Interesting situation

Is Dmoz a free service?

regardless of whether a service is free or not, it is surely best to give good service?

Or, as the "corrupt dmoz editor" states, maybe the service improves a little with a paypal contribution.

Anyway, it isn't free........it costs a lot of peoples time submitting sites that are never going to make it because of the whims and fancies of dmoz editors. Lets see, when the day arrives and dmoz are not used by the major engines to collate information etc, how long dmoz lasts.

Ok, let me rephrase. Do you view ODP as a listing service for webmasters?

There is a restaurant that my wife and I frequent.

As we walk in from the parking lot, we can see a large sign on the delivery door that says:

No deliveries between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.
No exceptions

Click to expand...

I suppose that there are deliverymen who complain about the bad service they get from this restaurant.

But the fact is that the restaurant has decided that the people sitting at tables and eating are they ones they owe good service to, not the delivery truck drivers.

So, too, the ODP has decided that the surfers are the one we work to give service to, not the webmasters or the UK Real Estate Companies.

But then again, given where you are getting your misinformation, I don't expect you to either understand or believe what I am saying.

Pass the Kool Aid!

Bad service

I view dmoz as a directory...a directory that should be chock full of useful sites relative to the information searched for. Dmoz brags that because it has human editors, they satisfy this requirement by only entering sites that conform to their strict requirement

My site is particularly relative, and as I said earlier, after two years, is not listed. I have now taken the arrogant advice of many editors displayed in this forum, and am not bothering any more. But that will not stop me commenting when and where I can about Dmoz being a poor "service provider", whether it is free or not. It is still a service that in mine and many others opinion is badly managed, biased and not a reflection of what it must have originally set out to do. There is a common voice regarding dmoz across the web, and it isn't a happy one. As the moentum inceases, this will eventually result in the demise of dmoz, we have seen it with other organisations.

As I said originally, if dmoz was not utilised by google etc, it would not exist. Surely this is the true test for a quality service--would it be used by individuals across the web if it did not have any influence re: google etc.? No.

I don't think it would. Normally non-seo's/webmasters generally DO NOT USE DMOZ. WHen will dmoz realise that their main users are the same people they are brushing to one side when they want to be added to the directory?

I have looked about in various categories for the last hour and found a boat load of spammy sites. Not even relative in some instances to the category I am looking at. How do you explain this? Are these sites owned by editors/friends of editors etc.? How come you don't add good clean sites? Or is it as one of your editors posts in this forum basically states....if you say the wrong thing or criticise, you'll never get listed.

rslaing said:

But that will not stop me commenting when and where I can about Dmoz being a poor "service provider", whether it is free or not. It is still a service that in mine and many others opinion is badly managed, biased and not a reflection of what it must have originally set out to do.

Click to expand...

What do you think the service is which DMOZ is providing so badly?

rslaing said:

Normally non-seo's/webmasters generally DO NOT USE DMOZ.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a source to backup us this statement.

rslaing said:

I have looked about in various categories for the last hour and found a boat load of spammy sites. Not even relative in some instances to the category I am looking at. How do you explain this?

Click to expand...

There are several explanations. Most probably: the site has changed after it got listed. Quality control is a difficult thing to do with such a large directory. That is why we offer anyone to help us with this control. See Quality Control Feedback.

But the fact is that the restaurant has decided that the people sitting at tables and eating are they ones they owe good service to, not the delivery truck drivers

Click to expand...

.

You miss the point, if the delivery drivers didn't deliver, there would be no people sitting and eating. If it wasn't for people designing sites, there would be nothing to surf........

Please go and have an arrogance by-pass. Its not an attribute that is of any use when being of service in any situation.

rslaing said:

You miss the point, if the delivery drivers didn't deliver, there would be no people sitting and eating. If it wasn't for people designing sites, there would be nothing to surf........

Click to expand...

It is just as with any business. Loosing or not having clients is a big problem. So you take much care about your clients. If you have a lousy supplier you just switch to a better one.

Please answer the question:
What do you think the service is which DMOZ is providing so badly?

Your answer will give us much insight in what the problem is you are seeing and we seem to have missed.

You miss the point, if the delivery drivers didn't deliver, there would be no people sitting and eating. If it wasn't for people designing sites, there would be nothing to surf........

Click to expand...

Somehow I just knew that you would come down in defense of the truck driver.

Well, I guess you aren't going to answer my simple question. You complained that the editors here abuse those who ask questions, but you won't answer my question when I tried to have a sincere dialog with you. That's a shame.

In spite of the reply, we know why editors become editors. Do I have to spell it out? They become editors to get there site on dmoz. I would, if it was possible, love to find out how many editors had there sites listed before they became editors.

Click to expand...

My site was listed before I became an editor. I became one because I knew of many critical care nursing sites which weren't listed. My site is no longer listed for two reasons. First, I would prefer to devote my time to ODP than spend time on my site. Second, even if my site were up to date, we no longer list similar sites, so it wouldn't be fair to list mine. Please don't make assumptions about why people became editors. Many, many editors have no websites or have websites which aren't listed.

I am writing this before I totally give up on Dmoz and remove all links to them from my site.

Click to expand...

We've never required backlinks for listings. If your site has been suggested, you've done all that you can do.

I started at ODP when people rarely submitted sites, and categories were 99% grown from editors going out and finding sites. If a site was submitted, I frequently evaluated it within minutes. If you want to blame someone, please blame the spammers. They submit their primary site, a few mirror and concealed redirects a few hundred times to dozens of categories. Many times these sites are spider food or adsense spam. In many categories one site out of several hundred submissions actually belongs there. So, if I want to work on a category and only have an hour, I may glance through the unreviewed pile, but if nothing catches my eye, searching the web is a much better use of my time.

Or, as the "corrupt dmoz editor" states, maybe the service improves a little with a paypal contribution.

Click to expand...

I find this insulting.

Or is it as one of your editors posts in this forum basically states....if you say the wrong thing or criticise, you'll never get listed.

Click to expand...

Please post where you saw this statement, because it is wrong and should be corrected.

I have looked about in various categories for the last hour and found a boat load of spammy sites. Not even relative in some instances to the category I am looking at. How do you explain this? Are these sites owned by editors/friends of editors etc.? How come you don't add good clean sites?

Click to expand...

We do add good clean sites. We have a thread for quality control at http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5453 . Please report them there, and we will thank you. Sometimes webmasters do a bait-and-switch or possibly the site has changed since being listed. If it was listed by a mistake, that will be addressed with the editor. If listing it was abuse, it will be addressed by metas. We also have an link at the top right of category pages to report abuse/spam. Again, it will be addressed if reported in that manner.

Dmoz is only used by seos and webmasters

Could you please give us a source to backup us this statement.

Click to expand...

Well, here is one of thousands splashed all over the web. This one, and this site demonstrates the failures of dmoz admirably

"DMOZ's customers aren't webmasters who submit a site. They are the users who browse it, and use their data." (Dmoz quote)

The users who browse it? Evidently, a few people are confused as to this point. There are no users that browse it. There are no average Joe-blow web surfer types that use DMOZ to navigate the world wide web. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. The only people who browse DMOZ are DMOZ editors and - God forbid - webmasters. The vast majority of folks on the Internet use search engines that actually provide relevant and useful search results. Something no web directory does.



Faced with the fact that nobody uses the Open Directory to navigate the world wide web, the DMOZ elite scramble to come up with some sort of justification for their existence. It often has something or another to do with Google.source http://www.v7n.com/dmoz-myths.php

What do you think the service is which DMOZ is providing so badly?

Click to expand...

again, another quote "When a directory gets big they have a tendency to forget who it is that built it. Without webmasters their primary customer there would be no directory. Its editors working hand and hand with the webmaster community that make a directory."

In my opinion, theservice failure by dmoz is that they they are not updating their directory with clean, up to date sites with useful information that would be helpful to the surfer. I have uncovered many spammy sites, and even more that are out of date and are returning 404's. dmoz ask people to report this so they can update.....the only people who would do this is webmasters generally. Joe surfer isn't interested or bothered about it, he just goes somewhere else assuming that dmoz doesn't work.

There are several explanations. Most probably: the site has changed after it got listed. Quality control is a difficult thing to do with such a large directory. That is why we offer anyone to help us with this control.

Click to expand...

This really is a pathetic excuse. If you can't keep up to date, you should not profess to be what you claim to be.

"DMOZ's customers aren't webmasters who submit a site. They are the users who browse it, and use their data."(Dmoz quote)

Click to expand...

Where on dmoz.org did you find this?

It is just as with any business. Loosing or not having clients is a big problem. So you take much care about your clients. If you have a lousy supplier you just switch to a better one.

Click to expand...

Glad you said this......so basically you agree. You see, the problem is that all of the major engines suggest that site owners submit to dmoz. There a re obvious reason why and it isn't cos its a good directory. Its just cleaner than the automated ones and a "safer" bet for them. Site owners and seo's would not submit to dmoz if google etc didn't use it. So what is going to happen when the search engines improve the analysis and subsequent demolition of spam.....you've got it, dmoz is dead. Maybe they might have to truly enter the commercial world and start, heaven forbid, giving good service so that people utilise their information. And then dmoz would have to ensure that the directory would be up to date with relevant information and sites that aren't spam ridden. And have editors that aren't arrogant and unhelpful

Site owners and seo's would not submit to dmoz if google etc didn't use it.

Click to expand...

And that wouldn't be a problem. Editors can find listable sites from a variety of places - favorite restaurants, billboards, professional organizations, healthcare organizations and facilities, and sites which we've found useful on the web.

And who do you think provides the revenue to Google, yahoo etc? Its the advertisers. The advertisers are directly or indirectly the people who design sites. You know, webmasters, seo's etc. Commercial industries that pay for things. I believe dmoz is owned by Time Warner/AOL? DO you honestly think they do it for nothing?

Without webmasters, site owners and seo's etc, google and yahoo would be a charity, as there would be no income.

I think the editors at dmoz really need to stop being biased and learn to differentiate between good and bad submissions.

Here is another section quote from http://www.v7n.com/dmoz-myths.php

Let's get this straight. Google doesn't need DMOZ. Google does not need DMOZ. Google's index includes over four billion web pages. DMOZ includes just four million sites. DMOZ is nowhere near to being large enough to even moderately useful to Google. It isn't even practically scalable.

Furthermore, DMOZ does not serve the interests of Google. In many aspects DMOZ and Google are at odds. DMOZ links to websites that are penalized by Google. DMOZ links to websites that cloak. DMOZ links to websites using hidden text; DMOZ links to websites that sell links to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

DMOZ editorial guidelines do not take into consideration any of the guidelines published by Google. Cloaking, use of doorway pages, involvement in link schemes designed to inflate PageRank - none of these things disqualify a website from a DMOZ listing, and these things are the exactly what Google does not want in its index

Lets face it, dmoz are not doing a very good job---or providing a very good service. And in spite of your remonstrations, its lagging way behind and unless its begging for new editors pays off, you have got no chance. Its remarkable really when you consider why dmoz was set up...you don't know? well here it is:

DMOZ was launched in June of 1998, as a response to the slow review process of the Yahoo! Web Directory. OH DEAR.......................irony at its best ( its a uk thing)

Cloaking, use of doorway pages, involvement in link schemes designed to inflate PageRank - none of these things disqualify a website from a DMOZ listing,

Click to expand...

Really? And your source for this information is....?

rslaing said:

Glad you said this......so basically you agree.

Click to expand...

No you don't understand at all.
People who use DMOZ data (either by browsing our directory or using our rdf file) are the customers of DMOZ.
Webmasters are suppliers to DMOZ. And as such DMOZ is the customer of those webmasters.
Suppliers should take good care for their customers.
If a customer doesn't like what a supplier is offering he jyst goes to another supplier.
So. Webmasters supply good sites and DMOZ will consume (=list) them.

rslaing said:

Site owners and seo's would not submit to dmoz if google etc didn't use it. So what is going to happen when the search engines improve the analysis and subsequent demolition of spam.....you've got it, dmoz is dead.

Click to expand...

The only thing I see that will happen that the number of suggested sites will drop as many webmasters and seo's won't suggest their sites any more. But the people who don't see DMOZ as a marketing machine for their websites will continue to suggest sites. And editors will continue building the directory.

rslaing said:

Maybe they might have to truly enter the commercial world and start, heaven forbid, giving good service so that people utilise their information.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough we already provide good service to our customers and many people are using our information.
I know "free" is a thing many people in this society don't understand as they can not influence it by paying money as they are used to do with everything else. But it works fine for us.

Have a look through the sites in various categories....use the tools that are available on the internet to detect doorway pages.....then kick the guilty parties out. And if you use robots to remove dead pages, how come the directory is still littered with them? In any other business this is called inefficiency. And you still think dmoz is a good service? rubbish, as the facts earlier state, your 5 million pages against googles x billion isn't going to sustain dmoz for long. Catch up, or pack up...........

Are you trying to insinuate, no doubt in another arrogant manner, that if it isn't stated on dmoz, it isn't true? Unfortunately, the vast experience of many regarding dmoz does not match your allegiance.

OK, you've established that you don't like dmoz. That, of course, is your right.

Now, where'd I put that trollswatter? Oh, yeah, here it is.