What's the point?

We know that and similar articles. They are based on a misconception of what DMOZ is and wants to be.

They're based on what certain people want DMOZ to be ... for their own self-serving ends.

If you take a look to Google Trends you'll find out that general public seems to have a misconception about DMOZ.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=dmoz&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

You better first take a course in statistics before you make such statements.

"Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time."

So if the total number of searches grows faster than the number of searches for the term you are looking for Trends will show a declining line for your term.

As Google writes "The data Trends produces may contain inaccuracies for a number of reasons, including data-sampling issues and a variety of approximations that are used to compute results. We hope you find this service interesting and entertaining, but you probably wouldn’t want to write your Ph.D. dissertation based on the information provided by Trends."

If the total number of searches grows faster than the number of searches for the term you are looking for, there is a lack of interest in it. (in that term)

Of course, as we don't know how Google users grow we can't be sure if the number of dmoz users is actually growing or decaying. The graph I linked before shows that interest about dmoz term among Google users is decaying since January 2004. We must understand this graph is not dmoz traffic actually. And we should note that dmoz traffic comes through other sites like Google's directory.

Let's go back to statistical problem pointed out by pvgool. How can we address the lack of information in Google Trends? (google users growth). I guess we can't but we can find a work around. Let's add another term to our graph and let's compare searches about dmoz with searches about other term. As the growth of users (or searches) affects any search term in the same way we would get an idea about the real dmoz situation.

I did the exercise my self. And started comparing dmoz against twitter in the last 12 months, as twitter is relatively new. As anyone can see twitter search volume has been growing since July 2008 despite google search growth.

Another interesting try is check dmoz against seo search term. Because several dmoz unreasonable rules are supported by saying they prevent dmoz from spammers. In this graph is pretty clear that interest in dmoz has never been growing when interest in SEO has grown faster than dmoz decaying. This result goes against the theory that every one complaining about not getting listed in dmoz is a spammer. Position that most editors seems to take when asked about these problems. And we have plenty of samples in this forum. But, as we can see in the graph interest in SEO doesn't go with interest in dmoz. And let's be fair with a lot of people work: SEO is not a bad thing itself. SEO is no spam.

We can take a look to interest in dmoz against "submit site" term in general. We see that both were going down since 2004, but dmoz tends to decay faster since January 2008.

Using our imagination we can take a look to a lot of results which won't tell us the unbeatable truth about dmoz but will give us a good idea of what's going on with dmoz among Google users.

The main problem with some poeple's dissatisfaction with DMOZ is still the misconception they have of what DMOZ actually is and does.

You can try to use a shirt sleeve for a pocket but in spite of your best efforts the coins you put in will still fall out. In spite of how much you WANT the sleeve to be a pocket, it will always be a shirt sleeve.

The real problem is unrealistic expectation.

That will explain why my money is disappearing so fast :Omg:
Or is my expectation just to unrealisatic

Well. At some point every deception is cause by unrealistic expectations. I voted for president several guys whom assured they were going to solve people's problems. I expected they to keep their word. Eventually most of them failed at their own way.

When I submitted my sites several years ago I expected dmoz would list them eventually. But that didn't happened. (And I know it wasn't because of the guidelines, and the categories were deep enough and right for the sites). So my expectations were dmoz adding my URLs. What else could I expect from a directory. I expected a little respect to my time. The time spent submitting and coming back to check.

Users have expectations about dmoz built from what DMOZ is supposed to be. May be dmoz is something different. And users like me have a wrong idea. But then, is it an open web directory? If it is open, what's the point of making the submission process a black hole?

What is seems to be right now is a partially open web directory. Take a single category like Open source. As you can see in just 30 web listed there is one with the legend "No longer maintained". What was the editor who listed Jtrix thinking? Why do you keep this link when there is millions of valuable open source projects and web sites around the web?

Well, may be I've got the wrong idead about dmoz. And it is just a centralized community bookmark for its editors. hehe And that would explain why people is loosing interest in it.

You last post is a very good indication that you have very wrong ideas about what DMOZ
is.

> When I submitted my sites several years ago I expected dmoz would list them eventually.
Wrong. In contrast with the presidents you voted for DMOZ has never promised you to list your website. On the contrary. The guidelines state

Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion.

Click to expand...

> Users have expectations about dmoz built from what DMOZ is supposed to be.
Ehh. No. You mean "what they want DMOZ to be"
> May be dmoz is something different. And users like me have a wrong idea.
Yes. DMOZ is not a place where you can list websites.
> But then, is it an open web directory?
Yes. But the Open is not about suggesting and listing websites. Open means that everybody is allowed to use the DMOZ data as long as they follow one very simple requirement (provide an attribution link back to DMOZ).

> If it is open, what's the point of making the submission process a black hole?
There is no submission process. There is only a process to suggest a website. A big difference.

> And it is just a centralized community bookmark for its editors.
Yes. That is exactly what DMOZ is. With one extra bonus. We allow everybody to use our collected bookmarks.

pvgool said:

> And it is just a centralized community bookmark for its editors.
Yes. That is exactly what DMOZ is. With one extra bonus. We allow everybody to use our collected bookmarks.

Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between a directory and a bookmark in the meaning people over the net gives to these terms. May be you should call DMOZ an open bookmark and not a directory.

Note that we aren't discussing about dmoz decay any more, but about why dmoz is decaying. And at this very point you (the editors) keep telling us "dmoz is not what you think dmoz is, but something different". The only thing you do is redefine dmoz to dodge the critic.

Your last post exposes what editors think about dmoz and why it will fail to keep its place on the net eventually.

But what place is that?
Why do you keep instisting that DMOZ is something else than the people who are involved with it keep telling you?
Why do you keep telling us to change to something you want DMOZ to be?

Wouldn't it be much more helpfull if you tried to accept what DMOZ is. You do not need to agree with what DMOZ wants to be. But if it is not something for you you should find other websites that do offer the services you want instead of trying to change something you have no control over. We have our thing, you have your thing. That is good. Maybe they match, maybe they don't. That is OK.