Is ODP turning into Wayback Machine ?

Do a search and see how many geocities and tripod hosted sites we list.

Click to expand...

Just did, makes me wonder though, was this stuff submitted and accepted as 'quality' or was it just found while surfing and than accepted as quality?

http://www.-
http://-/
http://-/
http://-/

It takes barely a minute or two to fill in the form to submit your site to the ODP. That's hardly "a lot of work".

Click to expand...

Submitting isn't of course what takes the time, it is building the website of quality that is acceptable to ODP and than submit it.

Only to find out that the chances of it beeing looked at are 10%

Submitting isn't of course what takes the time, it is building the website of quality that is acceptable to ODP and than submit it.

Click to expand...

A more conventional plan would be to design a website aimed at satisfying the needs of its target audience .

Only to find out that the chances of it beeing looked at are 10%

Click to expand...

I can't imagine where you got that statistic from - if only because it's not one that we measure. I've always believed that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot anyway .

That more than 90% of the sites that are added in some areas were not suggested from the outside (and that is obviously not a measurable statistic, just an approximation drawn from my own experience) does not in any shape or form imply that the chance of a suggested site being reviewed is 10%.

Submitting isn't of course what takes the time, it is building the website of quality that is acceptable to ODP and than submit it.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem.

You should be building your website to meet the needs of your site visitors. suggesting the site should be no more than a 3-minute task you undertake when the site is substantailly complete.

And, if you do a good job of building a complete website that meets the unique needs of your visitors, you might just discover that some editor will find it and list it well before you suggest it.

You should be building your website to meet the needs of your site visitors. suggesting the site should be no more than a 3-minute task you undertake when the site is substantailly complete.

Click to expand...

Come on guys, come on...

The webmasters are not making websites FOR ODP they are making websites of quality acceptable to ODP. I hope that we can agree on that it is a lot of difference here.

But of course after I found the 'quality' Tripod and Geocities websites listed in ODP I wonder about the quality that is actually acceptable to ODP.
If webmaster do a little research and see what is accepted and what is not than maybe it is no wonder you are reiceiving a lot of crap submissions.

Webmasters are trying to get listed in ODP to have the chance of being found in Google directory, MSN and others using ODP.

I assume webmaster are making their websites to serve the needs of their visitors, that also counts the editors from ODP as they are after all, human, and if they don't like it it won't be listed.

maybe it all comes down to how editors look at ODP and how webmasters look at it, editors seem to look at it as a hobby as gboisseau calls it "The ODP is a collection hobby" but webmasters look at it as dead serious as if their business is not listed in it, they are kept away from appearing in Google Directory for example.

But of course after I found the 'quality' Tripod and Geocities websites listed in ODP I wonder about the quality that is actually acceptable to ODP.

Click to expand...

It could well be that those sites were listed when our guidelines weren't as strict, and/or when the quality of their content relative to what else was available was much better than it is today.

If webmaster do a little research and see what is accepted and what is not than maybe it is no wonder you are reiceiving a lot of crap submissions.

Click to expand...

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed. (If anything we would be judging them relative to the better ones in the category -- if it's not good compared with them, what value would the extra site add for our users?) What we actually do is look at the sites with reference to our site selection criteria. This is what webmasters should read before suggesting their site.

Even if they don't read all the details there, everytime you suggest a site, you have to agree that you've read and understood the submission guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html I wonder how many people take the trouble to do so (in particular the items under "step 1")?

editors seem to look at it as a hobby

Click to expand...

That's not surprising, since we're all volunteers, so for us it is a hobby.

I hope it's a hobby, cause the pay ain't that great, . You might like to read what our Editor-In-Chief just posted:
http://blog.dmoz.org/

It sounds very much like what we've said in here, for some reason.

It could well be that those sites were listed when our guidelines weren't as strict, and/or when the quality of their content relative to what else was available was much better than it is today.

Click to expand...

And could well not be, that is the point. But now you know of them and you can tell me, does those sites bring a value to ODP ? if they do you should not be surprised that other webmasters submit sites of similar caliber to ODP. If they don't than they should not be there any more or what?

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed.

Click to expand...

I never said that you judged it, but the webmasters probably do, and if those sites belong in ODP why should theirs not?

You get submitted sites to ODP based on the sites/content that can be found in it already.

Even if they don't read all the details there, everytime you suggest a site, you have to agree that you've read and understood the submission guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html I wonder how many people take the trouble to do so (in particular the items under "step 1")?

Click to expand...

Is there a possibilty that it takes more than 1 or 2 minutes to read this form and comply before submitting as:

It takes barely a minute or two to fill in the form to submit your site to the ODP. That's hardly "a lot of work".

Click to expand...

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed.

Click to expand...

I can't see what you are saying, but can you agree with me that those same webmasters the 'whiners' actually look at those crappy sites listed and look at them as (and rightly so) a poor judgement as those sites clearly are in there.

Maybe webmasters believe after been surfing ODP and see those sites that you judgement just isn't any better?

I don't know but It makes me think why a respected site like ODP is receiving a lot of 'crappy' sites from whiners.

But now there is a great opportunity to show a good judgement and remove those examples I gave earlier as they do not represent those quality sites ODP wants to list.

I think no one would miss this one from ODP http://www.-/

Would you?

That's not surprising, since we're all volunteers, so for us it is a hobby.

Click to expand...

Also are most of the people at The Red Cross volunteers, but I hope they treat there work with more professionalism, and don't call people whiners if they are not all so happy about the work and have suggestions for improvement.

Doctors with out borders are volunteers, they don't react badly if someone has suggestion for improvements.

Basically ODP is kind of a Pro-AM 'thing'
(http://-)
so even you are all working for free you can't allow yourself to be anything less then professional and take critisism as a professionals, working for a project that is taken seriously like ODP is, than it has to be taken as more than a hobby to do it.

Doctors with out borders are volunteers, they don't react badly if someone has suggestion for improvements.

Click to expand...

I imagine they'd react very badly indeed if most of the suggestions were ways they could better improve their service to the pharmaceutical industry. As badly, perhaps, as we react to the unending stream of suggestions about how we could better serve webmasters.

But of course after I found the 'quality' Tripod and Geocities websites listed in ODP I wonder about the quality that is actually acceptable to ODP.

Click to expand...

Let's explore this.

When an editor talks about a quality site, we talk in terms of content. Unique content.

When a webmaster talks about a quality site, they usually mean, design, technology (please -- no more flash sites, I think I'll gag), blaring music, and, accidentally, some content.

Geocities and tripod sites are often quite glorious in terms of content. Design often stinks, but is rarely an impediment to getting to the content, and oh what content it is. People who love a topic enough to write about it, show pictures and experiment with all purple websites -- while never making a dime. I'd personally rather spend two hours looking through either of those two outfits, looking for really interesting sites that are listable on the basis of content, then to have to wade through a stack of heavily templated, spit-and-polish auto dealer or real estate web sites.

You can't have it both ways, complaining that we only list websites that have deep pockets, and then complain that we list very ugly, grossly unfunded geocities websites. Our first choice is always to list sites with interesting, unique content.

The role of an editors is not to review suggestions, but to build categories. To do that the pool of suggestions may be a useful resource (though not in the spammed out categories) and reviewing the suggestions is one, easy way of building that category.

I've just added a new category Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Sacred_and_Circle_Dance/Circle_Dance/ which I believe is currently the best directory resource on the topic on the net. If you examine the quality of the sites they vary from 'scraping the barrel' to good, a lot having a 'home-made' look.

So:

1) I think only 1 of these sites were produced by a 'webmaster', most were produced by teachers, dancers, choreographers, events organisers etc who are using a website to publicise the real and tangible things that they do in real-life. Most of them have not got a clue about seo beyond a vague idea that you exchange links, leaving the rest to universal harmony and spiritual intervention.

2) Who is that category supposed to serve? Well anyone interested in Circle Dance. It saves them having to search for 'n-ty' hours on the web and the information is available either through one of the many sites that use our content, links from any site that finds the category useful or through the sites having a higher profile in the search engines as a result of the listing.

3) Value for 'time spent' - The first twenty links were easy to get, equivalent to fishing in the suggestion pool, but the last ten took quite a long time to find, the last one being the result of 3 hours surfing. In that 3 hours I could have added perhaps 10 or more club websites on English Country Dance. Each of the potential 10 deserve to be listed and argueably on numbers should have been listed instead of the 1. However our role is not about merely listing sites, it is about providing a resource. At the stage of getting 1 site after 3 hours, I personally feel I've exhausted the options (apart from telling other editors that I have, so they can go and prove me wrong by supplying sites I've missed ) and can stop looking.

4) If you thought " WTF? English Country Dance? Circle Dance? ROFL!" then you have missed the point of the ODP. Go to the front page and actually look at what it covers, the distribution of sites and think about what 500,000+ categories means.

It may bring home what is meant by volunteers, Editors edit in their areas of interest to build a resource, whilst 'webmasters' produce web sites for financial gain - there is very little in common between the two. Out there 'webmasters' try to pretend that they represent the bulk of website owners whereas in fact they are a very, very small. but vocal, percentage. In SEO forums they may be big fish but they in a very, very, tiny little pool. They are certainly outnumbered by Folk Dancers

Anyway, end of shameless plug for a new category,

regards

Nice post, it reminds me that I've been neglecting a certain watergarden category that I took on, .

It may bring home what is meant by volunteers, Editors edit in their areas of interest to build a resource, whilst 'webmasters' produce web sites for financial gain - there is very little in common between the two.

Click to expand...

And what is wrong with webmasters making sites for financial gain? Do ODP editors have something against that, do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

Here is an example, I look for 'Migraine' in ODP (which actually does not give any results for that) I would be more likely to find a site telling me what it is, how painful it can be, how many people suffer from it, but I could not find a site that offers me a treatment or recommends/sells medicine for it as ODP editors felt it was wrong to list a site that was created for financial gain?

If I was looking for a solution or information about a migraine, would I believe the information/solution given on the website to be more true if it was a from gsk (GlaxoSmithKline) or a website telling stories about an uncle that has Migraine?

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

So, Information is fine, stories of uncle and his dog is also fine, but If the uncle wants to sell the damn dog then you would NOT list the site?

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

Click to expand...

I think you're completely misunderstanding how the ODP lists sites. And you missed the point of Eric-the-Bun's comment. Some categories are informational in scope. Others are about and for businesses. Some are a combination of both. Arts categories generally don't contain sites selling dance clothes or shoes or the like -- those kinds of sites would be listed elsewhere in the directory (likely somewhere in Shopping, Business, and/or Regional).

Nicely chosen example. Thank you for that.

If I was looking for a solution or information about a migraine, would I believe the information/solution given on the website to be more true if it was a from gsk (GlaxoSmithKline) or a website telling stories about an uncle that has Migraine?

Click to expand...

GlaxoSmithKline is indeed listed in Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Neurological_Disorders/Headaches/Migraine/ along with other drug manufacturers and shady outfits like the American Acadamy of Neurology.

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

Click to expand...

Yes as part of the Circle Dance activity, the various websites are mainly about lessons, classes and events including holidays that they offer, plus they advertise books they've written, CD's they've made etc etc. and they will link to sites they find useful in that respect.

A good proportion of the sites are by people making their living or supplementing their income in this way.

However the target audience of the category is people wanting to know about and do Circle Dancing - whether the practitioner is a 'hobbyist' running a non-profit weekly group or a professional making a living is immaterial to a listing, it is not relevant. As a dancer, I would be pleased to know that my efforts increased the number of people dancing and, if this means dance groups become profitable and teachers can continue to offer their services, then great.

If I were interested in shops selling Circle Dancing (apparantly you can buy 'Circle Dancing' on Ebay ) then I'd arrange to create a category in Shopping somewhere. I am not, so I don't. Effectively you seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong with me in being interested in certain topics rather than general financial asperations.

You can't lump all sites in one giant block and generalise. The directory is huge. The situation in Shopping and Real Estate areas, Dancing, Sport, Wyre Piddle etc are all different from each other. Editors tend to think and work in categories not on a huge and unwieldy, amorphous lump of websites. As a result we get an insight into what is going on in the real-world in the topics that interest us and are usually well disposed to people in those areas.

regards

do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

Click to expand...

I would distinquish between sites offering services, as I pointed out, by people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity. The sites are produced for financial gain but not by a 'webmaster'.

If someone creates a site merely for financial gain then it is less valuable to me in that it is not part of real-life. If someone wants information on dancing, then a site that contains gems such as 'Ballet is a form of dance. To learn ballet you need to have lessons which are usually given by a teacher. You need to wear ballet shoes which can be bought in shops. It is a good idea to make sure they fit' surrounded by adverts, and affiliate links is not a valuable resource.

regards

And what is wrong with webmasters making sites for financial gain? Do ODP editors have something against that, do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing, just as there is nothing wrong with us building a directory for the surfers, rather than one designed for the webmasters.

We list plenty of for profit sites. Several million in fact.

What we do not do is give commercial sites a priority over other sites in terms of site listings. Just as we do not give a priority to sites that are suggested to us.

I think part of the problem here is that you are trying to paint us in terms that are absolute in nature, when in fact, "all of the above" usually applies.

We don't prioritize suggestions, but we don't totally ignore then, either.

We cherish hobbyist sites that have lots of unique contents, but we still list the car dealers, sewing machine stores, airplane parts manufacturers, and ostrich breeders.

It is not us against the webmasters, it is about us being FOR the surfers and against the spammers.

brmehlman you are welcome but you are missing the point here.

I wasn't asking about where GlaxoSmithKline was listed, I was making a point.

Would it make a difference in the discussion if I had mentioned vistor.is which is not listed in ODP, as If I thought it would make a difference for the point I was trying to make I would of course mentioned that one as they are not listed, but that is NOT the point.

You have to read from the beginning to the end before you reply.

I would distinquish between sites offering services, as I pointed out, by people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity. The sites are produced for financial gain but not by a 'webmaster'.

Click to expand...

I understand that sites built around advertisement and stirctly just selling something with no informational value isn't off favour to anyone but I wonder where you draw the line between

people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity.

Click to expand...

It has been mentioned in this thread that webmasters are whining and complaining so it sounds to me like it is you against them.

What we do not do is give commercial sites a priority over other sites in terms of site listings. Just as we do not give a priority to sites that are suggested to us.

Click to expand...

To me it looks actually like that you are giving non-commercial sites priority, but still saying that there is no preferential treatment for anyone.

But in can be understood from the posts in this thread that there is.

You seem to have an issue with webmasters that are creating sites for financial gaines, so there is a less reason to list those.

If I wanted to buy satellite program to have on my PC and I found a site listed on ODP (Google Directory) would you not have served me just fine?

I'm just curious, would any of those site be listed in the directory?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=is&q=satellite+on+PC&btnG=Google+leit&lr=

I assume the link will be deleted as all the other links that support what I'm saying has been deleted but before you do that would any of the editors here tell me if even one of the sites their would get listed or if you would find them to be 'webmaster' sites.

That might help people (me) to understand better how you list sites.

p.s why do you delete the URL's from the posts when they are being uses to support someones case?

There's only 2 actual sites on that first page of the search return, all the others are sub-pages of a larger site. Those 2 sites will not get a listing in the directory and the guidelines clearly state why.