I respond to fairly nice inquiries. Some other editors do too.
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Wondering About Your Dmoz Submission?
Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:26 PM
I respond to fairly nice inquiries. Some other editors do too.
Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:41 PM
<click, click, click>
Yep, you can too.
(Click on the name of the editor of the category, down the bottom of the page, and you get a 'send to NAME' link)
I probably hadn't noticed because most of the time when I submit, the editor has the unusual name of 'Volunteer to edit this category.'
Posted 24 May 2005 - 06:30 PM
My speculation is based solely on an un-scientific appraisal of just one high-level & extremely popular category!
It has a single editor, who 18 months ago used to pop in and add/remove one or two sites at least once a month.
In so far as I've been watching, the frequency has dropped away recently (I've just checked and her last appearance was on March 23rd).
It occurred to me that the heady enthusiasm of volunteer editors in the early years has probably cooled somewhat. Now it is just drudgery. Unpaid drudgery.
The un-fixed search facility and now the closing of the status forum probably confirm dmoz's declining status.
I suspect the only people who want to edit dmoz now, are those with a vested interest. The enthusiasts have probably long-departed for the exciting new open-source world of Wikipedia or somewhere.
Posted 24 May 2005 - 07:05 PM
Posted 24 May 2005 - 07:08 PM
DMOZ lists up to 2000 sites a day - what other Directory comes remotely close to that?
DMOZ has 590 000 categories - what other Directory comes remotely close to that?
DMOZ lists over 4.5 million sites - what other Directory comes remotely close to that?
I don't see that as grinding to a halt, I see that as an awesome achievement!
I keep seeing people say that, but I wish someone would explain to me what is axactly wrong with the DMOZ search.
DMOZ is a directory. Directories are for browsing. If you want to search, go to a search engine!! I agree that DMOZ search is not very good at finding specific URL's - but who searches a directory for specific URL? (except the site owner!!!). If you want to search for a specific URL, USE A SEARCH ENGINE!!! If you type some keyword(s) into DMOZ search, it gives you some categories to browse assocaited that word and a sample of some sites - what is wrong with that???
I know there are some issues with the search not being available from time to time, but that becasue of all the automated checkers going on!!!
Where do people get this kind of information from??? It could not be further from the facts.
I have only met 3 editors in real life --- one was a school teacher who edits as part of a class project; one was a university professor who edits in the area of his expertise; and the other was a dr that edited in their clinical area of expertise. NONE of them had their own website and ONE of them did not even know what SEO stood for!!!!
Edited by cbp, 24 May 2005 - 07:15 PM.
Posted 24 May 2005 - 07:37 PM
arrrr, and of course it isn't doing it right now for me to post the exact error message!
I find that about 2 times out of 3 when I run a search for something on dmoz I get an error returned telling me that the search function is unavailable and I should try again later.
33% is a little low as an availability percentage by my standards
Why do *I* use search on dmoz? Because dmoz is supposed to be authoritative by topic so I look there for sites on a topic. But I find the navigation difficult - I don't seem to put things in the same slots as every one else, so asking me to pick a top level topic and drill down doesn't help me. (You knew that, didn't you? that not everyone thinks the same way, so a good website should allow for multiple ways to use it) I put keywords in the dmoz search to find categories related to the topic I am interested in.
The constant ability of DMOZ advocates to say 'we are perfect, its you the user who are wrong' is grating a tad.
Editors who know so little about the web? How depressing.
Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:26 PM
Nice gratuitous potshot.
What part of "about the web" are you thinking ODP editors should know? And, if they knew it, how would it affect their ability to be a good selector of websites and a good writer of titles and descriptions?
Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:47 PM
Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:57 PM
I don't recall ever seeing anything like that in the DMOZ guidelines. Since when was that a issue for listing in DMOZ? I only look at the content of the site and if it adds value to the category. I have listed some shockers in terms of accessabilty and usability, but they still added value to the category... DMOZ are not the internet police for these issues. Its not about "good" sites - its about if adding the site to the category increases the value or usefullness of that category.
Posted 25 May 2005 - 02:59 AM
I said it was sad to see people with little or no (demonstrated - there will be exceptions) understanding of the web having such a large influence over it.
And then gave 'not understanding accessability and usability' as one example of something they would be lacking.
Posted 25 May 2005 - 03:09 AM
Why is it?
What does having little or no understanding of the web have anything to do with looking at a site and deciding it meets DMOZ guidelines and add value to a category???
Posted 25 May 2005 - 03:39 AM
I doubt very much if these non webby experts actually visited resource zone. The bulk of the editors who did were arrogant in their attitude, and talked down to people.
I fully understand how bad it is to deal with spam constantly, and I know how annoying it is to deal with people who submit to the wrong category, or do not adhere to the guidelines. All of this sort of thing makes it harder for the editors to keep it up to date.
However, all that said, DMOZ is still a poor overrated resource IMO. There are millions of sites in DMOZ, but there are also hundreds of thousands of dead links. There are tens of thousands of sites that have been bought, content changed, and now spam the directory. There are an unknown number of sites backing up waiting to be dealt with, sites that in many cases are damn fine resources.
All of this is acceptable, because it is free, and you get what you pay for, which is nothing, so anything else is a bonus!
What really isn't acceptable though is editors trying to defend the WHOLE of the ODP because they are good editors. Make no bones there are some right bad editors in the ODP, there are sections of it that are dire, and there are probably many other things going on as a reflection of this activity in life.
The search facility is broken on many an occasion, and this makes it very difficult to find the right information, as well as where to submit. I agree that if you want to search then use a search engine, but search on a directory is there NOT to give you specific sites, but to give you specific categories. When you lose search to find cats in a directory of this size, then your driving blind.
Personally I think that the days of the ODp as a seed in Google are numbered. I think that they have developed 'trust rank' as a means of having their own human editors plant the seeds of the directory, and eventually they will replace or refine greatly their own directory, moving away from the ODP.
This isn't a criticism, as like I say, ODP is free, so as such we have no right to complain. But complain we will lol
Posted 25 May 2005 - 04:48 AM
Now that it is no longer possible to submit to the status inquiry forum, does anyone have an idea of how to find out the status of a site submission at dmoz? When a category says "volunteer to edit this category" does this mean there is NO editor for the category at all?
So if my cat. does not have an editor, and has about 100 sites, if i voluntgeer, i hear that I have little chance to be accepted. But that maybe I should volunteer with a catgory with a handful of sites, do a good job, and in a month (?) ask to edit my category -- and then maybe get my site there.
Posted 25 May 2005 - 05:54 AM
There is no way. The standard advice has always been submit and forget. Knowing the status does not help in any way as there is nothing more that can be done. Either you get listed or you do not. Of what use is it to know the status?
No category is without an editor.
Good editors are always wanted. Become part of the solution rather than whinge about the perceived problem.
Posted 25 May 2005 - 06:08 AM
People can see at a glance that they have been accepted, what they CAN NOT see is if they have been rejected, and IMO this is the crux of many of the ODP bashing.
I personally have been rejected a number of times as an editor, I don't have a problem with it though, as if my help is not required then so be it. I edit on other directories, and in fact am the editor for Skaffe in the UK.
Can you clarify your statement 'no category is without an editor' please as this is likely to cause either confusion, or more ODp bashing lol. Am I right in saying that no category is without an editor technically, because the editors above will drill down and edit the cat? (I do this on Skaffe, if there are submissions pending when I log on, I run to the cat and if there is no editor designated, I deal with it.)
On e last question, are you an editor or Meta?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users