Is DMOZ still relevent? Sadly -Yes. Sites with inclusion in the ODP have better rankings - but what a stupid, dumb organisation. Why does Google regard them so highly? It surely can only be a matter of time until the Goog sees what an arcane and probably corrupt organisation DMOZ is. The Goog should either buy it or build their own fair and representative directory. Webmasters would pay $100 per entry with a smile if the previous farcical ODP with their prima donna geek editors were relegated. You cant get status, you can't email them without jeapardising the submission, you don't even know if the submission got through, you can't become an editor - what a stupid group of geeks!
That is why I got kicked out. trying to comeback in my original mutant form but they won't let me. Should be a moron geek and an A** kisser.
Seriously guys - if you saw the new Google Co-Op features, you'd see that it is infitinetly superior to DMOZ. I'd go as far as to say that DMOZ's fate is now sealed. At first, I wasn't too sure where Google was going with the Co-Op project, but now I see, they are heavily invested in making it work in ways the DMOZ lizard couldn't even imagine. And it only means one thing. Google will trust the Co-Op it controls more than the behind-the-times DMOZ. It's only a matter of time. Google Co-Op is an exciting project. People that enjoyed reviewing sites for DMOZ will LOVE volunteering for Google Co-Op.
No they don't. They get the benefit of one backlink, that's it. Plenty of ODP listings have PR Zero. It is free and cheaper than developing their own directory but they have relegated the directory off the front page and downgraded the PR effect. They already have a stake via AOL. They could influence greatly if they chose to. They obviously choose not to. Fair and representative of what? Depth of the webmaster's pockets? Editors think (with a lot of justification) they are working on a project designed to be fair and representative to sites that have actual value to surfers regardless of marketing hype. It is not designed for the benefit of webmasters but the benefit of surfers. The effect of a DMOZ listing isn't worth $10. You don't need status because listed or not listed it is a negligible effect on your marketing. Besides the status always was listed, not listed and you can see that by looking at the site. Emailing an editor will never affect the submission unless you make a threat or offer a bribe and in both cases the site is likely never to see the light of day. If you got the confirmation screen then the site got through and is sitting waiting for review. Most of those "stupid group of geeks" would make radical changes to the directory - the people your complaints should be directed at are AOL Time Warner who are responsible for the current high level policies - take it up with them not the volunteer editors who simply follow the guidelines provided to them.
One more thing! One more thing! There's a gadget called "Google Marker" that allows you to annotate as you surf, with a custom dialog box, just click and go, the site is annotated (Google Co-Op talk for "edited"). Find a site that should be added? Click on the icon in your browser bar, fill up the dialog box, sip some coffee, and you're done! http://www.google.com/coop/cse/marker WOW... how amazingly efficient... Phew!
I was thinking the exact same thing! Personally, I found absolutely nothing useful about Google Co-op. But that's just me.
This is what I thought too but just keeps my mouth zipped. There is no usefulness in that too as I see. Not for now.
BTW, i am trying to include some of my sites into this directory but whenever i click on 'suggets url' the 'Page cannot be found'. Any one else get this problem? Example: dmoz.org/cgi-bin/add.cgi?where=Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Hosting/F
If I were on commission, I'd have starved already, haha. You have to evaluate the Co-Op from the "editing" or rather, "annotating" side of things, not as a user - yet. Remember, it's in beta. Google has a goldmine in the making, a goldmine that it can steward. I cannot imagine Google not switching away from the DMOZ database completely in favor of the Co-Op database. If you didn't find it useful... it's because it's new. The more people contribute, the more useful it will become. The potential is there. Grab it. This is a great time to start contributing. The irrelevance of DMOZ is directly proportional to the relevance of Google Co-Op.
It was suggested that I revived an old thread(4 days)... But it appears not everyone was done commenting DMOZ usually makes me cringe... But Im really enjoying this thread for some reason...
@Ash - the directory is currently experiencing technical problems. The suggest a site, update a listing, and become an editor links are not functioning. Once they are functioning again - someone will post and let everyone know.
I may not be a good fan of the DMOZ Admin but I find the directory useful in many ways. With many categories and listings present ( oww. don't take your money in the bank yet Editors) Google-Coop has many years to come to its present terms with the ODP. That being said, visit the Glass (Stained or Unstained) Category, look up the listings and surely will amaze you. Time contribution itself between work and editing by the editors is limited. (they could not even add a lot of site and pull the unreviewed listings to a minimal level) So adding Google Coop to their agenda will be somewhat unproportionate.
This is what I think is wrong with Google Co-op http://www.google.com/coop/docs/cse/faq.html#8 Which means it will automatically appeal not to the volunteer project type but the $$$ in their eyes type. As a result the output will also be skewed towards $$$ not the surfer. This is the exact opposite of what DMOZ is supposed to be about. Far from a natural successor to DMOZ it is a straight money making machine in intent and is corrupted from the outset. Plus it suffers from the same problem as DMOZ - big corporate ownership.
But logs are practically opened to the public right now, anyone with two digit IQ can easily apply and get approved as editor (50 year old school teachers or librarians are popular? ) and he/she can read all the notes he wants so keeping them secret right now only prevents those too lazy to write proper editor application. Considering how little actual work is done by over 7000 editors each month I wouldn't be surprised if there are hundreds of bad people (spammers, porn webmasters, pedophiles, stained glass etc.) lurking amongst them hiding in some obscure category just so they can have access to notes. It would make lot more sense if editor name was hidden instead (this could be optional so each editor could decided for himself, maybe even on a note to note basis, where editor name is hidden there would be tracking id for abuse purposes) and notes opened to public since that way editors would remain safe and spammers with IQ lower then two digits would finally give up spamming DMOZ or maybe even improve there websites.
Chances are very good that you weren't rejected. Rather, your site was never reviewed in the first place. When I became an editor, there were a good 200 or so websites sitting in my unreviewed queue, dating back several years. I've been plugging away at them, but there are still 150 or so in there. Also, editors are warned about contacting webmasters directly, because the majority of those conversations go extremely poorly. Next thing you know you've got an angry Internet stalker after you.
You seem to be one of the reasonable ones... Are you still an editor by chance? Oh, I just noticed Im no longer a Peon... Im now a Grunt... Im not sure that is any better! LOL
In my editor days I contacted a few which kept submitting to my categories by mistake, never had a problem, but then again I never maintained stained glass categories.