ODP editor, please read me

Don't look at me. I am not the one that after only one drink started looking for a new husband.


(add: compostannie, you know I'm kidding right )

 

Hey, I'm not looking for a new husband. It's hard enough to put up with one man.

Of course I know you're kidding, it wouldn't be any fun if we didn't kid.

 

Awwww, give 'em a break. They have to have yield to some kind of addiction since their #1 addiction isn't working at the moment.

 

Gee thanks, its nice to be given a break every now and then.

 

Ok, e-drinking nerds, back to the topic at hand. I was just reading the site pornogothica posted:

Really a good read. True? Who knows, but it got me thinking about my dmoz submission again. What's funny is that the site we submitted like 2 years ago is listed multiple times in the wikipedia in the site's category and related categories. Isn't that funny...it's suitable for the more restrictive wikipedia, but not dmoz!

That got me thinking about the "Open" directory project. The reason dmoz has the potential for corruption is that it's not really open, it's very closed. Wikipedia on the other hand is virtually impossible to corrupt. If I ran a pharmaceutical site (I don't) and couldn't get my link in the pharmaceutical category, I'm sure not going to sit by and let me competitor sneak his in! Now that's openness working for ya!

 

Well Wikipedia is open to anyone to add a link and in a quiet area you can get away with adding an unsuitable link for quite a while until it is noticed and removed. But who said the site was unsuitable for DMOZ? Or suitable for Wiki?

Don't you believe it. There are an incredible number of spam and dead links. You remove one, the spammer comes back and re-inserts it, you remove it, they re-insert it, you remove it, they re-insert it, and so on. And you want to read some of the discussions where two Wikipedians disagree. Nasty.

That is such a high spam area the answer is not to allow any in.

 

Because it's not in DMOZ and is in Wiki.

Well, I'm referring to active pages, not hidden backwoods never visited articles. As for the inserting/removing/re-inserting, that can only go so far before the vandal is banned and the page is locked.

Yet Wikipedia does it quite nicely.

 

Not being in DMOZ doesn't mean it is not suitable and being in Wiki doesn't mean it is suitable for that site. Mistakes are made, and in the case of DMOZ pharmaceutical areas are high spam, low editor interest, very long waits for review.

I'm not referring to non-active pages and in the example I know of the vandal still pops up regularly every couple of weeks, using a different IP address. Not frequent enough to lock the page, frequent enough to be a pain in the ass.

Wiki is serving another objective, it isn't a directory.

 

Well, I think I made my points for anyone who is open to them.

Amazingly, while wikipedia isn't a directory, in many cases it has unwittingly become a more relevent directory than DMOZ because of the attention the community gives to each article there, compared to the attention given to categories in DMOZ, which in many cases is nil.

 

I got your point, abbynormal!

And I should add that Wiki is simply more relevent AS A WHOLE than DMOZ.

Mummified lists of antediluvian links are not relevent. There are many reasons why so few people care to improve it. (1) Its only importance is a source or plain old ordinary backlinks to webmasters; (2) it's not relevent to anyone else and (3) the doors are shut on a huge number of would-be editors.

Wikipedia is a far more intellectually stimulating project, and it is based on content, not links. Many Wiki articles have nothing but internal links. Because it is relevent, interesting, and above all, open, the Wiki will move forward, while DMOZ will catch server flu and die.

 

If the directory is so irrelevant, then why are so many obsessed with it?

 

The answer is similar to a white man with a sign hanged around the neck walking proudly in the ghetto.

Very, very unfriendly.

 

I don't see what's so unfriendly about this question. I always wonder the same thing.

Popotalk, I don't understand the reference to the ghetto. In America white people live in ghettos too. How is this relevant to DMOZ?

 

They are under the mistaken belief that a DMOZ link will propel them to the top of the SERPs. The backlink anxious webmasters.

Others, including current and ex-editors, try to dispell this myth.

Nothing wrong with being vocal about your opinion that's something is irrelevent. It doesn't make it relevent, haha. Its only relevence is that it's relevent to the discussion about its irrelevence.

 

That last bit hurt my head. But it IS relevant to the thread... I think...

 

Some would say that it has long been irrelevant, but as something (DMOZ) shifts from relevance to irrelevance, it gets talked about.

 

can you please share what's really going on here? I'm not an editor but I really wanted to know.

 

axlarry, could you clarify what you're asking? This thread has bounced around off topic so much it's impossible to know which part you're asking about.

 

He's asking a relevant relevancy of the irrelevant.

 

Oh, thanks popo.

The relevancy or irrelevancy of DMOZ is directly proportional to each individual's expectation of what they want the directory to be relevant to. So it all depends on you, so it's for you to decide.