For two reasons: 1 - It is rediculously managed. Yes I know it is the human element to get listed, but there are too many of the humans that make it rediculously difficult to get accepted, even when diligently following the requirements and submission processes. 2 - I feel that the importance of being listed has been significantly diluted over the last decade. Thoughts or comments?
You seem to be under the impression that you have some sort of right to be listed because you believe we are a listing service for site owners. Remember we accept suggestions, that is what they are. You also seem to ignore the fact that the editors are amateur collectors, working in their apare time for no financial reward, who collect and collate sites as a hobby and they have to choose where they want to work, for how long and which resource to use. I suggest you read the sticky on this forum and many of the previous posts which have dealt with this subject almost to death. It's always interesting when people complain about the time taken for volunteers working in their spare time to do something when the complainant does absolutely didley squat to make a contribution in the effort the volunteers are making.
Well, no, I made no mention of nor implied any expected "right". I understand they (and you) are just volunteers. And that is an admirable endeavor for those that wish to contrubute for no reward other than to donate their time for something they enjoy. But over the last decade several instances of perfectly submitted, perfectly compliant, and perfectly acceptable aged and established sites have never been accepted in their proper directories. Yet also several sites easily submitted and quickly accepted with flawed submissions, in the wrong directories, or nothing more than a geocities page can be demonstrated by a common visitor willing to volunteer their own time for that purpose of discovery. If there was no basis for a single individual suggesting a "conspiracy" of sorts then, there would be no 'stickies' here nor would the subject be discussed to "death" by countless others. And my second point above answers your last point. Why should I volunteer for a percieved service, when it is becoming fairly obvious of the diluted value that the service provides to a webmaster, let alone as noted the inconsistancies that appear and have appeared over many years. (edit to add - I have "volunteered" many times by the sheer virtue of proper submissions, which would at the most basic level, would have improved the directories and their contents by addition of decent contextually-correct listings. Any further volunteering beyond that would be more tasteful to the pallet if logic was to be found on the results of the initial 'volunteer' attempts. And no, this is by no means a post-mortum request for assistance. That would just reaffirm the suggestion of my post.)
So why should you bother to waste your time here complaining if you believe it to be a has been? Conspiracy theories do not make a conspiracy. In the case of DMOZ they often make for someone seriously not understanding why something exists or how it exists and the sticky was to try and clarify the difference between the way DMOZ operates and the way almost every other directory operates. Understanding that we do not set out just to list the suggestions, or to ensure that we list high pr sites but to list sites and categories that editors want to list and build in the belief that one persons interest might help another. So Geocity sites were listed because editors found useful, helpful and unique content for categories that editors wanted to build. A bit like if you collect stamps, you collect the ones you want, the ones you are interested in and care little if the person selling stamps wants you to definitely collect these because they are the best, the right colour, the right shape or whatever. It is after all your stamp collection. You may not respond terribly well either to someone saying that because you collected one country you had to spend time collecting another county, in fact all countries in the world. Collecting sites is our hobby, should that mean that site owners can insist we list their site or that we work in sections of the directory we do not wish to spend our spare time working in? Especially when our guidelines have consistently said there is no guarantee that any site will be listed or if listed will stay listed.
In the realm of DMOZ, nobody is complaining about any kind of false right. They're complain about the fact that the bulk of those volunteers are in it to squeeze in their own sites and ignore everything else in the cue. Perhaps if editors started doing their job and deleting all of the shit sites that have been sitting there since the 90s, and replacing them with authority/helpful/relevant ones, there would be less complaining.
I can understand that my post may inadvertantly appear as a complaint, but in the realm of discussion forums, then so many other threads started by so many others would be categorized as the same. And become pointless in the eyes of others. And if those threads were to be besmirched to the point of non-existance, then forums would be a dry unpopular place in the end. So be it. The problem is that most webmasters strive for search engine link placement and index popularity, and as result utilize the tools and websites designed to assist them in their pursuits. DMOZ/ODP was (moreso in the past at least and to a lesser extent now) an important milestone in any webmasters efforts at success. This was reflected everywhere INCLUDING search engines documentations and overall website rank and valuation. The problem is, as in stamp collecting, the directories were filled with individual DMOZ volunteers appreciations. This is a natural individual bias that was unfairly applied to many submissions. This also eventually led to the unfortunate documentation of certain webmasters utilizing certain leverage on this bias, however means they had available to them. No, this thread is by no means a complaint, and I cannot obviously prevent that perception by replies from members here, but more a thread for open discussion on the first two points I brought up initially. 1 - how submissions and listings are managed by the project and 2 - that the listing has been diluted by modern search engine algorithms.
add to note to viewers, I have read the stickie here, as suggested, but my initial post opener still stands as a valid discussion in my opinion.
Interesting you have read it after saying many things, which you clearly had no knowledge about. Webmasters may strive for many things, DMOZ material may have been used by Google and others to make placement desirable, but it was not the purpose that DMOZ was set up for and will never seek to be. Site owners who want to use DMOZ to further their own ends will constantly ask for change, complain that it is corrupt to try and force change, in fact do anything to manipulate DMOZ to serve their ends. It does not it will not. If I choose to collect stamps from one country and not another does that make me corrupt? So if I collect sites that I think are useful inside DMOZ as an editor does that make me or the project corrupt? How could it do so, we serve the end user not site owners. If as Pixelrage asserts editors only list their own sites we must have 5 million editors. And where do editors who do not even have sites fit in? Site owners who have wanted desperately to be listed and not achieved that aim immediately step up to the mark saying they are corrupt, they are taking money to put sites in. It is difficult to accept under those circumstances that we are hobbyists and we indulge our hobby of collecting and collating sites and we do it for anyone who wants to use such collected material to search for information. If that gives a value to some sites because of the way some downusers, whom we have no control over, use our material so be it, if we don't have the volunteers to work particular areas so be it and if people want to tell editors how to do their job, then press the button that says 'volunteer to edit this category' and see if you are up to the job and if so spend some of your spare time doing the job you want done in the directory. Simple.
The ODP was founded on the promotion of the founders websites and such promotion still VERY much stands with the nearly TWENTY THOUSAND deep links to syndicated content all owned by one of said founders. So I do not really know what you are talking about there... the ONLY difference between the initial opening of the ODP, it's current editors, and the webmasters are talking about is that editors had their applications approved. Remember, by your own account the application process is set up to assist the would be editor, where as there is NO HELP FOR THE END USER or Site Suggestions... which is what you are pointing at in your last post isn't it? Are you sure you can trust them? It's EASY to lie... you should know that all too well, you keep claiming to be an editor after all. yes, yes, simple indeed. Again, what proof do you need? It's NOT proof according to you (or any editor) that a COMPLETED transaction with POSITIVE feedback for an ODP listing on sites like script lance don't count. So yeah, with people like you that are giving the ODP a bad name...
Dmoz editors like mafia , I heard a lot of stories about them if they want money to accept some sites. Its normal there are thousands of editors maybe , for all languages and sections got different one. Human is always awkward
I've found that my sites always get accepted. it just takes a bit of patience. I've had a site which took 2 years to get listed! These guys are volunteers so I can't complain. As to the importance of being listed.. I don't think anyone can make a judgement on that. Only Google knows how much weight a DMOZ listing is given in it's algorithm.
Actually as an editor for some 9 months now, I have to strongly disgaree with your first point. It is managed very well and from my own experience, all the editors I have worked with in the areas I edit in, care very much about the quality of the sites being listed in the directory. The only problem with DMOZ is that there are not enough editors. If more people applied to become editors, then more sites would get listed and more categories would be kept up to date. Therefore if you actually do care about the directory and want to help improve it, apply to become an editor. As for your last point. The purpose of the directory is not to provide webmasters with a 'valuable' link back to their websites. The purpose of the directory is to collate and categorise quality websites.
smirkley is merely stating realist facts about dmoz, that no one can really argue with. By DMOZ's own admission they say it may take up to 7 months, I've submitted sites years ago and never had them added. The fact that DMOZ is free, run by volunteers, is a wonderful thing, administrated by god, etc.. doesn't change the fact that smirkey is right. I gave up on DMOZ a long time ago, but don't get me wrong, I hope it gets better and continues to exist, maybe a year from now I'll be on there.
You're right it actually says "2 weeks"! LOL, I was reading another thread that said it took a guy 7 months so for some reason I thought that was what DMOZ admitted to when I read their FAQ, but actually it's 2 weeks from what they say. I don't know which is worse, to say 2 weeks and take months or to say months and take months / eternity. Here's the part of their site that explains the time frame that I missed: How long does it take for my site to be listed in the ODP? Depending on the activity level of the editors in your area, it may take up to 2 weeks or more for your site to be reviewed.
I personally don't care whether or not I'm listed on DMOZ, but regardless of what anyone says, it's still a great place to find a niche to start your business. One of the best
If you get listed on DMOZ then great - but if not, don't worry, there are plenty more links out there...