What is the point?
- Thread starter chaz7979
- Start date
Perhaps http://dmoz.org/about.html and http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html will answer your question.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,204
Additionally, if you are interested in the history of the Open Directory Project, the Wikipedia article sums it up very well.
So it is safe to say that the point is...
The ODP powers core directory services for some the most popular portals and search engines on the Web, including AOL Search, Netscape Search, Google, Lycos, DirectHit, and HotBot, and hundreds of others.
is that the case?
I was asking the question seriously, and it seems from the links I have been givien in this post that maybe no one here knows?
The ODP powers core directory services for some the most popular portals and search engines on the Web, including AOL Search, Netscape Search, Google, Lycos, DirectHit, and HotBot, and hundreds of others.
is that the case?
I was asking the question seriously, and it seems from the links I have been givien in this post that maybe no one here knows?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
I am always here, you just can't always see me.makrhod said:<Looks around vaguely for Shadow to explain why we are all here.>
I was going to reply but as it couldn't possibly be construed as an "official statement", I figured it was unnecessary.
lmocr
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2005
- Messages
- 730
Did you forget about all those clones - like the Google directory, the AOL directory, etc etc? Those are visited by the general public. So no, i don't think it's safe to say that the general public does not use our directory - in one form or fashion.chaz7979 said:
>But isnt it safe to say that the "general public" does not come here to use the directory?
We aren't a vindictive bunch -- yes, it's safe to say. But the "general public" is an abstraction that has to be used carefully.
"The ODP is for the general public" means that there is no assumption that excludes some persons from receiving its benefit. It doesn't mean that there is any assumption about what percentage of all persons CHOOSE TO take the benefit.
On the other hand, when you talk about "what the general public does" -- you are making an assumption about how many persons do something. But you're ignoring how wide a range of interests might be represented by persons included in that number.
We aren't a vindictive bunch -- yes, it's safe to say. But the "general public" is an abstraction that has to be used carefully.
"The ODP is for the general public" means that there is no assumption that excludes some persons from receiving its benefit. It doesn't mean that there is any assumption about what percentage of all persons CHOOSE TO take the benefit.
On the other hand, when you talk about "what the general public does" -- you are making an assumption about how many persons do something. But you're ignoring how wide a range of interests might be represented by persons included in that number.
lmocr said:
I did not forget about all of them. But editors have said numerous times that the ODP does not care about what other sites do with the information. Threads are closed when people even suggest that the ODP betters sites like Google. When in reality I think the best thing the ODP could hope for would be to better all SE's as that is how people find useful information. But no one here will ever admit that this is a goal.
<snip>
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
Also, chaz, you are defining "goal" in a different way from us. You agree with us (or so it appears from your posts) that the Internet is a place full of information that's hard to find.
We do our best to make it easier to find things. It is an on-going process. The Internet is not a static thing, it is not finished -- nor will the ODP ever be. We are trying to bring more order to chaos; we don't give up because we realise that we are not there, and possibly never will be.
It is a fact that many of our categories are excellent resources about various topics. Science fiction fandom, for instance. Or a number of fairly obscure languages. Or web designers -- yes, web designers. True, there are thousands and thousands of designers who are not (yet) listed in the directory. But if I am looking for a designer I have 13000 different ones to choose between, and that's the material point from the perspective of the surfer. (Yes, it is quite possible that the one designer who is cheap, local to me and shares my views on what is good design is not listed. Yet. We're working on that, and you can't ask us for more than that.)
That is our goal. If Google and others use us, fine; it's not our goal that they do so, it's not in any of our objectives -- but that they elect to do so is a sign that we are at least approaching something that looks like our goal.
We do our best to make it easier to find things. It is an on-going process. The Internet is not a static thing, it is not finished -- nor will the ODP ever be. We are trying to bring more order to chaos; we don't give up because we realise that we are not there, and possibly never will be.
It is a fact that many of our categories are excellent resources about various topics. Science fiction fandom, for instance. Or a number of fairly obscure languages. Or web designers -- yes, web designers. True, there are thousands and thousands of designers who are not (yet) listed in the directory. But if I am looking for a designer I have 13000 different ones to choose between, and that's the material point from the perspective of the surfer. (Yes, it is quite possible that the one designer who is cheap, local to me and shares my views on what is good design is not listed. Yet. We're working on that, and you can't ask us for more than that.)
That is our goal. If Google and others use us, fine; it's not our goal that they do so, it's not in any of our objectives -- but that they elect to do so is a sign that we are at least approaching something that looks like our goal.
nea said:
If Google does not use you, then what good is all of the information that has been gathered? People dont surf the ODP. If that isnt part of your goal, you have a very interesting hobby on your hand that no one will ever benefit from.
I started this post to ask a simple question. One that was maybe answered, and one that someone thought was so good that it should be written somewhere. I just wanted clarity for myself, and hoped that maybe other people would benifit from it. I figured if I understood the point, I would be more equipped to help out.
I would repsond more, but my comments will be cut out, and my train of thought will look crazy, like it does in my other threads. I give up.
chaos127
Curlie Admin
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,344
I'm not sure exactly what you're wanting to know. You asked for the goal, and that is to make a definitive directory of websites ofr the benefit of surfers. To me that's very clear from http://dmoz.org/about.html .
However, perhaps what you actually want to know is wherther such a directory is actually useful, and why lots of volunteers would want to help. If you don't personally find the directory useful, then that's fine -- you can just go away and get on with the rest of your life . Cleary some people do think it's useful, as can be see from the category listing data users, the fact that lots of SEO types are desparate to get their sites listed, and the fact the search engines will sometimes use ODP titles and descriptions in their results. As for why people want to be editors, I can easily explain my reasons...
With my philanthropic hat on, it's a "good thing" to have such a directory (and the ODP is clearly the leader in its field). For surfers, a directory is very useful when looking for certain types of information -- a good example is information about a particular village or town. This can be both through using the directory directly, or from indirectly results through search engines. Many hobbyist sites covering small villages don't attract many links, and often the webmasters don't make search-enginge friendly pages. Google et al. trusts the ODP to provide links and suitable titles in such cases, and surfers benefit as a result.
With my selfish hat on, it's fun to help with such a project in my free time. I like the sense of community and the intellectual challenge of trying to categorise the web.
However, perhaps what you actually want to know is wherther such a directory is actually useful, and why lots of volunteers would want to help. If you don't personally find the directory useful, then that's fine -- you can just go away and get on with the rest of your life
. Cleary some people do think it's useful, as can be see from the category listing data users, the fact that lots of SEO types are desparate to get their sites listed, and the fact the search engines will sometimes use ODP titles and descriptions in their results. As for why people want to be editors, I can easily explain my reasons...With my philanthropic hat on, it's a "good thing" to have such a directory (and the ODP is clearly the leader in its field). For surfers, a directory is very useful when looking for certain types of information -- a good example is information about a particular village or town. This can be both through using the directory directly, or from indirectly results through search engines. Many hobbyist sites covering small villages don't attract many links, and often the webmasters don't make search-enginge friendly pages. Google et al. trusts the ODP to provide links and suitable titles in such cases, and surfers benefit as a result.
With my selfish hat on, it's fun to help with such a project in my free time. I like the sense of community and the intellectual challenge of trying to categorise the web.
I asked what the point was. The purpose.
The link you provided says
I think that this statement describes the ODP as well. Maybe that point needs to be edited.
Easy? Really?
For the record I do think it is quite useful. Hence my desire to help. My only problem is that I think part of the purpose is to indirectly aid SE's to bring surfers more relevant results to surfers. Yet when others suggest that, they are told no, and sometimes their posts are closed. I wish the ODP would stop denying what it is good for. Then once you do that try to empathize with people with real quality sites that can not get listed. Show an ounce of caring. For those who are scamming scumbag spammers show no mercy, but try and remember that not everyone is out to scam the system.
The link you provided says
Code:
Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet.I think that this statement describes the ODP as well. Maybe that point needs to be edited.
Code:
[B]Signing up is easy:[/B] choose a topic you know something about and join. Editing categories is a snap.Easy? Really?
For the record I do think it is quite useful. Hence my desire to help. My only problem is that I think part of the purpose is to indirectly aid SE's to bring surfers more relevant results to surfers. Yet when others suggest that, they are told no, and sometimes their posts are closed. I wish the ODP would stop denying what it is good for. Then once you do that try to empathize with people with real quality sites that can not get listed. Show an ounce of caring. For those who are scamming scumbag spammers show no mercy, but try and remember that not everyone is out to scam the system.
chaos127
Curlie Admin
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,344
I'd agree that perhaps some of http://dmoz.org/about.html could do with being brought a little more up to date. I belive that some work on the public documentation is in the pipeline though.
I guess "easy" is always going to be relative. I got accepted as an editor with my first application -- and I didn't find the procedure particularly difficult. I probably spent a couple of hours reading the various documents to make sure I understood everything though. However I know lots of other good editors took several attempts before they figured everything out. People aren't denied on a whim -- we genuinely want more good editors, but the time in sorting out the mess left by bad ones, or even educating people who are difficult to teach is not insignificant. Hence applications are judged on their merits. You can see how at: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/apps.html
What it is actually good for, and what its goals are, don't have to be the same thing. We're building a directory to benefit surfers and allow other people to make use of the data (for whatever purpose they choose). Yes, Google uses ODP data to help with its results (though I think they deny that an ODP listing carries more weight than any other link). Is the purpose of the ODP to supply data to Google? No. Does it coincide with our general philosophy to help surfers if Google uses the data to help surfers? Yes. So is it a good thing? IMO, Yes.
Is the ODP directory anything like complete? No. Do we care? Yes -- we'd like it to be better. Is there anything we can do about it? Presumably we can either continue as we have been (expanding slowly) or lower our standards (accepting more editors and/or not reviewing sites as thoroughly). Since the guidelines are there by concensus of the editors, it's reasonable to assume that we prefer things how they are -- a less complete directory, but with good quality listings. Note that (as has been said many times) we're here for surfers not website owners -- as long as we have a few good quality links for each topic, most surfers will be pretty well served. It's a pity for the owners of non-listed sites, but that's not really our concern. In any case it's not actually something we can do much about, without an unacceptable sacrifice of the overall quality of the directory.
I guess "easy" is always going to be relative. I got accepted as an editor with my first application -- and I didn't find the procedure particularly difficult. I probably spent a couple of hours reading the various documents to make sure I understood everything though. However I know lots of other good editors took several attempts before they figured everything out. People aren't denied on a whim -- we genuinely want more good editors, but the time in sorting out the mess left by bad ones, or even educating people who are difficult to teach is not insignificant. Hence applications are judged on their merits. You can see how at: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/apps.html
What it is actually good for, and what its goals are, don't have to be the same thing. We're building a directory to benefit surfers and allow other people to make use of the data (for whatever purpose they choose). Yes, Google uses ODP data to help with its results (though I think they deny that an ODP listing carries more weight than any other link). Is the purpose of the ODP to supply data to Google? No. Does it coincide with our general philosophy to help surfers if Google uses the data to help surfers? Yes. So is it a good thing? IMO, Yes.
Is the ODP directory anything like complete? No. Do we care? Yes -- we'd like it to be better. Is there anything we can do about it? Presumably we can either continue as we have been (expanding slowly) or lower our standards (accepting more editors and/or not reviewing sites as thoroughly). Since the guidelines are there by concensus of the editors, it's reasonable to assume that we prefer things how they are -- a less complete directory, but with good quality listings. Note that (as has been said many times) we're here for surfers not website owners -- as long as we have a few good quality links for each topic, most surfers will be pretty well served. It's a pity for the owners of non-listed sites, but that's not really our concern. In any case it's not actually something we can do much about, without an unacceptable sacrifice of the overall quality of the directory.