ODP and secrecy

[Guest]

Hi Wladek:

 

Thanks for another great post, and one that goes a long ways towards convincing me that ODP is superior in some ways.

 

>>What I found interesting: during my searches sites are getting more hits through search engines (it equals google in my case) than through directories BUT from my point of view pages found through directories are much more relevant. Let me rephrase it: according to statistics search engine is a winner BUT my impression remains that the best content I was able to find through directories.

<<

 

This is a very interesting point, and really quite logical when you think about it. A human review is much more flexible (read intelligent) than a software review, and so it is logical that there should be nuggets in a well edited directory that are not so well ranked in search engines which use a fixed algorithm to evaluate all sites. This has been your experience and as a "professional" searcher it is a valuable one.

 

But the statistical approach (and common sense) says that the search engines have listings which the directories do not since the better engines include all the directory listings as well as other listings that they find on their own. Search engines too have the advantage that they index each page independently, while the directory must categorize each entire site in one listing, so a careful searcher might well find additional nuggets in that mine. Busy searchers too will find things faster in the search engines than by browsing in Directories.

 

>>Because if the only important use of directory would be through search engine the whole idea of directory would be ridiculus! Why to bother about categories? Just build a huge flat list of sites with keyword lists reviewed by human editor! <<

 

My thoughts exactly, since that is how I tend to use directories, but I can seee that there are other considerations, such as administration and the division of the work among editors, since without the categoires and subcategories putting bounds around each editors workspace, there could well be a great duplication of effort.

 

It may not be perfect, but it seems to me that discussion such as this will go a long ways towards bridging the perceived gap between the users and the editors.

[Guest]

Mel,

 

>But the statistical approach (and common sense) says that the search engines have listings which the directories do not since the better engines include all the directory listings as well as other listings that they find on their own. Search engines too have the advantage that they index each page independently, while the directory must categorize each entire site in one listing, so a careful searcher might well find additional nuggets in that mine. Busy searchers too will find things faster in the search engines than by browsing in Directories.<

 

This is exactly why Google is so effective, it uses both a directory and a meta spider generated contact list. Remember that before the one reads the list the relevant directory category is displayed. This may be because it is a convenient place to put it. What I see is that the user can click the directory for a small group of extremely relevant sites or continue the search through the list.

I am an archaeologist and historian by bent and training, but found the normal search engines are a hindrance to internet scholarship. People spend a great deal of time sorting through 10,000 returns, when all the wanted to know was what year the Wizard of Oz was made. The directory is superior for research but the directory must be staffed with competent and dedicated people. It is like a library; the organization of data in books is the first and most important step to scholarship. One could learn the same thing by searching through the books in a big pile in a football arena, but think of the time and effort. With this the sites must be read, described, and filed only once; then everyone can take advantage of the work of a few.

 

Godanov

Archaeology and Arts editor

[Guest]

Hi Godanov:

 

Have I mentioned what a pleasure it is to discuss ODP with intelligent, dedicated individuals who know first hand whereof they speak? Compared to the rants of the "professional ODP complainers" that are common on many forums, this is a gift like a spring day in the middle of winter.

 

>>The directory is superior for research but the directory must be staffed with competent and dedicated people. It is like a library; the organization of data in books is the first and most important step to scholarship. One could learn the same thing by searching through the books in a big pile in a football arena, but think of the time and effort. With this the sites must be read, described, and filed only once; then everyone can take advantage of the work of a few.<<

 

I can understand your point, but I guess depending on the necessary depth of your research, IMO you can find that "which has floated to the top" so to speak more easily with the a good search engine, and in addition you will have access to a greater repository of information say on Google than on ODP, simply because Google includes the ODP listings, plus those it has found on its own.

 

But the quality of the information, and the ranking(or indexing) of it (it has to be ranked/indexed because no one is going to look through 300,000 listings)is a bit of a problem. When an expert in his field puts his specialized knowledge on the web for all to see and make use of, he may not be so expert in presenting it clearly, and generally adopting those tactics which make it easy for his offering to rank well in the eyes of a search engine is likely the last thing on his mind.

 

ODP address these shortcomings by having a large group of editors who are expert in certain fields do an analysis on behalf of the user and present him with a brief summary neatly categorized and searchable.

 

Search engines (and the sites author) have to rely on the services of the much maligned SEOs to make the content more understandable to the reader and search engine alike. (Many may be shocked to learn that one tenent of good SEO is good copywriting). The Problem here is that most SEO is directed towards "commercial" sites since they generally are the only ones willing to pay for it.

 

Bottom line, both ODP editors and good SEO practitioners are in the essentially the same business, making information more easily available to users, IMO.

[Guest darker]

When an expert in his field puts his specialized knowledge on the web for all to see and make use of, he may not be so expert in presenting it clearly

 

All too true, and that's why the ODP is essentially a peer review process. There are editors that are experts in a specific subject matter, and there are editors that have experience in presenting and categorizing information in an understandble way. In the ideal case, those will work together, and the result will be much better than what each of them could have acheived alone. (There's also the occasional conflict when a highly specialized expert happens to have difficulties to look beyond his own teapot, but that just shows we're only human...)

 

and generally adopting those tactics which make it easy for his offering to rank well in the eyes of a search engine is likely the last thing on his mind.

 

Well, maybe it shouldn't explicitly be the very last thing on his mind, but definitively not the first either. The first goal is to make the description descriptive for someone who browses the directory. Of course, if there's room left after that, then trying to include another keyword or two may not hurt. The nice thing is, however, that any downstream engine using those listings has the possibility to take a hybrid approach, and fetch additional search keywords by actually spidering the linked page. Some engines indeed use such combined approaches, most prominently Google and Alltheweb (the latter in a much less obvious way).