Hopefully an editor can chip in with an answer. I am well aware of DMOZ's unique content requirements; how a site must add value to a category to be considered for a listing; etc I am also well aware that most of the 'made for adsense' sites with a collection of You Tube clips is unlikely to be unique enough to be considered listable. What about a categorized collection of You Tube clips in a particular niche that is a really valuable resource on on that niche's topic? Would the fact that the you tube clips are not unique (they already on the You Tube site) almost automatically count it out. I only ask, as I just searched for some you tube clips in a particular niche and there was so much rubbish to sort through to find a couple of good ones that I could use.
Like many situations that are not specifically covered by the editing guidelines, decisions about a particular site or type of site are discussed in the internal forums. All editors are welcome to participate in such discussions, and in most cases a consensus is reached about whether or not the site or sites will add value. In some cases a new "policy" is agreed on, which can be applied to many sites of the same type, but in other cases a specific URL will be discussed. So I'm afraid nobody can answer general questions like that, except to say that if an editor finds a site like you describe, and if they were not sure if it was suitable for listing, they might well ask for advice in the internal forums. It happens every day.
I kinda remember that discussion . To make it clear as mud , Topical and Regional Directories are also collection of websites . Dictionary websites are collections of words meanings which are common. They are listed as well as discarded based on its merit or lack of it.
Yes, this site could indeed be listed. If it takes the very best of YouTube and puts it in one easy place for viewers, its quality could make it a valuable addition to the DMOZ directory.
I am not sure how you specifying this , a1visitors - without knowing the URL . Also , best of YouTube.com according to whom ? If it is the YouTube.com visitors only , there already exist such a URL http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=pop or http://www.youtube.com/browse?c=0&s=mf , so another site displaying the same - what would be the merit of listing that ?
It is a generalalized type of question that is hard to answer without knowing what the niche is. Just as an example, I have a little experience, both personal and as an editor, in such a niche category that uses YouTube clips quite often. http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Roleplaying/Massive_Multiplayer_Online/World_of_Warcraft/ As both a player and an editor, I would find a categorized collection of clips for it quite valuable, as instruction videos, and I would list it even though the clips exist individually on a variety of sites. In this particular category, the clips are of actual game play, and usually come with instructions on how to beat a boss, or get through a dungeon. As 11,000,000 people play the game, and there are hundreds of game guilds, I would think such a collection would be widely used. I'm surprised you're not an editor, because that's exactly what editors do, create collections (categories) of useful sites for the information seekers that are interested in a certain topic, like the one above.
I agree that it is conceivable that a site that offers only links to YouTube videos in a certain niche could be a valuable site to people looking for information in that niche. If the videos are carefully selected and well organized, then the site stands a chance at meeting an editor's standards. If the site just consists of YouTube feeds based on some selected keywords, then I could get that same information by going directly to YouTube. Such a "me too" site offers no real value to a user and is simply an attempt by the creator to catch some hits from search engine users.
If Topic can have 10k deep links to syndicated content, then I don't see how a series of youtube videos is any less important. The others are correct though, it's a matter of editor discretion...