DMOZ is Dead...Long Live the Open Directory Movement!
- Thread starter June Bugeye
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
No it is not dead. See the thread called dmoz.org technical problems
I advice you also to read the FAQ here at R-Z
The DMOZ requirements are listed in our guidelines. Please read http://dmoz.org/add.html and http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html
I advice you also to read the FAQ here at R-Z
The guidelines are all about significant unique information. But that doesn't resonate with some people, so if you prefer thumbrules:
Signs the site really won't fly:
(1) You describe it as a "great" site or a "quality" site or a "useful" site or one that "adds value to the net" or something "you spent days or weeks on".
(2) You think of sites already online and established as "your competitors".
(3) You think, without an ODP listing, it won't have a fair chance.
(4) You think the site is in a "competitive niche".
(5) You think of website production or marketing as an "industry".
(6) You resent seeing sites listed that are (to your eyes) less attractive than your own.
(7) You spent hours doing research (online!) for the information on your site.
If none of those apply, then some signs that a site might be listable:
(1) You describe a site as "the only site that has (some kind of information.)"
(2) You think of other informational sites as "collaborators"; or, before you even started the site, you thought of real people working in real buildings to provide real goods and services for surfers, as your competitors.
(3) You don't care what the ODP does with your site: it's an expression of yourself--your knowledge and skills and experience and professional aspirations, and that is enough justification for any site! You'd like like-minded people, or prospective customers, to know about your site, but if you need business advertising, you know how and where to purchase it.
(4) You are the guru of your niche: the person other professionals in the niche naturally gravitate to for help, when they're out of their depth. Your site can't help but be in that niche, because that's where your experience is.
(5) Your "industry" has nothing to do with the web; if the web didn't exist, you'd still be the same expert (enthusiast or professional) that you are now. The web is just a tool you use to express your pre-existing skills and tastes.
(6) You build your own site to your own standards, and you expect everyone else (including the ODP contributors) to build their own sites to their standards. But you can learn something from someone who knows something you don't, even if you think you know something they don't also.
(7) Before you began preparing your information for online publication, you spent hours researching the web to make sure it hadn't been done before.
Note the person whose knowledge provides the information may not be the same person (whether graphic designer or webmaster or programmer or whatever) who set up the URLs and coded the database accesses and formatted the HTML. One printer's devil could set type for a whole stable of authors: but it's the author who is responsible for the book! And here, it's the author, not the data entry clerk, who's important.
Signs the site really won't fly:
(1) You describe it as a "great" site or a "quality" site or a "useful" site or one that "adds value to the net" or something "you spent days or weeks on".
(2) You think of sites already online and established as "your competitors".
(3) You think, without an ODP listing, it won't have a fair chance.
(4) You think the site is in a "competitive niche".
(5) You think of website production or marketing as an "industry".
(6) You resent seeing sites listed that are (to your eyes) less attractive than your own.
(7) You spent hours doing research (online!) for the information on your site.
If none of those apply, then some signs that a site might be listable:
(1) You describe a site as "the only site that has (some kind of information.)"
(2) You think of other informational sites as "collaborators"; or, before you even started the site, you thought of real people working in real buildings to provide real goods and services for surfers, as your competitors.
(3) You don't care what the ODP does with your site: it's an expression of yourself--your knowledge and skills and experience and professional aspirations, and that is enough justification for any site! You'd like like-minded people, or prospective customers, to know about your site, but if you need business advertising, you know how and where to purchase it.
(4) You are the guru of your niche: the person other professionals in the niche naturally gravitate to for help, when they're out of their depth. Your site can't help but be in that niche, because that's where your experience is.
(5) Your "industry" has nothing to do with the web; if the web didn't exist, you'd still be the same expert (enthusiast or professional) that you are now. The web is just a tool you use to express your pre-existing skills and tastes.
(6) You build your own site to your own standards, and you expect everyone else (including the ODP contributors) to build their own sites to their standards. But you can learn something from someone who knows something you don't, even if you think you know something they don't also.
(7) Before you began preparing your information for online publication, you spent hours researching the web to make sure it hadn't been done before.
Note the person whose knowledge provides the information may not be the same person (whether graphic designer or webmaster or programmer or whatever) who set up the URLs and coded the database accesses and formatted the HTML. One printer's devil could set type for a whole stable of authors: but it's the author who is responsible for the book! And here, it's the author, not the data entry clerk, who's important.
compostannie
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Messages
- 504
Excellent post hutcheson, one of the best I've ever seen here. 
compostannie said:Excellent post hutcheson, one of the best I've ever seen here.
<Personal insults removed - Please read out posting guidelines>
hes basically saying sites won't make it in the ODP if:
1) You describe it as a "great" site or a "quality" site or a "useful" site or one that "adds value to the net" or something "you spent days or weeks on".
(2) You think of sites already online and established as "your competitors".
(3) You think, without an ODP listing, it won't have a fair chance.
(4) You think the site is in a "competitive niche".
(5) You think of website production or marketing as an "industry".
(6) You resent seeing sites listed that are (to your eyes) less attractive than your own.
(7) You spent hours doing research (online!) for the information on your site.
For number 1)
Obviously anyone submitting there site wants to believe their site is "great", or "a quality site", or a "useful site". Just because a somone thinks that, they shouldn't be rejected just because of that.
For number 2)
Oh okay, someone in the ODP has an idea thats already out there. So the person who is trying to compete gets rejected because their competitor submitted there site first. So I guess hes saying its first come first serve.
For number 3)
Well duh. obviously people going to think if they're site is not in ODP, they won't have a chance. Sorry but some people don't have money to market their sites and ODP is the best way to promote a site. It helps Google PR Rank incredibly. Without ODP, a person trying to promote a site will have to raise their PR rank in other ways, and thats to obv. spend $$ to have their links on other high pr rank sites. <snip>
For number 4)
Well yeah, whats so bad about that? A owner of a site wants to submit there site because they think they're in a competitive niche. hutcheson can you tell me whats the purpose of ODP again? To evaluate and find quality sites for their directory. But according to hutcheson, he is willing to reject any site that people make as long as its in a competitive niche.
For number 5)
Again, hutcheson, the ODP is about finding quality sites. Just because a webmaster thinks of the website production is a "industry" doesn't say anything about a site not eing qualified. <snip>
For number 6)
yes, all webmasters should have respect for other webmasters work, but again if someone believes a site looks like crap and unattractive, then that just means he felt like he put more work into a site to make it qualified. For example, a webmaster who wants a nice design, navigation, content layout etc, for their visitors believes everyone should. And believe me, I do look at some sites in the ODP, and it looks like their creator built it in 2 days of work.
But then AGAIN, you can't reject a site for a webmaster thinking this way. <snip>
For number 7)
What is wrong with someone doing hours of research for their site??? Oh okay, the creator done research for their site so it makes the site not "fly" with ODP.
I'll stop here. But it just shows how some humans can be so unintelligent. And to see somenoe respond right after hutcheson's post saying "its the best post hes read here" is just sad.
SAD
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Yes, your whole posting shows that people can be so unintelligent.HTP221 said:
And to be honest hutcheson is one of the best posts ever made on this forum. It clearly describes the mindsetting op people owing sites we prefer not to list.
compostannie
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Messages
- 504
HTP221, try reading hutcheson's post again, this time with an open mind rather than blind fury.
Obviously friends of hutcheson is going to back him up.
But read my post again, and it all makes clear sense that hutcheson shouldn't have posted that.
He gave reasons of rejecting sites that are not qualified reasons.
You tell me , how I'm unintelligent for posting a thread to point something like this out.
And to the ODP administrators, please change the Add URL technical error message.
"We apologize for the inconvenience while we resolve technical problems. Please check back in a day or two."
Again, the fact that theres so many people out there who thinks the ODP are unfair and bastards, this just tops it off.
You guys aare basically LYING TO THE PUBLIC. Just be straight up....this issue obviously is going to take long to resolve...and when you guys spotted the problem you guys probably knew it was going to be a big problem to clean up but yet you guys tell people to "check back in a day or two"
I've been checking back for the last 2 weeks everday and I see this stupid ass message all the time. To top it off, none of the admins are detailing the progress of the site. Just a simple thread saying "servers static and please dont start new threads asking about the progress"
Again, ODP admins lying to the public RIGHT IN OUR FACES
But read my post again, and it all makes clear sense that hutcheson shouldn't have posted that.
He gave reasons of rejecting sites that are not qualified reasons.
You tell me , how I'm unintelligent for posting a thread to point something like this out.
And to the ODP administrators, please change the Add URL technical error message.
"We apologize for the inconvenience while we resolve technical problems. Please check back in a day or two."
Again, the fact that theres so many people out there who thinks the ODP are unfair and bastards, this just tops it off.
You guys aare basically LYING TO THE PUBLIC. Just be straight up....this issue obviously is going to take long to resolve...and when you guys spotted the problem you guys probably knew it was going to be a big problem to clean up but yet you guys tell people to "check back in a day or two"
I've been checking back for the last 2 weeks everday and I see this stupid ass message all the time. To top it off, none of the admins are detailing the progress of the site. Just a simple thread saying "servers static and please dont start new threads asking about the progress"
Again, ODP admins lying to the public RIGHT IN OUR FACES
compostannie
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Messages
- 504
I'm not a friend of hutcheson, I've never had any communication with him at all. Ever. So your theory of friends backing up friends doesn't apply here.
hutcheson made 2 lists of 7 points each. You ignored the second list. Compare #1 in the first list to #1 in the second list, and so on. If you do that you may be able to see what he's saying. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you should ask yourself why you are wasting time getting all worked up about something you don't want to even try to understand. It's bad for your health.
hutcheson made 2 lists of 7 points each. You ignored the second list. Compare #1 in the first list to #1 in the second list, and so on. If you do that you may be able to see what he's saying. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you should ask yourself why you are wasting time getting all worked up about something you don't want to even try to understand. It's bad for your health.
Actually, if read his post, you'll see that he never said anything about reasons for rejecting sites. He was pointing out signs that a site might not be listable followed by signs that it might be.
Why? It might well be back in a day or two. At this point, we really don't know how long it will take.
Well, gee. I'm the one who wrote the post. I'm not a ODP admin and I wrote everything that I personally know so I can't possibly be classified as an 'ODP admins lying to the public".
And let me be very, very clear here -- further rude posts like the one you just posted will not be tolerated. If you can't be civil, don't post here.
Excellent post, hutcheson , I wish I had written it, . My respect for you has doubled.
As just an ordinary, hard working editor, HTP221, everything hutcheson said is true, and just meant to help people. I see nothing in there that would lead to such an impolite and disrespectful response from yourself.
. My respect for you has doubled.As just an ordinary, hard working editor, HTP221, everything hutcheson said is true, and just meant to help people. I see nothing in there that would lead to such an impolite and disrespectful response from yourself.
We review sites, we do not read minds. Therefore, all that is known to the reviewing editor is what is on the site itself. And therefore, we can't possibly use your thoughts as reasons for accepting a site.
As for reasons for rejecting a site: there are almost no rules for that, and we hardly ever need any. It is the other way around: for each reviewed but unlisted site, there was an absense of reasons for LISTING it.
But, if you really see the first list of thoughts as inevitable, and the second list of thoughts as inconceivable, then the signs are trying to tell you something important.
And the message is not about good and evil: the ODP lists Microsoft and Mother Teresa both. Therefore, innate webmaster malevolence isn't going to keep sites from being listed. And, face it, we don't read hearts any better than we do minds.
The message is: you're developing one thing, and ODP editors are looking for something else.
Which is fine with us, and may be fine with you. Anyone is free to develop whatever content they want, whether any ODP editor cares about it or not.
As for reasons for rejecting a site: there are almost no rules for that, and we hardly ever need any. It is the other way around: for each reviewed but unlisted site, there was an absense of reasons for LISTING it.
But, if you really see the first list of thoughts as inevitable, and the second list of thoughts as inconceivable, then the signs are trying to tell you something important.
And the message is not about good and evil: the ODP lists Microsoft and Mother Teresa both. Therefore, innate webmaster malevolence isn't going to keep sites from being listed. And, face it, we don't read hearts any better than we do minds.
The message is: you're developing one thing, and ODP editors are looking for something else.
Which is fine with us, and may be fine with you. Anyone is free to develop whatever content they want, whether any ODP editor cares about it or not.
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
Everyone is welcome to post here as long as they follow the forum guidelines. The trouble is that so many people post without reading any of the resources provided to help with the most common concerns. That applies to all members, regardless of their occupation.