graphx Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 quote"The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors...........The web continues to grow at staggering rates. Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet"quote Wow...:thumb1: could've fooled me! Seems to me dmoz is the one not keeping up with the rest of them. You have got to be kidding me! This seems to be the only way to be listed with AOL search and been broken for about two months now! WHAT A JOKE. Which is why I dont WASTE my time with aol search's of my own but sad to say a lot of people (and potential customers of mine) do. Within three weeks I was top ranked for all my keywords chosen in all other major engines but still no listing whatsoever for AOL. What a dissapointment. Hard to believe they base their search engine database on a faulty, unstable and unreliable service such as dmoz. Honestly no offense to the hard work of the volunteer editors but I would'nt waste my time volunteering simply because it seems to me the motto here should be "1 step forward....28 steps back." Sorry, just my own opinion!
Edward Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 I wonder why you bothered to take the time to post in that case. The public side is up and running, and editors are working again. Hard to believe they base their search engine database on a faulty, unstable and unreliable service such as dmoz. Perhaps you should ask AOL about that, but I don't think it is unstable or unreliable.
RZ Admin photofox Posted December 20, 2006 RZ Admin Posted December 20, 2006 It's unfortunate you feel that way graphx, the technical problems have been frustrating for everyone, but as Edward mentioned editing access has been restored and the remaining issues are being worked on. I'd like to remind you about our Posting Guidelines. This forum was not established as a place for people to rant about how the ODP runs itself, or how the use of ODP data affects peoples search engine rankings. We are happy to answer any questions you might have as long as they fall within the scope of this forum. Thanks. Curlie Admin photofox
graphx Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 I agree that was a little harsh I'm just very frustrated. Apologies to whom I've affended through my posting. Is there any other way to be submitted to aol other than through dmoz?
Meta pvgool Posted December 20, 2006 Meta Posted December 20, 2006 Is there any other way to be submitted to aol other than through dmoz? We don't know. This forums is only about DMOZ. You should ask AOL about their activities. I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
crowbar Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 I don't quite understand all this page ranking stuff, but, it seems kind of weird that so many people expect to have their particular sites be first in line, over everybody else. Is this a "Who can I bribe or badger situation"? What about ordinary non professional site builders? It seems awful selfish and egotistical that only the pros should be found first in a search, because they're more deserving. It's a little tiresome to have the outfit who's doing all the real work for free, to keep getting blamed for the ineptness of a professional site builder to get his sites ranked higher in a search engine that we have nothing whatsoever to do with.
Meta Eric-the-Bun Posted December 20, 2006 Meta Posted December 20, 2006 Seems to me dmoz is the one not keeping up with the rest of them There are now thousands of people literally churning out websites in an effort to make money through on-line selling. They have no unique content and we will never list them. I am convinced that we are keeping up with not listing them. In the area of good quality informative sites that are worth listing, we are, as always, on course as the DMOZ requirement for listing these is based on an editor review in the fullness of time. Were DMOZ to be a listing service equivalent to a telephone directory, it would be a failure. However it was set up precisely to counter the professional spammers who were clogging up the search engine results. We leave the telephone directory aspects to those organisations who have undertaken to provide that sort of service. There are a lot of them out there, many of them also offer free listings and some of them supply data to the big players. regards Though I am a volunteer editor, my opinions do not constitute an official Curlie statement. :o I reserve the right to be human and make mistakes. :o Private messages asking for submission status or preferential treatment will be ignored.
crowbar Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Do you have any questions about how to write ODP compliant title/descriptions, graphx, or choosing a category to submit a site suggestion to? You can improve your chances of a possible listing, and perhaps the speed of the process overall by doing so.
David E Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 quote"The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors...........The web continues to grow at staggering rates. Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet"quote Wow...:thumb1: could've fooled me! Seems to me dmoz is the one not keeping up with the rest of them. You have got to be kidding me! This seems to be the only way to be listed with AOL search and been broken for about two months now! WHAT A JOKE. Which is why I dont WASTE my time with aol search's of my own but sad to say a lot of people (and potential customers of mine) do. Within three weeks I was top ranked for all my keywords chosen in all other major engines but still no listing whatsoever for AOL. What a dissapointment. Hard to believe they base their search engine database on a faulty, unstable and unreliable service such as dmoz. Honestly no offense to the hard work of the volunteer editors but I would'nt waste my time volunteering simply because it seems to me the motto here should be "1 step forward....28 steps back." Sorry, just my own opinion! Dmoz has absolutley nothing to do with Aol's search result's I am not listed in Dmoz and my Aol search results are excellent.
Meta hutcheson Posted December 21, 2006 Meta Posted December 21, 2006 I am not listed in Dmoz and my Aol search results are excellent. Now THAT'S a joke. We used to tell a similar one about the guy protecting himself from man-eating tigers by snapping his fingers. (He knew it had worked because he'd never been eaten.)
David E Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Wht's so funny about it, I don't get what you are saying!
avh Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 dmoz is back and editors are working And if we're lucky, the 7k+ editors will add a whooping 21k sites in january 2007 I imagine the first 3 weeks are for the 3 sites that each editor has to add, and the 4th week is for a well deserved rest
crowbar Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 I added over 200 sites the first three days I edited, avh. I could change that, I've got lots of other things I could be doing with my free time.
motsa Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 imagine the first 3 weeks are for the 3 sites that each editor has to add, and the 4th week is for a well deserved rest Huh? Where does it say that editors have to add 3 sites (over 3 weeks or anything else)?
Meta pvgool Posted December 26, 2006 Meta Posted December 26, 2006 I guess he thinks that our minimal activity of 1 edit in 4 months can all be done in the first weeks of a new year. Or maybe he just hasn't a clue what he is talking about. We probably never will know. I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
wjcampbe Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 Almost definitely a misread of the requirement to give three example sites in an new editor application. Strange interpretation - but there you go
jjwill Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 And if we're lucky, the 7k+ editors will add a whooping 21k sites in january 2007 I imagine the first 3 weeks are for the 3 sites that each editor has to add, and the 4th week is for a well deserved rest Oh shoot! I better delist 200 sites since I went over my quota of 3.
David E Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 All editors should review at least 10 sites a week, one every 4 months is a joke.
Meta pvgool Posted December 26, 2006 Meta Posted December 26, 2006 Why? All editors are volunteers who spend as much time as they personaly want on DMOZ. BTW the rule is not "review 1 site every 4 months" but "do 1 edit every 4 months". Some reviews are not counted as an edit for this rule and most things that count as an edits are not reviews of suggested sites. I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
Meta Eric-the-Bun Posted December 26, 2006 Meta Posted December 26, 2006 I don't think you understand the volunteer concept. Edtors decide what time they can offer to editing. If an editor has other commitments, they may not be able to edit regularly (eg school holidays). It is not as if someone being an editor stops anyone else becoming an editor. There is nothing to stop a category from having two or more editors. Sometimes an editor has only made a personal commitment to a particular category which merely needs an occassional visit to maintain it. An editor in that position would find it extremely difficult to do a certain number of edits every week and, with your ruling, an editor doing a good job of maintaining a category would be dismissed or otherwise censured. regards Though I am a volunteer editor, my opinions do not constitute an official Curlie statement. :o I reserve the right to be human and make mistakes. :o Private messages asking for submission status or preferential treatment will be ignored.
Editall/Catmv lmocr Posted December 26, 2006 Editall/Catmv Posted December 26, 2006 I can interpret the 1 a week for 3 weeks and then rest on the 4th week (which was a lame joke btw). The individual thinks that the only work we do is list sites. So if the directory grew by 21000 sites in an average month and there are 7000 editors - then that would be 3 sites added per month per editor. I wish that was the only work we did - if that was true, then the directory would never shrink and sites, once listed, would never go bad, and people wouldn't suggest a site to 500 different categories when it only belongs in one category, or someone wouldn't suggest a site to a county when it really belongs in a locality, or the sites written in languages other than English would not be suggested to English only categories, and sites only written in English would not be suggested to World categories, and people wouldn't mistype their URL, and ......... Added - and since I've reviewed about 400 sites in the last week - that means 39 other editors don't have to (using the review 10 sites per week requirement) - and I only listed a handful. Oh dear.
avh Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 It was a joke. I was quoting from the ODP reports Sep 2006 # Net growth in listings: : ~22,073 Currently active editor accounts: 7,198 Aug 2006 Net growth in listings: : ~ -19,870 Currently active editor accounts: ~7,330 July 2006 Net growth in listings: 17,355 Currently active editor accounts: 7,407 I was slightly mean, but then again I could have used August 2006 as reference PS: and no, I was not misinterpreting anything, I did not read any rules regardingthe minimal activity required. It was just a joke, which apparently nobody got Huh? Where does it say that editors have to add 3 sites (over 3 weeks or anything else)?
Meta hutcheson Posted December 28, 2006 Meta Posted December 28, 2006 So, avoid the jokes until you have established some commonality of interest with the community: otherwise you come across like a white racist making "nigger jokes".
kewltubes Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 hhhmmmmm I just want the chance for my business web site to be listed in dmoz. I began this business in early 2006 manufacturing knit golf headcovers and my business is doing great through Google AdWords. But it would still be nice to be able to get listed in DMOZ. But I guess until they resolve these issues that seem to be going on for months I have no chance at being listed with dmoz.... very disappointing. Just my opinion.
Recommended Posts