why ppl care so much about DMOZ?? is it difficult to create new DMOZ

why webmasters don't create websites like DMOZ
is it difficult??
as far as i can know you can import directories using specific tool.

 

People don't create sites like DMOZ because there is no real need for them. The only reason anyone pays attention to DMOZ is because of potential serps benefits due to possible backlinks from clones and Google Association.

Starting one from scratch would be a pretty significant waste of resources. Very few non-webmasters ever wander into DMOZ just looking for sites.

 

Were you talking about DMOZ clones? DMOZ data is available free of charge to download and populate your own version as long as you abide by the license terms. Hundreds have done this so it can't be too difficult. But once you have it you must keep it up to date or it will start filling with bad links quite quickly.

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/...rectory_Project/Use_of_ODP_Data/Upload_Tools/ has some freebies.

8 years of the accumulated efforts of 70,000 people to yield 5 million listings. Yep, significant!

I think a lot of people used to, but the concept needs some new ideas and it isn't keeping pace. I used to use it a lot (for personal searches) because you got a lot more relevant results than a straight Google search. These days I find Wikipedia far more useful if I want information as opposed. And because the Internet has grown at a far greater pace than DMOZ is capable of, you won't find the vast majority of newer great sites on it, only through search engines.

 

As it was shown before, there is no valid copyright on DMOZ content, so it is totally a free choice for users if they want to put an attribution to DMOZ on their website or not.


http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=89688

 

I sometimes use DMOZ for searches for certain things that are likely to return results that are "spammy" in Google.

Yes, the Wikipedia model of allowing anyone to add and modify content to the site was a very innovative idea. Wikipedia tends to be more up-to-date that any standard directory could ever hope to be.

 

I use Google to search, but invariably find myself looking for the Wikipedia result in the SERPs once the information has been located. I believe Wikipedia will continue to grow to the point that basically Google will have to implement its methodologies to survive or step aside and allow the next generation through. Google's focus on advertising has steered it away from the main focus of search, into making money, and their search engine results are becoming highly irrelevant in the process.

DMOZ is dead because they choose to be. They have enough volunteer staff to revolutionise their way of listing sites to morph into a wikipedia-style model. It would take a long time but with that many people working on it (and thousands more would sign up to be part of the DMOZ revival and get some link love) I reckon they could become significant, beyond their affiliation with Google, again.

 

Isn't this what they are hoping to do with Google Coop?

 

I don't think it is difficult to create a website like dmoz. A webmaster would just need to create a good free directory and get people to volunteer to edit.

Most webmasters don't want to spend the time or the money to create a equally good free directory.

 

All you need is 8 years, 70,000 volunteers, some meaty servers, and some technical staff.

 

Just a thought, since you have set yourself up as the DP legal beagle gworld, but assuming, for the sake of argument, there is a chance that you are right on the copyright matter, if you download the data from a DMOZ server surely you are legally obliged to follow any conditions assigned to that download. If that condition says to download data from a DMOZ server you must stand on your head and say three Hail Marys, then surely that is a valid condition. If you don't like it then don't download the data from a DMOZ server.

 

You don't even need to download the RDF file from DMOZ, you can read it directly from DMOZ web site.

 

Cheers, wasn't aware of that. I've taken a quick look at what they are developing and it looks like they are adopting that same community approach.


You can specify web pages/sites that you consider authoritative for your topic

I can see teething problems with this Google angle as contributors to the project will be interested at seeing their own sites getting linked up, and will consider their own sites as authoritative, when really they aren't.

I see that Google has started small on the project possibly to keep a handle on issues like that, because they would be aware that everyone wants to rank well in Google.

The reason why I find Wikipedia appealing is that its always been about the information and not getting sites linked up. I suspect this is due mainly to it being a separate entity from Google.

Do you think Google is walking a tightrope, whereby they want to avoid the mistakes that DMOZ has made and are therefore stepping gingerly in their approach?

 

Google Coop plus their adoption of the "noodp" meta tag is, in my opinion, further evidence that they are moving toward dumping their association with DMOZ.

It can't happen too soon.

 

That wasn't the question - if you take the download from DMOZ are you not bound by the terms attached to that download?

 

Agreed. But i think gworld is trying to say that you don't need to download the info off a odp server, just steal, i mean copy, the info off the website. Not sure how long that would take.

 

Is no more stealing than what DMOZ has done. Read the thread about this and how the category structures, titles and descriptions are stolen, I mean copied.
Since DMOZ structure is a derivative work on a work that is originally financed by US governments and since work by federal government do not have copyright, DMOZ category structure is public domain. I have already shown that many parts of the DMOZ content are half ass copies of other web sites and therefore DMOZ can not claim copyright on that either.

 

Nevertheless, gworld, DMOZ allows people to download the structure and data with terms attached. If you use DMOZ servers, a service, to obtain the structure and data are you not obliged to abide by those terms? Regardless of the copyright position. Why are you avoiding this question? And focusing on copyright which no-one but a court could properly determine. I wouldn't take your word for it that copyright is null and void. I wouldn't suggest anyone else does either - they are better off consulting their own lawyers as to the risks should they want to ignore the DMOZ claim.

 

YOU ARE NOT DOWNLOADING THE STRUCTURE AND DATA AND THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT AGREEING TO ANY TERMS.

You are not obliged to obey by anything, the same way that DMOZ can link and copy titles and descriptions without asking the site owners permission.

How many times do I need to repeat the same thing?

 

Until you answer the question put and not a question that wasn't asked but for which you have an answer I am not interested in. Not interested in because I have no idea about whether the copyright claims are valid or invalid, I only know I would not trust your word on it without seeking highly qualified professional advice.

Here is the question again, with different wording so maybe you can get it this time.

DMOZ makes available a download, called the RDF Dump, as a service that is free provided you abide by the terms and conditions. If you choose to use that service in order to obtain the structure and data, notwithstanding that there may be alternative ways of obtaining the same materials, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions. True or not true?

If you don't wish to abide by the terms and conditions then you are presumably free to obtain the structure and data from other sources that do not impose any terms and conditions, and therefore without any obligation. But if you obtain said materials by using the service provided by DMOZ on DMOZ servers then you do so under the terms attached to that service. You are, after all, using DMOZ bandwidth to undertake the download. If they say to use that bandwidth you must pay a fee or stand on one foot whilst singing God Save The Queen, then that is your obligation. Copyright is irrelevant to the service of distributing files.

 

1) you can dump the RDF dump and just take the information directly from DMOZ. There is no need to use the RDF dump for getting the category structure or content.

2) They can have any terms they like to, but to obey by it or not, is just matter of personal choice since those terms are not enforceable by law. The same situation when people forbid DMOZ to link to them and DMOZ choses to ignore and do so because their term is not enforceable.

3) if they want to charge people for bandwidth, they should not have a public web site and make it members only. As long as DMOZ is public then anybody can visit the web site and take any information that they need.