DMOZ warrant any value from search engines? I mean this question in all seriousness and with the utmost respect I can muster. The directory is so old, so out of date, so out of touch, that I don't really understand how or why search engines would grant it any sort of value. I think that because of its design (or the way in which submissions are added) it can never hope to be a viable "open" directory.
If some of the sub-directory categories really do take years to be updated, how can DMOZ be any kind of relevant or accurate reflection of the internet (especially considering the pace at which websites are born, expand, and ultimately die)? One might argue that DMOZ is merely a disconnected sample of the internet, but hardly the stuff of a true directory - it's like a phone book with some phone numbers from the 1930s, some from the 50s, some from the 80s, and any number from the year 2000+ just isn't there. As such, is there really a purpose to attempt to add my website to such a disconnected and out of date directory? To my mind there is not, which begs the fundamental question: why do search engines consider DMOZ more highly than any other directory?
As a web developer, I'm trying to grapple with the concept of submitting my websites (and I have, years ago) to a directory that in all likelihood will never actually index my submission - not because they are of poor quality (my keyword rankings on multiple search engines would suggest otherwise), but because the architecture of this "open directory" isn't conducive to the sheer vastness of the internet itself.
So, I ask again, why do search engines give such credence to the DMOZ directory? Perhaps they don't (which, arguably, is a good thing), in which case I am satisfied. However, experience seems to suggest that they do, considering that every SEO ranking system adds DMOZ to the equation, it is likely that there is some implicit nod that search engines do as well. If so, then DMOZ and its editors are in a unique position of interest (in the eyes of web developers).
History suggests it is never a good idea to invest so much interest (which inevitably translates into power) in the hands of so few - the DMOZ directory and its editors. Not that I think any editor is corrupt, but the fact that they are corruptible (or rather, that the system itself is designed in such a way that it shrouds the entire process) is enough to cast a shadow of doubt over the entire architecture (or the directory as a whole).
However, this post is not meant to be a rant. Rather, I look forward to editors or others to try to justify to me why I should grant DMOZ credence as an "open directory" and why I should take the time to submit my website to a directory (thereby granting DMOZ credibility) that will likely never index my website anyway (years, as a measure of time on the internet, might as well be millennia). I await the discussion...
If some of the sub-directory categories really do take years to be updated, how can DMOZ be any kind of relevant or accurate reflection of the internet (especially considering the pace at which websites are born, expand, and ultimately die)? One might argue that DMOZ is merely a disconnected sample of the internet, but hardly the stuff of a true directory - it's like a phone book with some phone numbers from the 1930s, some from the 50s, some from the 80s, and any number from the year 2000+ just isn't there. As such, is there really a purpose to attempt to add my website to such a disconnected and out of date directory? To my mind there is not, which begs the fundamental question: why do search engines consider DMOZ more highly than any other directory?
As a web developer, I'm trying to grapple with the concept of submitting my websites (and I have, years ago) to a directory that in all likelihood will never actually index my submission - not because they are of poor quality (my keyword rankings on multiple search engines would suggest otherwise), but because the architecture of this "open directory" isn't conducive to the sheer vastness of the internet itself.
So, I ask again, why do search engines give such credence to the DMOZ directory? Perhaps they don't (which, arguably, is a good thing), in which case I am satisfied. However, experience seems to suggest that they do, considering that every SEO ranking system adds DMOZ to the equation, it is likely that there is some implicit nod that search engines do as well. If so, then DMOZ and its editors are in a unique position of interest (in the eyes of web developers).
History suggests it is never a good idea to invest so much interest (which inevitably translates into power) in the hands of so few - the DMOZ directory and its editors. Not that I think any editor is corrupt, but the fact that they are corruptible (or rather, that the system itself is designed in such a way that it shrouds the entire process) is enough to cast a shadow of doubt over the entire architecture (or the directory as a whole).
However, this post is not meant to be a rant. Rather, I look forward to editors or others to try to justify to me why I should grant DMOZ credence as an "open directory" and why I should take the time to submit my website to a directory (thereby granting DMOZ credibility) that will likely never index my website anyway (years, as a measure of time on the internet, might as well be millennia). I await the discussion...
