Alternatives to alphabetic sorting?

Regarding the alphabetic sorting of category entries in the directory:

I don't have any direct complaints even though I think that the listing could be ordered in other ways too, since probably most people don't look up a certain letter (since they don't know the site in the first place). However, naming schemes early in the alphabet seem to get higher priority.

My question: Is the solution satisfactory to everyone? Which could be meaningful alternatives? After all is said and done, is this still the best available option?

Possible alternatives:
- put least popular on top/ put most popular on top
- order by date of submission, descending or ascending
- order by last change of index page of target site
- order by length of name and/ or description, ascending or descending
- etc.

Remember that the ODP isn't intended to be a search tool - it's a data base given to the end users. These users, like Google, add their own search and sorting features. Dmoz.org is set up only as a place for editors to process sites.

Is discussion of possible implementations of the Open Directory data completely out of the scope of this forum? (Not intended as rhetorical question.)

It isn't but you have to realize that as editors we have no control of such things. Additionally, in the end it isn't dmoz.org that people use to search our data from, it is end-users like Google and AOL, who use their own algos in determining "search rank".

Oh one more thing the search in dmoz is primarily used by editors who understand that rank is immaterial in the search function, and use the directory in the manner it was intended, as a "Directory".

The directory software isn't stupid, so 'A1 Internet Solutions' will be listed under 'I' instead of 'A' since this is a common tactic for getting to the top of lists. I remember coming across 'Aaron Aardvark Web Design Agency' once, though I think they have since changed their name /images/icons/smile.gif

Basically, obvious attempts at trying to get to the top of our listings are recognised by the software, and it will ignore the first word in such cases. Similarly, sites starting with 'The' would not be listed under 'T', so "The Software People" ewould appear under 'S'.

Re: Alternatives to spam-orting?

Remember that the ODP isn't intended to be a search tool

that's pretty obvious

- it's a data base given to the end users.

News flash Google isn't an “end user.”

These users, like Google, add their own search and sorting features.

If "humans do it better" why rely on Google’s software to fix your erroneous site ranking.

[no flames please - apeuro]

Re: Alternatives to spam-orting?

News flash Google isn't an “end user.”

End user is dependant on where you sit in the production, to the ODP they are an end user as are those who use their information.

If "humans do it better" why rely on Google’s software to fix your erroneous site ranking.

Dmoz does not rank sites, we list them. It is interesting how people actually have this misconception, but in fact all an editor does is list sites, according to a set procedure for titleing and describing, and in that respect humans do it better

Re: excessive censorship

Dmoz does not rank sites

Link deleted from other post says otherwise.
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Comparisons/