Since I got to know about the DMOZ directory; I have long regard it as a directory of worthiness. Simply because of 2 reasons
1) Its free; to ensure “not money can buy” listing status. We already have lots of directory that require payment. What the public need is one that is reliable yet “not money can buy” type of directory.
2) The stringent criteria of sites listing and selection of editors.
But recently I have seen many thread being posted about the time taken for a site to get listed has change from the original 1 to 3 months to the current 6 month.
Is 6 months too long? I don’t think DMOZ cares. But those trying to list will definitely think this is too long to wait.
But what I am actually trying to derive is, Is this the sign that DMOZ is growing to big until there are not enough editors to keep it as a relevant and up-to-date directory?
I think at the rate is going, it is moving towards that direction;
- New sites are not being listed for years till they become old and obsolete (webmaster finally quit and stop updating).
- Old sites are being kept in the directory until 10 or 20 reports to the editors of its dead link. ( DMOZ wants new and unique content yet listing all the old sites?)
Perhaps DMOZ should re-look into how a site can be taken out or added in a quicker way to ensure the freshness of the directory.
1) Its free; to ensure “not money can buy” listing status. We already have lots of directory that require payment. What the public need is one that is reliable yet “not money can buy” type of directory.
2) The stringent criteria of sites listing and selection of editors.
But recently I have seen many thread being posted about the time taken for a site to get listed has change from the original 1 to 3 months to the current 6 month.
Is 6 months too long? I don’t think DMOZ cares. But those trying to list will definitely think this is too long to wait.
But what I am actually trying to derive is, Is this the sign that DMOZ is growing to big until there are not enough editors to keep it as a relevant and up-to-date directory?
I think at the rate is going, it is moving towards that direction;
- New sites are not being listed for years till they become old and obsolete (webmaster finally quit and stop updating).
- Old sites are being kept in the directory until 10 or 20 reports to the editors of its dead link. ( DMOZ wants new and unique content yet listing all the old sites?)
Perhaps DMOZ should re-look into how a site can be taken out or added in a quicker way to ensure the freshness of the directory.