I have given up on DMOZ,.... a LONG time ago.

Invoking high school calculus, this dilution is approaching zero.

It's perplexing, but there's no limit to how long some webmasters will hang on to antiquated SEO notions, thinking that a DMOZ link is worth anything.

 

That is correct. I wouldn't spend another minute worring about this. It is a relic from the past.

 

According to Market Samurai it's worth it.. I would say it's worth the 3 minutes time to submit your site, but don't expect it to get submitted, I've tried my sites for years and haven't been submitted yet, I'm going to try different categories..

Maybe the DMOZ approval guy for my category had a stoke and died or something, or there's just no one moderating my category, so if I can qualify for another category I'll go for it.

 

I knew I was right about this, previously someone was asking where I heard this, well I just cruised the DMOZ forum and got the words directly from an admin's post.

- DMOZ Admin
http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=52092

 

You got that from an Admin of Resource Zone, not an admin of DMOZ.

 

nea is a DMOZ admin but not an RZ one.

 

Since resource-zone is the official forum of dmoz.org (from what I can tell) and Nea has almost 3,000 posts and is also a RZ mod, I'm more than willing to bet that the "DMOZ Admin" label next to his name is accurate.

 

Right under DMOZ ADMIN it says RZ MOD, meaning he's NOT an RX admin... and as for it being an official DMOZ source, check out their guidelines...

This forum is here to provide an additional, unofficial channel of communications between the general public and the editing community, where advice on site suggestions and placement, becoming an editor and other information about the directory can be dispensed.​

So really, its no more (or less) valid then simply asking here on Digital Point.

 

I wrote "RZ MOD" in the post, yes I agree and stated that he's a 'mod' , not an RX admin, your reiterating what I'm saying, I agree.

I would say this is more certifiable than digital point. Sure RZ is the 'unofficial channel of communications' but we're talking about a forum specifically setup for the "communications between the general public and the editing community" of DMOZ. Where as Digital Point covers a broad scope of webmaster topics. The chances of faking admin status on resource-zone.com for 3000 posts are almost nil. Of course the forum has some vague clause like "unofficial" so for legal or any reason they can step back and point to the 'end all lawsuits disclaimer' (which I have no problem with), this allows them to say stuff or infer stuff without officially stating it, like most companies.

To me that screenshot from Resource-Zone is the bloody glove with the DNA, might not be enough for a conviction by a clueless jury but it's good enough in my book. This validates all the testimonials I have read about people trying to get listed on DMOZ with no reply , response, nothing for years, not to mention my own personal experience.. I'll still submit my sites and play the DMOZ lottery, but I know my actual chances of winning are very slim.

 

Why are you expecting any sort of service from DMOZ anyway? What are you offereing DMOZ in return for this expectation of some sort of service from them? DMOZ owes you no sort of service. Do you always complain about other people, businesses or websites that do not provide you with a service that do not even have any sort of obligation to provide any service to you? Weird logic that you have.

 

What am I offering DMOZ? A description , url, some keywords... The same thing I offer a thousand other directories that don't take years to a lifetime to process my data.

DMOZ takes years, by their own admission it can take over a year! That's just the truth, it's fact, you cannot deny that what I said is common place with DMOZ.

There's this strange open source, open-anything border that people don't expect you to cross, it's like you can't make a legitimate factual criticism about anything open source or free and not expect the knee-jerk flamers to attack you, if they can't find any legitimate holes in your argument they might pick at semantics or some anomaly exception-to-the-rule scenario.

So let me get this straight, open source or free software is free from criticism? So... I can't point out the flaws in Zen Cart and tell people the Benefits of magento? I can't tell people free yahoo mail sucks because you don't have imap support, so use gmail because it allows imap. I can't tell people hey don't use program-x because it freezes so use program-y.

I just found another thread of free directories (googled:high pr directories, and found a forum thread) , not just junk either, PR4 PR5 PR6, I was able to submit my website, some sites give you instant approval, some do need a human response. The bottom line is that DMOZ is overwhelmed, waiting years is ridiculous, webmasters and google need to downgrade the authority of the DMOZ directory monopoly.

I'll try to remember that "free is immune from criticism" while I download the "FREE" Bing Toolbar for Firefox...

 

You totally missed my point. You are complaining about the lack of service that DMOZ is providing you. DMOZ are not there to provide you with a service. They are under no obligation to provoide you with any sort of service. I just don't figure why people complain about their lack of service when they owe you and I nothing.

Do you also complain about the lack of service that you are geting form other companies, businesses or websites that owe you nothing as well?

 

Yes, of course I do... If I couldn't get my FREE gmail for a year, or even a week... Let's just say the google servers went down for a week straight.. Do you think people would complain? Who wouldn't. Guess what, people would complain and move to another free email service and get on being productive again, and so future people don't waste their time someone like myself would warn them of the absolute lack of service, while you would be there criticizing me with a straw man argument about some mythical rule of not being allowed to criticize free stuff.

 

You still missing the point. Gmail is not "free" - they expose you to advertisements.

DMOZ are not providing you with any sort of free service. They not there to provide anything to webmasters. You are the one that is using the straw man argument - you are the one that is pretending that DMOZ is something that it is not, then criticising your characteristion of what you think DMOZ is -- you are the 'textbook' definition of what the straw man argument is!

What are you providing DMOZ for you to expect some sort of service from them? You not providing them anything. They not serving up any advertisements to you.

 

You're a perfect example of what I said before, you can't the FACT that DMOZ takes years to a lifetime to accept sites, yet you somehow take personal offense to the legitimate incontestable fact that DMOZ is known to take forever and you end up attacking the semantics or trivial benign points of my my argument.

For instance you cherry pick my comparison of DMOZ to Gmail / Yahoo mail and harp on the fact that gmail provides ads, yet I also used the example of Zencart vs Magento , both FREE, no ads in the program itself, I mean I can do this all day if you want, you obviously lost whatever momentum you thought you had and now your left nitpicking selective parts of my argument.

By your logic tucows.com sourceforge.net and osalt.com most be horrible sites since they have the audacity to actually rate one free product over another, and heaven forbid if they enable public comments, people might actually talk about bugs of faults of certain programs. How about we attack those pesky buggers at launchpad who have the nerve to track / list bugs, problems, etc.

I like the freedom to speak the truth about a service / program / website that doesn't work, or one that takes years to process 3 lines of text. You seem to be perfectly content with a service that can take an infinite amount of time to complete, infact so much so that you take a personal stake to defend such a website with strawman attacks about my right to tell the truth about DMOZ. Look, if the truth offends you then maybe this is not the forum for you.


This says it all, black and white, bring on the strawman arguments, attack me all you want, keep preaching the sky isn't blue, this graphic speaks the truth, everyone can look it up and verify it. Good night.

 

You still missing the point. One day you might get it.

Have you even bothered to look up what the 'Open' in Open Directory Project actually means? Don't you think it would be a good idea to do that before spouting off?
Instead you decided to use the straw man argument and define "open" how you wanted to define it and then criticise DMOZ based on how you wanted to define it. Many organisations, businesses, companies, and websites have "Open" in their name. Are you also going to compare them to the 'open source' movement and imply that DMOZ should be "Open" to list every site because it has "Open" in its name..... you are the textbook example of using the straw man argument.

FYI ... the "open" in DMOZ is meant to signify that the database is open for anyone to use to create their own directory.

"Technically", DMOZ does not even allow webmasters to "submit" sites to get listed --- another straw man fallacy that you are using. All DMOZ is doing is building a directory. To help it achieve that it allows members of the public to suggest (NOT submit) websites that the editor may or may not consider when they choose to volunteer to look for sites to add to a particular category.

You complaining that it takes "years" to list a sites implies that you totally misunderstand DMOZ (I love the way you tried to use the straw man fallacy on me, when you are the worse I seen in a while!). Just by making the statement that it takes "years" to get listed, implies that you are expecting DMOZ to provide webmasters with a service. DMOZ is not there to do that (did I type that slow enough or are you still not getting it?)

And, don't forget that >50% of the sites that get listed in DMOZ where never suggested by the public in the first place!

You can keep on complaining about the lack of service you are getting from DMOZ. DMOZ will keep on not providing you with that service as they are under no obligation to provide you anything. One day an editor may or may not come across your site and may or may not add it. That is the nature of the beast. They may come across it in the pool of suggested sites; they may follow a link to it from another site; they may find it in Google - who knows? That is the nature of the beast.

If you want a service, go to a directory that charges for submission; or provides advertisements to you to look at; or adds your email to mailing list --- complain to them when they don't provide a service to you.

 

Yes I looked up "open" and I could not find the part immune from criticism anywhere in the definition.

One of the more recent attempts you've had of trying to piece together some kind of rebuttal is:

Hmm, it does seem like you're back the semantics shtick again, but it looks like you're wrong again. Are you sure DMOZ doesn't allow "Submission"? Can they reject it? Of course they can. Can they take a lifetime to process 3 lines of text? Sure, they do it all the time.



It's obvious that you're too stubborn to admit defeat, I've punched holes in the core pillars of your strawman argument, to which you merely dodge and fail to address, yet you keep banging the 'open-free' drum, (maybe it's a self dignity or a macho testosterone thing) You scramble on your way down to piece together any kind of rebuttal no matter how trivial or incoherent, even copying mine when you can't think of anything rational.


I'm saying:
DMOZ is overwhelmed, it is inept at handling the SUBMISSIONS
---Taking years, lifetime, to process 3 lines of text, as documented earlier
DMOZ is so negligent they fail to add 50%+ of the submitted sites
---Thanks for the info, I didn't know they were this bad.
(the fact that it is free doesn't disprove the above 2 facts - strawman)

You're saying:
"DMOZ owes you no sort of service." - Post #30
---Well of course they don't, neither does yahoo dir for that matter, that is a common sense given. But, this is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the facts I stated about DMOZ. It doesn't disprove anything I originally stated about DMOZ.

Conclusion:
DMOZ is nothing more than a lottery, directory monopoly (maybe not by their own choosing), it has become blatantly obvious that they are overwhelmed and SHOULD no longer be the #1 or #2 authority directory, its links need to be phased out to less authority for SEO results. It would be a lot easier if they just slap some ads on there and get some staff, maybe charge $10 a submission, anything is better than waiting a lifetime. I think I'll get the text "Still waiting for DMOZ" inscribed on my tombstone.

 

Did you provide the English translations to Metal Gear Solid 1? "The truck have started to move", I'm a real fan of your work btw.

 

We are happy to receive suggestions from anyone, but as has been established anyone associated with DMOZ will tell you that it can take from a few days to a few years to get a site reviewed for a possible listing.

Is the reason for that that we do not have enough people willing to give up their spare time to join the community and edit. Partly yes, but it can also be that we have plenty of volunteers just none of them voluntered to edit in that particular section. So whilst every category has hundreds of editors who can edit there, each one of those editors has to want to do so.

Thew difference between DMOZ and other directories is that whilst we receive suggestions from the public and web owners, we do not tell our editors that they have to even look at the suggestions if they volunteer to work in a particular area. Most directories operate for the benefit of those who submit to the directory, after looking after themselves. We seek to offer a directory based on hobbyists for those who want to search the internet using categorised, collated sites to do so. Getting through the piles of spam and decent suggestions may be something that an editor wants to do, on the other hand they may simply want to use their own knowledge to build a category. DMOZ is quite happy for editors to work in this way.

So yes it take an unpredictable amount of time which may be years for a suggested site to get a review, but that's just because that's how we work. Unpredicatable because no one can tell me how long I will need to look after my garden in the next two months, how much overtime I will have to do, how much time I will need to spend on my degree or how mcuh time I will have to spend visiting my old mum. If anyone can tell me that I can tell you how mcuh editing I can do. Then tell us that for the thousands of editors we have and, Bob's your uncle we can predict more acurately how much time we have to spend, then just add which category we will edit in, now we can tell you when that review will be.
Pop your answers here...........

Of course we can always pay editors and charge, but most would leave then anyway and why imitate a model that so many others have. None seem to work on ours and Google always seem to like our model, they still use us.

But why do you sweat and swear about one directory that having read the comments here is pretty much a waste of time, if you believe those comments, personally I don't care my editing focus is on those who use the directory not on those who want to get their site listed.

EDit to add
So I believe that service is to the web searching community not to site owners.

 

Exactly. That is what carbonfiberhoods keeps failing to grasp. They define "open" and "service" and who they think DMOZ is there to serve; etc, how they want to define it and then go after DMOZ based on what interpretation they want those words and concepts to mean. DMOZ has already defined what it uses those words and concepts to mean to them and bases its directory 'model' on that..

Maybe its time carbonfiberhoods asks DMOZ for a refund; they obviously not getting the service that they expect.