They might be the final product but they aren't our product. Our product is the service of pointing people to other peoples' products, just like Walmart's product is not the actual stuff they sell but the service of stocking and selling that stuff.
Still no listing since Fall of 2004...
- Thread starter tombobb
- Start date
Hello....
With all do respects i suggest like another individual stated.... Get Over It!
Their are thousands of other directories that you can submit to, dmoz is so backlogged that they will never see daylight period! It is first so diffacult to find your proper listing or for that matter making sure your in the best catagory,then second the button that finally says submit here that most spend a while trying to hunt for it. Sure it would be great if it happened but it would be as nice to hit the lottery also but dont count on it. With so many editors my "personal thoughts" is that it boils down to who and what was their mood when they finally decided to view your site.
Please dont get me wrong as I am not trying to bash any editor here as i am sure they are swamped beyond belief, and also dont even get paid for the hard work they accomplish. I would have to say they probably have the hardest job deciding who makes the final cut. My only suggestion would be try your best but like anything else prepare for the worst, move on man.
Please dont do like some clown did in another forum and suggest that you list that domain in a bunch of different catagories as many times as you can as this would get you surely banned from ever being included.
thank you
malcolm
With all do respects i suggest like another individual stated.... Get Over It!
Their are thousands of other directories that you can submit to, dmoz is so backlogged that they will never see daylight period! It is first so diffacult to find your proper listing or for that matter making sure your in the best catagory,then second the button that finally says submit here that most spend a while trying to hunt for it. Sure it would be great if it happened but it would be as nice to hit the lottery also but dont count on it. With so many editors my "personal thoughts" is that it boils down to who and what was their mood when they finally decided to view your site.
Please dont get me wrong as I am not trying to bash any editor here as i am sure they are swamped beyond belief, and also dont even get paid for the hard work they accomplish. I would have to say they probably have the hardest job deciding who makes the final cut. My only suggestion would be try your best but like anything else prepare for the worst, move on man.
Please dont do like some clown did in another forum and suggest that you list that domain in a bunch of different catagories as many times as you can as this would get you surely banned from ever being included.
thank you
malcolm
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
BIZ-GIANT said:
Nope, not backlogged. Just blessed with an ample amount of raw materials to work with.
How difficult is it to know the subject of ones own website and then find a category that is most relevant to that subject? The "Suggest URL" link is right at the top of all category pages that are excepting site suggestions. Editors moods may determine where that individual decides to edit at a given moment (that part you got right) but the guidelines always determine how the review the sites.BIZ-GIANT said:
No offense taken here.BIZ-GIANT said:
Swamped is a no, though. There are a lot of sites out there that can help us work on our hobby, but if I get to the point I feel swamped I just take a few days for myself away from my editing. (doesn't happen all that often though)Yes please don't.BIZ-GIANT said:
Hello...
Thank you shadow for your imput as it is appreciated.
I am a directory owner also but newer to the scene so if i said anything to hurt anyones feelings or info was wrong it was not ment as such.
what i ment by catagory is that many times you could fall under a few differnet ones, and i was under the impression if you got it wrong your out.
you also pointed out that if they are excepting in that catagory. does this mean if its filled your not going to make the cut?
I just feel that everyone dwells that they have to make it in. I tried once and that was it. I believe most people think that they have to make it in to get on the top of google rankings because they are linked to a site with such a high PR, I myself havent had any problem as my domain is in 1st and second in most keywords i have used, to get to the top takes optimization as well as content,and I fear that most dont bother doing such just have this idea that being listed in dmoz will get you their.
I commend you all on doing the best with your given time and focus.
Was wondering if their is ever going to be a search feature implemented? havent been thier in a while and cant remember if thier is so please disregard if there actually is one as i cant remember one being thier.
Will dmoz ever become paid to include? or do you think this would have negative repurcussions
thanks
malcolm
Ps... yes a vacation away from things is the best solution i would agree.
Thank you shadow for your imput as it is appreciated.
I am a directory owner also but newer to the scene so if i said anything to hurt anyones feelings or info was wrong it was not ment as such.
what i ment by catagory is that many times you could fall under a few differnet ones, and i was under the impression if you got it wrong your out.
you also pointed out that if they are excepting in that catagory. does this mean if its filled your not going to make the cut?
I just feel that everyone dwells that they have to make it in. I tried once and that was it. I believe most people think that they have to make it in to get on the top of google rankings because they are linked to a site with such a high PR, I myself havent had any problem as my domain is in 1st and second in most keywords i have used, to get to the top takes optimization as well as content,and I fear that most dont bother doing such just have this idea that being listed in dmoz will get you their.
I commend you all on doing the best with your given time and focus.
Was wondering if their is ever going to be a search feature implemented? havent been thier in a while and cant remember if thier is so please disregard if there actually is one as i cant remember one being thier.
Will dmoz ever become paid to include? or do you think this would have negative repurcussions
thanks
malcolm
Ps... yes a vacation away from things is the best solution i would agree.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
Nope no feelings hurt (at least not by meBIZ-GIANT said:
) just needed to clear up some misunderstandings.I tend to agree with you, a dmoz link is just that-another link. You can do very well with out one if you put the effort into your own site. My philosophy has always been suggest and move on, build your own site to assist your customers and a dmoz listing would just be icing on the cake.BIZ-GIANT said:
1) Thanks.BIZ-GIANT said:
2) The search feature currently does what its supposed to - drill down specific categories. A specific URL search if that is what you mean, to my knowledge isn't a high priority but I would agree if it was included would be a nice feature.
3) Nope. If you want paid inclusion there are plenty of directories out there that offer that very service. It goes against the very nature of the directory IMO, and I wouldn't want to be a part of it if favoritism was given to those who could afford it.
My two boys are the best solution to needing an editing break.BIZ-GIANT said:
>>That doesn't make the people who promote those sites customers though, it makes them manufacturers' reps. And we, like anyone else in the middle of any supply chain, do our customers a service by taking what manufacturers' reps say with a large grain of salt.
I know… I just thought that was kind of funny and illustrated 2 methods to solve the same problem. Haven’t you ever been in a situation where some rep says, “I’m sorry sir, but that’s our policy”?
>>And only a small percentage of our population are into rape/murder/robbery -- yet we lock our doors at night.
Your analogy would more accurately describe a hacker, not a spammer. A spammer would be more like one of those religious zealots that try and save your sole. Both the spammer and religious zealot knock and wait for you to answer the door.
My version of your analogy would be… Only a small percentage of our population are religious zealots/door-to-door salesman/girl scoots – yet the ODP only answers it’s door to anyone whenever they feel like it. In addition, when a desirable person comes to the door, knocks, and calls the ODP hotline (forum) to tell them he’s been waiting for 4 hours, the voice says “We’ll get to the door when we get to it, don’t hold your breath”… click.
>>The same with DMOZ
You go to DMOZ to find information about Real Estate agents in Las Vegas.
You find 20 Agencies and 124 Agents.
Are you as a customer satisfied with the choice you have? I would.
Are there more agents in Las Vegas? Most probably yes.
Do these other agents want to be listed and are they unhappy because they are not listed yet? I'm sure the answer is yes.
I’m not sure I fully understand your point. Original content, original content, original content… up to this point, that seems to be the 3 qualifying factors used by the editors to determine whether or not a site should be listed. So by your example, 124 agents have original content and numbers 125 and 126 that requested to be added do not?
Commercial sites don’t fit so neatly in the “original content is king” methodology. How many ways can a site talk about a Canon Rebel Digital Camera? Two sites selling that camera might look virtually identical to the editor. However, one site stocks the camera and ships within 24 hours and the other site orders as needed and ships in 2 weeks.
>> They might be the final product but they aren't our product. Our product is the service of pointing people to other peoples' products, just like Walmart's product is not the actual stuff they sell but the service of stocking and selling that stuff.
If you are saying that service = product, then OK. But that wasn’t really my point. Let me put it this way. My website has categories, subcategories, titles and descriptions. I do my best to help the surfer find what they want easily… Sound familiar? Even though I designed our site from the ground up, it’s not my product. If I choose to sell it in the future then it will become the product. Also in the sense that our site has the potential to move product, the site could be considered a product (tool) for our vendors and potential vendors. But that’s all just a bunch of blah, blah, blah. My original point was that good webmasters are a BIG part of the DMOZ equation, so treat them that way.
>> With all do respects i suggest like another individual stated.... Get Over It!
I am over it. I didn’t like the way I was treated, so I posted about it.
I’ve learned a lot about the ODP in this thread… some good, some bad, all interesting.
I know… I just thought that was kind of funny and illustrated 2 methods to solve the same problem. Haven’t you ever been in a situation where some rep says, “I’m sorry sir, but that’s our policy”?
>>And only a small percentage of our population are into rape/murder/robbery -- yet we lock our doors at night.
Your analogy would more accurately describe a hacker, not a spammer. A spammer would be more like one of those religious zealots that try and save your sole. Both the spammer and religious zealot knock and wait for you to answer the door.
My version of your analogy would be… Only a small percentage of our population are religious zealots/door-to-door salesman/girl scoots – yet the ODP only answers it’s door to anyone whenever they feel like it. In addition, when a desirable person comes to the door, knocks, and calls the ODP hotline (forum) to tell them he’s been waiting for 4 hours, the voice says “We’ll get to the door when we get to it, don’t hold your breath”… click.
>>The same with DMOZ
You go to DMOZ to find information about Real Estate agents in Las Vegas.
You find 20 Agencies and 124 Agents.
Are you as a customer satisfied with the choice you have? I would.
Are there more agents in Las Vegas? Most probably yes.
Do these other agents want to be listed and are they unhappy because they are not listed yet? I'm sure the answer is yes.
I’m not sure I fully understand your point. Original content, original content, original content… up to this point, that seems to be the 3 qualifying factors used by the editors to determine whether or not a site should be listed. So by your example, 124 agents have original content and numbers 125 and 126 that requested to be added do not?
Commercial sites don’t fit so neatly in the “original content is king” methodology. How many ways can a site talk about a Canon Rebel Digital Camera? Two sites selling that camera might look virtually identical to the editor. However, one site stocks the camera and ships within 24 hours and the other site orders as needed and ships in 2 weeks.
>> They might be the final product but they aren't our product. Our product is the service of pointing people to other peoples' products, just like Walmart's product is not the actual stuff they sell but the service of stocking and selling that stuff.
If you are saying that service = product, then OK. But that wasn’t really my point. Let me put it this way. My website has categories, subcategories, titles and descriptions. I do my best to help the surfer find what they want easily… Sound familiar? Even though I designed our site from the ground up, it’s not my product. If I choose to sell it in the future then it will become the product. Also in the sense that our site has the potential to move product, the site could be considered a product (tool) for our vendors and potential vendors. But that’s all just a bunch of blah, blah, blah. My original point was that good webmasters are a BIG part of the DMOZ equation, so treat them that way.
>> With all do respects i suggest like another individual stated.... Get Over It!
I am over it. I didn’t like the way I was treated, so I posted about it.
I’ve learned a lot about the ODP in this thread… some good, some bad, all interesting.
Lets say I'm editing in the Las Vegas real estate category. I plow through the suggested sites and I list 50 sites total. At that point, I'm sick of looking at Las Vegas real estate sites so I go do something else. Maybe I never feel like looking at Las Vegas real estate sites again and no one else comes along behind me with a burning desire to do so in my stead. Are the users fairly well served by the sites that are currently listed? Probably. Are there other sites that could be listed in the category? Possibly and if I were to find them, I'd list them. But I'm not planning on reviewing sites in that category again anytime soon so the quality of the unreviewed sites is not relevant to me at this point in time. I'll probably be in a smaller category, less well-represented, happily bringing it up to the degree of representation already present in the Las Vegas real estate category.
>Only a small percentage of our population are religious zealots/door-to-door salesman/girl scoots – yet the ODP only answers it’s door to anyone whenever they feel like it. In addition, when a desirable person comes to the door, knocks, and calls the ODP hotline (forum) to tell them he’s been waiting for 4 hours, the voice says “We’ll get to the door when we get to it, don’t hold your breath”… click.
No, we say "leave the package,if you can find room on the lawn. We'll get to it quicker if you put the religious material under the forsythia bushes, and the canned dog food beside the storm drain. There's no need for a response, we'll drop by your church if we get ready to convert."
See, I have both scouts and religious people in my family, and I don't find them undesirable. And in a world without arrogant bigots, there AREN'T any UN-"desirable" persons. Boy scouts, evangelists, and even encyclopedia salesmen are SOMEWHERE, sometime, desirable -- and at other times, inconvenient.
What we REALLY say is, "We don't make appointments for unsolicited deliveries. You may, if you wish, drop the package on the lawn at YOUR convenience. We'll look at it at OUR convenience."
For social matters, the forums are always open. But for "work", it's always "at convenience", and it's an act of incredibly arrogant rudeness to expect anyone else to re-arrange their convenience to suit you.
No, we say "leave the package,if you can find room on the lawn. We'll get to it quicker if you put the religious material under the forsythia bushes, and the canned dog food beside the storm drain. There's no need for a response, we'll drop by your church if we get ready to convert."
See, I have both scouts and religious people in my family, and I don't find them undesirable. And in a world without arrogant bigots, there AREN'T any UN-"desirable" persons. Boy scouts, evangelists, and even encyclopedia salesmen are SOMEWHERE, sometime, desirable -- and at other times, inconvenient.
What we REALLY say is, "We don't make appointments for unsolicited deliveries. You may, if you wish, drop the package on the lawn at YOUR convenience. We'll look at it at OUR convenience."
For social matters, the forums are always open. But for "work", it's always "at convenience", and it's an act of incredibly arrogant rudeness to expect anyone else to re-arrange their convenience to suit you.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
The point is: Will our customers be dissatisfied because we don't list all the sites about a specific subject or are they happy that they can find what they were looking for.tombobb said:
Commercial sites fit the unique content methodology perfectly.tombobb said:
Who are you + what do you do to make money = the unique content.
The most important question for a commercial site to ask is: does the company do what do tell us they are doing themself (OK, that is unique) or are they just telling us that they pretend to do something but in reality an other company is doing the real work (affiliates, mirrors etc - that's not unique).
>How many ways can a site talk about a Canon Rebel Digital Camera?
At least three:
(1) The product specifications. Canon has these, and there's no point in listening to anyone else on the subject. On the web, any honest person will link to Canon's website for this information, and anyone who doesn't, ought not to be considered honest.
(2) Promotional material -- "the buy, buy, buy today!" chorus extended to any length, and with any elaboration. This is generally practiced in the retail business, but has even less claim to be listed than plagiarized product descriptions. The presence of this non-information on the website of a genuine retail establishment, won't necessarily keep a site from being listed, but at best it weighs on the unfavorable side of the balance. The editor should ignore this (if it can be done without too much inconvenience) and look at the actual unique content on the site -- that is, the uniquely authoritative information about the unique services offered by the retailer. But for surfer's purposes, the marketing garbage could just as well be left off, and the website would be more useful. Genuine honest retailers know this -- look at a newspaper, at the 4-Day Tire Store's ad: it consists of terms of service (i.e show up at THIS location on one of THESE days and get THIS tire for THIS price--go somewhere else to see the specs on that tire!), or a serious Camera retailer in the back of a major photography magazine. And a Kroger's grocery ad doesn't give the nutritional specifications of canned Jolly Green Giant Spring Peas--just the price and store location.
(3) Product reviews: the result of a uniquely experienced and knowledgeable reviewer, sharing his unique personal insights into the relative value of products that he's in the habit of using, with no ulterior marketing motive: such as zdnet testing labs, and the like. There can be as many such websites listed as there are persons (or groups) with the unique skills to use and test products, and distinguish the result: which is, for most products, a relatively small group.
A lot of spammers try to emulate these experts as ODP editor bait, to create "doorway pages" on which they can include their toxic marketroid content. I reviewed one article about a SUV by a "car reviewer" who had obviously never sat in the cab. He waxed eloquent about the fact that it was big and obviously had low gas mileage: mentioning each of those inanities several times without even providing the quantitative detail he could have copied off of the vehicle's price sticker. By dint of persistent belaboring the obvious, he eked out a several-hundred-word "artikul" that, in his opinion, merited a deeplink in the ODP category about that brand of vehicle. Another "travel portal" waxed eloquent about all the things that a traveller could find in <name of major city omitted> -- the only attractions the reviewer actually NAMED in his enthusiastic civic boosting were -- a major league sports stadium, and shopping. (I suppose the ignoramus of a webmaster watched whateverball on weekends, and that was all he knew.) Well, that kind of inanity characterizes most of the so-called "consumer information" sites, because that's the level of ignorance characterized by most free-lance mercenary search engine result hijackers. And yeah, they don't KNOW anything unique to write about their products. But just because a thousand ignoramuses babble about some subject just because they want click-throughs, doesn't mean there aren't genuine experts who know about imaging distortions, car maintenance costs, or local culture. Thing is, you can pretty well count on the genuine subject experts to NOT show up in the regular SEO forum circuit: and even in a non-SEO forum like this, the genuine subject experts mostly appear (if at all) incognito, in a editor's robe and tonsure.
At least three:
(1) The product specifications. Canon has these, and there's no point in listening to anyone else on the subject. On the web, any honest person will link to Canon's website for this information, and anyone who doesn't, ought not to be considered honest.
(2) Promotional material -- "the buy, buy, buy today!" chorus extended to any length, and with any elaboration. This is generally practiced in the retail business, but has even less claim to be listed than plagiarized product descriptions. The presence of this non-information on the website of a genuine retail establishment, won't necessarily keep a site from being listed, but at best it weighs on the unfavorable side of the balance. The editor should ignore this (if it can be done without too much inconvenience) and look at the actual unique content on the site -- that is, the uniquely authoritative information about the unique services offered by the retailer. But for surfer's purposes, the marketing garbage could just as well be left off, and the website would be more useful. Genuine honest retailers know this -- look at a newspaper, at the 4-Day Tire Store's ad: it consists of terms of service (i.e show up at THIS location on one of THESE days and get THIS tire for THIS price--go somewhere else to see the specs on that tire!), or a serious Camera retailer in the back of a major photography magazine. And a Kroger's grocery ad doesn't give the nutritional specifications of canned Jolly Green Giant Spring Peas--just the price and store location.
(3) Product reviews: the result of a uniquely experienced and knowledgeable reviewer, sharing his unique personal insights into the relative value of products that he's in the habit of using, with no ulterior marketing motive: such as zdnet testing labs, and the like. There can be as many such websites listed as there are persons (or groups) with the unique skills to use and test products, and distinguish the result: which is, for most products, a relatively small group.
A lot of spammers try to emulate these experts as ODP editor bait, to create "doorway pages" on which they can include their toxic marketroid content. I reviewed one article about a SUV by a "car reviewer" who had obviously never sat in the cab. He waxed eloquent about the fact that it was big and obviously had low gas mileage: mentioning each of those inanities several times without even providing the quantitative detail he could have copied off of the vehicle's price sticker. By dint of persistent belaboring the obvious, he eked out a several-hundred-word "artikul" that, in his opinion, merited a deeplink in the ODP category about that brand of vehicle. Another "travel portal" waxed eloquent about all the things that a traveller could find in <name of major city omitted> -- the only attractions the reviewer actually NAMED in his enthusiastic civic boosting were -- a major league sports stadium, and shopping. (I suppose the ignoramus of a webmaster watched whateverball on weekends, and that was all he knew.) Well, that kind of inanity characterizes most of the so-called "consumer information" sites, because that's the level of ignorance characterized by most free-lance mercenary search engine result hijackers. And yeah, they don't KNOW anything unique to write about their products. But just because a thousand ignoramuses babble about some subject just because they want click-throughs, doesn't mean there aren't genuine experts who know about imaging distortions, car maintenance costs, or local culture. Thing is, you can pretty well count on the genuine subject experts to NOT show up in the regular SEO forum circuit: and even in a non-SEO forum like this, the genuine subject experts mostly appear (if at all) incognito, in a editor's robe and tonsure.
giz said:
No....If there are not enough editors or they don't have the time, maybe other search engines should stop using DMOZ for supplemental information. If information is not index in a timely manner or not at all, how does it help the internet community as a whole?
hutcheson said:
So why don't you answer the question? It seems that you don't want to answer it? How does it help or benefit the internet community to have a directory where there are not enough editors or editors with no time to update the directory with fresh information in a timely manner? It's not about attitude (not at all.) The issue is whether the directory is still usefull for internet users to access up-to-date information. That's all. No need to get personal.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
We have a total of zero control over the search engines that do or don't use the directory data-you would have to take that suggestion up with them. Thousands of categories get up dated regularly by the 7K plus editors. Some categories go a while between updates (sometime years) but that doesn't mean that the directory as a whole is relevant, isnt beneficial, and isn't up-to-date. I am sorry I just don't buy that argument.mannymo said:
BIZ-GIANT said:
If DMOZ wasn't used so much by search engines for supplemental information, then I'm sure everyone would "Get Over It." Even you point out the DMOZ backlog...So...taking the backlog, lack of editors, editors with little or no time...how does make DMOZ useful to the internet community? Is the information in the directory really "fresh" and up-to-date? In the broadband information age, what is timely?
I'm a student....When I search the internet, I hope to have the most up-to-date information I can get. Do I get that from DMOZ?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
There is no back log. Just an abundance of raw materials from one source (not always a very good source) which is located in the site suggestions. Editors don't just use site suggestions, they are there to assist us in building categories but in many categories the site suggestions are unreliable at best and blatantly unproductive at worst.mannymo said:
As a student, it would very much depend on what it was you were researching. If you were researching Deception Island then you would find just a couple of sites (last updated in 2002 according to the marker on that page) but they seem to be pretty good with still offering decent content. I am sure you could find a few more sites that would fit there but by your standards that category is 4 years old and useless. On the other hand if you were researching Oligosaccharides you will find that it is up to date by the "last update marker of July 31, 2006. These were just two random and to my interest obscure categories I picked by drilling through from the top down.
For a category to be dead/useless, it would have to have nothing to offer. I guess I am just not editing in enough categories to uncover the 10's of thousands of categories everyone seems so interested in that are so riddled with useless information that the whole directory should be declared dead.
It's been said over and over again: for information that has to be up-to-date or it's worthless, the ODP doesn't really get in that business. As for news, we gave up TRYING to list it: we couldn't do a good job. And Google Search doesn't do a good job either--that's why they have a separate search using distinct ranking technology, for news. Nobody in their right mind would use Google Search for news; nobody in their right mind would complain that Google Search isn't good at finding "up-to-date" news.
And ephemeral shopping is the same way. Try looking for books: Google Search will show you dozens of online used book catalogs at websites where that book USED to be available for sale!
And we have a policy of not listing "shopping sites" that advertise one product (like a house or yacht) and once that is sold, the site is useless. It's a waste of our time to try to keep up with shortlived sites like that.
If you want the kind of "up to date" information that you must "use by next Monday or it rots", DO NOT GO TO THE ODP. Go to Google News, go to Ebay or Abebooks, go to anyone who makes a reputable business of collecting freshness-limited content and giving searches that are absolutely up-to-date, instead of out-of-date like Google or the ODP.
This is another example of whinging about the ODP because it can't and doesn't try to do something that -- someone else does better already.
And ephemeral shopping is the same way. Try looking for books: Google Search will show you dozens of online used book catalogs at websites where that book USED to be available for sale!
And we have a policy of not listing "shopping sites" that advertise one product (like a house or yacht) and once that is sold, the site is useless. It's a waste of our time to try to keep up with shortlived sites like that.
If you want the kind of "up to date" information that you must "use by next Monday or it rots", DO NOT GO TO THE ODP. Go to Google News, go to Ebay or Abebooks, go to anyone who makes a reputable business of collecting freshness-limited content and giving searches that are absolutely up-to-date, instead of out-of-date like Google or the ODP.
This is another example of whinging about the ODP because it can't and doesn't try to do something that -- someone else does better already.