Internet is growing

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

It’s a fact that DMOZ is a project based on volunteer editors. But the Internet is growing very fast and the number of sites is exploding. How will DMOZ deal in the future with that problem, because simply increasing the number of editors is not a solution?

Already the waiting time is very long and we can expect to grow even longer in the future. I also believe the editors are working very hard and the quality of their work can’t be the same as we wanted to be.

This is just my opinion and is not trying to offend anybody.

spectregunner · Sep 14, 2004

No offense taken.

What you described is really only a problem if one assumes that processing submitted sites in a timely basis is something that the directory strives for.

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

What you say can be translated with: We want quality, not quantity. And I think it’s a right statement.

But DMOZ wants to “build the largest human-edited directory of the web”. And that is requiring speed also.

This is just my opinion and is not trying to offend anybody.

jjwill · Sep 14, 2004

Unfortunately, as long as webmasters, SEO pros, and others continue to view the ODP as their ticket to success, they will continue to be disappointed and frustrated with the ODP. Remember, the sites that people suggest are only one venue in which editors add sites to the directory. It is not a necessity. The service is mostly directed to the web community, pointedly to the end user. Yes, DMOZ directory has affected many search engine results, but that is due to a decision that each search engine makes.

______________________________________________________
I do not represent the ODP and these thoughts are purely my own. I may be wrong on all points.

motsa · Sep 14, 2004

Speed to us means continually adding new sites to the directory, not reviewing suggested sites in x amount of time. If we're growing daily, we're doing our job. You're making the same mistake that a lot of people do in thinking that the pool of suggested sites is somehow our priority (it isn't). There are a ton of threads on that subject in this forum already --> I'd really recommend you have a look through them rather than bringing up the subject here to be rehashed yet again.

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

In my message I wrote: “We want quality, not quantity.” I also believe in that. I was just trying to explain that I want DMOZ to be „the best” not „the largest”.

windharp · Sep 14, 2004

But DMOZ wants to ?build the largest human-edited directory of the web?. And that is requiring speed also.

Totally right. That is why we think a directory managed by thousands of volunteers has a chance to be one of the leading sources. A company with employees would need to pay quite a lot of people to do the same work, which would result in thoughts of "how to earn money with that investment" - which in my eyes is the death of any good directory.

As you said: This is only my view. But obviously some thousand others share that view.

jjwill · Sep 14, 2004

miromulus said:
In my message I wrote: “We want quality, not quantity.” I also believe in that. I was just trying to explain that I want DMOZ to be „the best” not „the largest”.

I'm trying to think of that other directory that is better. Help me out. What's it called?

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

I don’t believe DMOZ can be “the largest human-edited directory of the web” as long as he’s searching for unique content. Right now he has both, but in the future I think he will must chose between his options.

pvgool · Sep 14, 2004

miromulus said:
I don’t believe DMOZ can be “the largest human-edited directory of the web” as long as he’s searching for unique content. Right now he has both, but in the future I think he will must chose between his options.

If that choice must be made (which I myself don't expect to happen any time soon) we will certainly go for quality (only list sites with enough unique content is one part of quality) instead of quantity.

jjwill · Sep 14, 2004

miromulus said:
I don’t believe DMOZ can be “the largest human-edited directory of the web” as long as he’s searching for unique content. Right now he has both, but in the future I think he will must chose between his options.

I think you're confused between “the largest human-edited directory of the web” and “the largest directory of the web”. I doubt you will ever find “the largest human-edited directory of the web”, which controls quality content, anywhere else. It could be very conceivable to build “the largest directory of the web” without regard to unique content. What's the point?

__________________________________________________ ____
I do not represent the ODP and these thoughts are purely my own. I may be wrong on all points.

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

luggagebase said:
I think you're confused between “the largest human-edited directory of the web” and “the largest directory of the web”

I don’t think most of the people see that difference. But they see the difference between quality and quantity.

spectregunner · Sep 14, 2004

I think that the difference is that most editors would rather spend an hour tracking down one site with totally unique content in a subject area that we have yet to cover, then to spend the sime amount of time listing another 10 real estate agent sites.

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

spectregunner said:
I think that the difference is that most editors would rather spend an hour tracking down one site with totally unique content in a subject area that we have yet to cover, then to spend the sime amount of time listing another 10 real estate agent sites.

Good point, spectregunner. I just hope ODP will attract many editors like those described above.

birdie · Sep 14, 2004

> I don’t believe DMOZ can be “the largest human-edited directory of the web”

It is the largest (almost 4.5 million sites) - what other directory comes close to this?
It is the fastest growing (almost 2000 sites a day) - what other directiry comes close to this?

lisahinely · Sep 14, 2004

miromulus said:
But the Internet is growing very fast and the number of sites is exploding. How will DMOZ deal in the future with that problem, because simply increasing the number of editors is not a solution?

Hmm... I thought miromulus' question was about scaling: The number of humans with access to the internet (aka, potential editors) is exploding. Would DMOZ work as well (or 10 times better) with 650,000 editors? 6,500,000?

miromulus · Sep 14, 2004

lisahinely said:
Would DMOZ work as well (or 10 times better) with 650,000 editors? 6,500,000?

Probably. But can you keep the very high quality of current editors? And with 6.5 million of people working DMOZ would became very hard to manage and open to abuses.

motsa · Sep 14, 2004

Keep in mind that the 65,000 editors that is on the main dmoz.org screen is all of the editors that have ever worked on the project, not the number of active editors. The number of active editors has stayed fairly consistently at about 10,000 at any given time, though degree of activity varies widely between those who live at their keyboard and those who edit once every 4 months.

jjwill · Sep 14, 2004

miromulus said:
Already the waiting time is very long and we can expect to grow even longer in the future.

Going back to your premise, and referring back to spectregunner, I don't see this as a problem for the ODP as much as it is for someone who is hanging their success on DMOZ listing. If you can honestly tell me that this doesn’t concern you, then fine. But I would bet some serious $ that’s truly what is bothering you. I can totally understand your frustration. I use to think that way.

But that frustration does not stem from ODP but the expectations that webmasters have for the ODP and the assumption that the purpose of the ODP is to encompass the entire web regardless of unique content and “promote my website.”
Then again, I could be entirely wrong.

jtaylorj · Sep 14, 2004

Going back to your premise, and referring back to spectregunner, I don't see this as a problem for the ODP as much as it is for someone who is hanging their success on DMOZ listing.

I agree!

Listing a site really only takes a matter of seconds. I don't see that as being long at all

. In terms of submissions, yes, it can take several months to get a site listed (if it gets listed at all). Time also varies depending on where the site is submitted--if you want a website listed that bad, change its focus to fit in some category with an editor who only edits that category. It will probably be listed quite quickly that way

.

Internet is growing

miromulus

Member

spectregunner

Member

miromulus

Member

jjwill

Member

motsa

miromulus

Member

windharp

Meta/kMeta

jjwill

Member

miromulus

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

jjwill

Member

miromulus

Member

spectregunner

Member

miromulus

Member

birdie

Member

lisahinely

Member

miromulus

Member

motsa

jjwill

Member

jtaylorj

kEditall/kCatmv