to the viewing public DMOZ has sites not suitable for viewing (YAY 4 adult section) DMOZ has no reliable contact information DMOZ has broken pages The list of reasons as to why DMOZ itself should not be included in the directory goes on, and the fact that it does go on shows that DMOZ itself should not be listed in the directory. DMOZ clones should also not be listed within the directory, as they offer NOTHING new as they are little more then duplicates of DMOZ itself, and by rights are against the guidelines themselves and are of no use to the end user, as they are already at the core source of such information.